Sign into an existing account

The altruistic die out first, they are least suited to live and reproduce, as all others will feed on them, the world has no place for fools that naively embrace their deaths in the vain hopes that others would be willing to adopt their willingness to be martyrs, even I'm a society completely composed of such people, it would only be those who are most likely to act selfishly on accident who would be successful to any degree, and only by virtue of their accidents.

The selfish die out second, as they are only able to live and reproduce by preying upon the altruists  and they can only encourage others to be their victims by convincing them to be altruistic for so long until this plea is ignored for the utopia-baited trap that it is, unfortunately, such predatory kinds of "players" currently dominate our society, but soon they will be eliminated from the "game" once they run out of suckers.

The only ones who are fit to inherit the earth are those who start out altruistically and respond in kind depending upon what others do, repaying both altruism and selfishness in kind, this is the most viable strategy to adopt, and the reason why most historical events had actually occurred as they have.

Indeed, if one were to actually set aside their "good vs evil" narratives of history, and actually look into how events had unfolded, they would see this exact pattern in how different groups had interacted with one another, and how the people within those groups had interacted within their own societies (leading to their development into what form they had taken on at different points in history).

Futthermore, The ultimate purpose of every living thing is to maximize the number of organisms with the sane genes as them, and to maximize the number of genes identical to their own within the other organisms that exist, with the state of these things that exist further into the future being of greater importance than the state of these things further into the past.

As the ability of the organisms produced by their genes to fulfill this singular purpose throughout history is what has shaped every aspect of every thing that lives or has ever lived, it must be adopted as the "goal" by which our moral "rules" must be judged.

We must each reject the universalist ideas of a normative system of ethics, and instead embrace a relativistic morality that takes into account the relation of the actor and the subjects who are being affected by their actions.

Contrary to modernistic thinkers (or rather, non-thinkers), It is morally wrong to treat everyone as if they were equal, as doing so deprives them of their identities in your mind, and makes them all interchangeable, anonymous, and ultimately expendable.

Such a system of morality is at odds with the social nature of humanity, it requires you to kill your heart so as to be emotionally dead to the relations and connections you have with not just other people, but with other living things in general,  you must reject your humanity and even what it means to be alive to follow such a way of thinking.

You cannot love without showing favor to some over others, to actually be all-loving, and to truly love without having conditions that your love is dependent upon, is practically indistinguishable from universal apathy.

It resembles the kind of "love" that you receive from a psychopath, when all things are equally loved on no basis, the only thing that's left to determine one's actions towards others is what utility they can offer you, no surprise then, that all normative ethical systems treat others as if they weren't anything but faceless pawns in a game, the only difference being whether they must all follow one rule, or must all be used to achieve one goal.

For the consequentialist, it doesn't matter who is happy or how they are made that way, so long as that, in the end, happiness is maximized, the prople involved can be disregarded in all other capacities.

For the deontologist, it doesn't matter who your actions affect, so much as that your actions are consistent, for all their talk of making other the ends and not a means to an end, their ideology is actually focused entirely upon the conduct of people towards one another, not the people themselves, it treats them more like a cast of thespians following a script from which they are forbidden to deviate, and in which all play the same role.

I propose instead that all living things be set into a hierarchy of moral value relative to the actor, and that this hierarchy be used to settle whose the actor should give moral priority in the event of any conflicts of interest that involve them.

This hierarchy effectively tells the actor where their moral loyalties lie with respect to others, and whose interests demand a greater moral obligation of duty at all times.

Those who rank most highly in such a moral hierarchy are those who have the greatest potential to maximize the amount of genes identical to those of the actor at the furthest point in the future.

Essentially this means adopting the philosophies of Frédéric Neitzsche and Ayn Rand, the two most misunderstood and widely misrepresented philosophers in history, and also the two most hated philosophers in history, mostly due to how little their ideas are understood.

This was not because their ideas and the implications thereof are not easily understandable, but because their (((detractors))) had always been determined to strawman their positions in order to malign them in the common view, which they had great success in doing thus far.

But with the one very important difference that instead of being centered on the individual, it is centered around the genes that individuals are made from, the most unique and essential part of them, and the true "players" in the evolutionary "game" of life.

This deceptively small seeming change is in fact a profound difference that drastically changes everything about those philosophies, giving them new meaning, and drastically altering the actions they would advise, both on a scale of the personal, as well as on that of the society.

The biggest difference being that such a philosophy now endorses neither altruism nor selfishness, but a selection between the two based upon the others who are involved abd their relationship to the one who is deciding what to do, under certain circumstances, altruism, even self sacrificing altruism, is not just recommended, but outright demanded.

This is because this one alteration makes these philosophies now dependent upon the rules of evolutionary game theory, which means that Hamilton's laws of kinship selection apply (reccomended reading: "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, yes, THAT one, in fact, it's this very book that first coined the term "memes" in its more modern understanding).

Your existence as an organism is as the construct of your genes, the bundle of traits that was decided by your genetic blueprint.

Your purpose is serving as a vehicle of those genes, for them to make new organisms which have inherited some percentage of the genes in your blueprint, and for them to aid other organisms with genes from your blueprint to do the same.

It also states that you can take pride in your ancestors achievements, because if the most essential part of you is your genetics, and your genetics is made from half of those of your parents (perhaps some part of it in an altered form), and the same applies to the rest of your ancestors all the way back to the advent of sexual reproduction, then the conclusion is that your essence, your "soul", the thing that makes you uniquely "you", and determines everything about who you are, is in fact made up of the "souls" of all of your ancestors, split apart and amalgamated together.

You can take pride in your ancestors achievements because the most meaningful part of you is literally MADE UP OF THEM, you ARE your ancestors, and you have EVERY right to claim EVERYTHING that they had from them as your birthright and inheritance.

The last point I'd like to make is that we have been thoroughly domesticated because of our separation from the darker traits of our natures, what Carl Jung referred to as being our SHADOW, traits like aggression have been ripped out from us, and we must return to them if we are to survive the predation of those who see us as their livestock.

Neitzsche called this out as the true threat of the twin scourge of the false dilemma between Christianity on the right, and Marxism on the left, both reject the darker side of mankind as evil and undesirable, as devils which tempt you to wickedness that must be resisted in order to be righteous.

These are both slave moralities that are meant to make you into slaves, for the past few decades, we saw this programmed into us as children by media such as the "care bears" where the shadows of the human nature were quote literally portrayed as monsters to be fought against.

The reunion with the shadow is to acknowledge the darker side of human nature as being of equal goodness and importance to the side which we were permitted by society to accept, not better or worse, but equal.

Care must be taken not to fall from one extreme to another, the lowest rank of Neitzsche's three kinds of humanity was the subhuman, who has fallen into the abyss of rejecting all morality and meaning in their entirety just because they realized that there was no objective morality or meaning.

These are the libertines of his time, the likes of marquis desade and max stirner, who make beasts of themselves by inauthentically throwing away the light side of themselves such that their darkness consumes them utterly. They have tossed away their humanity in this act.
You could recognize the subhumans among the luciferians and satanists and their revolting debaucheries revelling in wickedness.

The issue is that the slave moralities use these subhuman as a way to keep you in bondage by telling you the lie that the only alternative to choosing one of them, is to fall into this abyss.
Not so different from how they use each other as a way to keep you from looking for an alternative in the first place.

The idea is to become whole, not to escape from one extreme to the other, not to exchange one half for another, but to reunite them, and find what your authentic self truly is, and when you know yourself, you know where you stand.

All the lies and illusions fear such a man more than anything, because they cannot control him anymore.