by Sean Prophet 

Self-interest is the highest moral principle for an organism which has survival as its central purpose. We must distinguish between short and long-term self interest, and this is where the distinction lies:  selfishness vs. self-interest.

Selfishness would be short term taking advantage of others for personal gain--which would have long term consequences such as loss of reputation, running afoul of laws, etc. In a word, selfishness of this type would be just plain stupid. A person acting this way would quickly become a pariah, and thus lose the benefit of any short-term gain. Reputation is everything.

Self-interest would be looking to gain the maximum advantage while cultivating a community of support through reciprocal altruism. Actions would only be taken that would result in long-term benefit to the individual, which necessarily would include helping others who could help you. In the most expansive view of self-interest, the entire world would need to be considered, along with all possible impacts of any individual action. As a practical matter, most people cannot focus this large, and therefore should concentrate on their immediate community of family and friends. In this way, working for mutual benefit in one's community could be seen as the highest expression of self-interest. It yields the greatest likelihood that others will be there for you, should you have a time of need.

It goes without saying that morality, or ethics (the word I prefer) involves not doing harm to others. Indeed, the highest goal in my view is to see the greatest level of happiness and personal fulfillment possible. In a coercive moral system (collectivism of any sort), this shakes out as a kind of utilitarianism, which ultimately ends up turning self-interest on its ear. In other words, helping others is to be encouraged, so long as it is of a person's own free will. Coercion to help others, whether it be by a 'Robin Hood' or government kleptocracy of high taxation, will end up resulting in systemic collapse and loss of the very goal which the coercion was supposed to serve. We have strong historical evidence of this in the failed 20th century experiment with communism.

Clearly, we don't need this coercion. People naturally help each other in a stable society. Volunteers and private charities abound. In neighborhoods, people have everything to gain from a thriving community.  Ethics are independent of religion or law. A persons' interest is served by serving those in their immediate circle, and humans instinctively know this.

This is sort of a variant on the 'golden rule'. But I think there are times when the golden rule breaks down, especially when people are in any sort of crisis where they have to make a choice for survival at whatever cost, including the cost of future reprisals. Or they may have a mental illness which allows them to externalize their problems and blame the community for their lack of success. It is important for everyone to be aware when someone in their circle may be in this condition, and about to commit a betrayal of the group involving a short-term selfish act. These tendencies are never far from the surface, and it's wise to keep alert.

We need laws to resolve stubborn disputes between people, so there is something to fall back on. But to rely on these laws or scriptural morality implies a lack of well-developed personal ethics--a sad state of affairs indeed.

The next time you hear a theist claim morality comes from God, ask them this question: Would they immediately start raping and killing people if they found out for certain there was no God? If their answer is no, then you have just perfectly and permanently refuted this argument. If their answer is yes....