Me, and human nature. But other than that, pretty much every behavioral psychologist on earth.

So you believe that human beings are unable to escape their base nature? If so, why do you bother cooking your meat? Why not just eat it raw like the other animals.

Our ability to feel empathy and then to act on it is what separates man from beast.

I don't recall saying that. I did say that human beings, like all other animals on earth, act in their own self-interests and are also complex enough creatures that they can practice self-sacrifice when they feel it suits their greater needs...say giving up your life to save your child would serve your desire to protect them.

All I'm really saying is that altruism does not exist. It's a myth. There is no such thing as a truly selfless act. We we help those in need, we do so because it makes us feel good inside.

Well I don't think anyone mentioned the word altruism. It's also important for you to note that just because someone might have a social conscience and be willing to agree to collective responsibility, doesn't mean they're acting out of altruistic intentions, either knowingly or otherwise. It simply means that the good of the group has a higher priority than the good of the individual for some people.

How very Vulcan of you. Here on Earth though, people don't put the needs of the many ahead of their own needs. This is why communism always fails. It violates human nature.

I don't live in an imaginary world where people don't have feelings Radar - because of course, that's how vulcans live right? No emotions. Rather, my point is almost to the opposite where people respond to their emotions and so therefor feel a sense of obligation for whatever reason. Rightly or wrongly according to your rather insular world view, this is how society works. That's why we live in societies and not as sentient beings who only associate by chance.

If you're going to make smart arse remarks, you should at least get your facts straight.

I wasn't discussing emotions. I'm already familiar with the fact that the vast majority of women argue with emotions rather than logic and reason. When it comes to separating emotion from logic, facts, and reason, men are naturally better. I wasn't taking a shot at you before....but that was a nice little jab.

I was referring to the Vulcans in Star Trek using the phrase "The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

Here's a nice little web page discussing the morality of the "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" philosophy...

http://hubpages.com/hub/The_Good_of_...ity_in_Command

FFS Radar. Get in the real world for a minute. This is not about a movie. The fact that someone thought it'd be interesting to create a character out of an entirely inhuman set of behaviours doesn't mean it has any relevance in this discussion. In fact, the only relevance it does have is to suggest that the creator of the character knew it wasn't possible for a human being to behave that way, hence the character was an alien and in fact, spock even started to exhibit more human behaviours after spending time with humans. So if you want to analyse star trek, go ahead, but it's not supporting your argument at all.

The character of Spock shares the same belief system as you. He shares the common belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or of the one. But if you would prefer a non-fiction example of some people shared this philosophy, we can look at Karl Marx (though even he wasn't a Marxist), Frederick Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, etc.

The vast majority of them were murderers and at the very least...authoritarians in the extreme. They had to be that way because collectivism in the form of communism violates human nature, and it requires brutal force to exist.

Individualism and self-reliance in a capitalist platform on the other hand, don't require any force, and actually work in real life without harming or violating the rights of anyone.

No, that's not what I believe Radar. You are once again projecting your interpretation of what I've posted onto what it means.

I never once said that in all cases, the needs of many should be considered above the needs of the individual. Nor did I suggest the contrary. Sometimes the needs of the individual are higher from my point of view, other times they are not. I believe you will find this to be the case for almost every living soul. How I prioritise needs varies from others because of my past life experiences and my current situation as with every other human being on the planet.

Sometimes I even think my needs are more important than anyone elses. Other times I don't. Sometimes I think the needs of my society are more important than my personal needs. Sometimes I think the needs of my children are more important than the needs of other people's children. Sometimes I think other people's childrens needs are more important than my childrens needs. Sometimes I think my needs are more important than my childrens needs. Sometimes I think the needs of a stranger are more important than mine. Are you getting the picture?

As an individual, I can make these judgement calls because I have a social conscience and I'm able to consider the idea that sometimes other people or groups are more important than me.

:headshake Are you for real? You really need help man... seriously.

I say that my needs and those of my loved ones are all that I need to be concerned about...and that is plenty. I put my family above all others on earth. I don't have any responsibility to "society" or a "social conscience". I have an individual conscience, and I consider my individual rights to be more important than the desires or perceived needs of every other person on earth combined.

If everyone on earth did what was best for themselves and practiced self-reliance, most people would have what is best for them.

OK then, let's assume there's a place where you can live your individual life (with your family which is not a group, they're individuals too) and you fend for yourself and supply everything you need for your family.

What happens if there's some kind of uprising in the community and you're forced to defend your home with what you have, but you know your neighbour has better defenses (now let's stay on track and stick to the scenario regardless of whether you 'think' you'll have the best defenses personally in this fantasy land you're dreaming of). You've always been neighbourly with this neighbour. He has no qualms with you and certainly bears you no ill will, and yet, he doesn't have to let you and your family into his fortress. I suppose you could try and take it by force, but remember, he has better defenses than you and more money. He's as rich as no one you've ever known, so you can't buy your way in. What possible motivation do you suppose this neighbour could have for allowing you and your family which you cannot possibly defend, into his sanctuary?

There are any number of reasons. He might want someone to talk to. It might give him a warm and fuzzy feeling to know he was helping someone out. He might want me to pay him back for the money he loaned me. He might want to fuck my wife. Who knows?

The important thing is he would have no obligation to do so morally, ethically, socially, or legally.