(Untitled)

[bootnrally]

Something I realized last night: Most, if not all, instances of immoral, illegal and unethical behavior in humans stem from the fallacy that one person (usually oneself, or one's friend or family member) is more important than another.

Examples are probably unnecessary, but I'll provide a couple anyway:
"I am stealing your money because my financial

Comments

[bootnrally]

importance is relative.

Granted.

i don't know why you group immorality, illegality, and unethicality. morals are cultural adaptations that change over time and distances, laws are equally fickle, and ethics are similar to morals.

It's just a way of issuing a blanket condemnation. Haven't you ever heard anyone thunder in a self-righteous rage, "That is immoral, illegal and unethical!"? Well, I have.

Also, at the risk of sounding more conservative than I really am, I think you're too quick to dismiss the very notions of morals and laws and ethics. The fact that they change over times and cultures, I take as a sign of progress, not as a sign that they should be chucked altogether. When something is that important, it's worth tinkering with until you get it right (or at least, closer to right). Also, with a few weird and appalling specific exceptions (virgin sacrifices etc.), my understanding is that most cultures have had not entirely dissimilar general ideas about what is "right" and "wrong". Taking care of your children, being

[bootnrally]

As I was saying:

And this is where the monkey wrench comes in: Now that their basic survival needs -- sufficient food and freedom from predators -- are permanently satisfied, the rabbits are going to come up with new needs. Maybe an explorer from another tribe introduces alfalfa, and within a short time it goes from being a novelty to being a new "need" (especially once the rabbit scientists figure out that alfalfa adds 3 years to your lifespan); and then there'll be competition for the alfalfa. Other bunnies are going to start building hutches, and then every rabbit will "need" a hutch, because given the alternative, sleeping in an open field just isn't acceptable; and then there's going to be competition for the hutches. And once they come up with a way to provide alfalfa and hutches for all the bunnies, some wiseacre is going to invent ambient heating. It just goes on and on

[redrocketwestie]

It's funny because I was on board with the concept until you started listing examples, several of which I found detracted from your point by their irrelevance.

Importance is born only of the mundane, and, as Kurtz said, entirely subjective to begin with. There cannot be Great Men where there are not Common Men. You simply cannot have an entire army of Generals, no matter how much strategic understanding your footsoldiers have.

And though importance is subjective, it doesn't necessarily follow that all people, in all cases, "look out for #1." Note that you yourself have no trouble listing several people more important than yourself.

But there's also the feedback relationship to take into consideration. Perhaps you are looking out for #1 after all. If it makes you happy to see the world flourish, or to see the people around you happy, you can act selfishly by giving up things for yourself for "the greater good."

[lostlo]

I think that there are more influential people, but not necessarily more important. I was thinking of this recently b/c of a more mundane occurrence of a woman cutting in front of a young man in line at the bank, saying "oh, you're a teenager, it's not like it's important." [irony - what he was doing was important