Comments on Goodness

I generally have no idea what Hamilton's Rule means. Nor do I have any idea what does game theory means. However, according to my contextual knowledge, altruism seems very subjective. To quantify it mathematically seems impossible (to me unless someone proves otherwise) and I personally find the article pointless because it is not exactly making any concrete point (as evidenced by the closing line "If goodness is a problem, then the answer─or at the very least, part of the answer─can be found in evolutionary biology." Note that there is no part in the article that addresses what this answer really is.)

Regardless, allow me to propose my views on goodness. Goodness, as the name implies, is good. It (usually) makes the doer and the recipient feels good. It makes the world a better place.

Did you really believe that? Well, I though I did.

However, at the same time it seems irrational. Expecting reciprocity is fundamentally unsound as "true goodness" is usually extolled as not expecting anything in return and is usually non-binding.

Furthermore, goodness is highly subjective. What is good for one person may not be so for another. If you are good only to a few people out of all the people with similar circumstance, you are biased, discriminating and prejudiced. You can even be applying cronyism, nepotism, and other unpleasant ideologies.

Moreover, most people (if not all) prioritise their own self-interest in front of the interest of others in some (if not all) affairs. This is contrary to the concept of goodness per se, but is the basis for capitalism to succeed. And capitalism is succeeding (despite the recent economic crisis).

All in all, goodness in itself is not viable. It is impossible for humans to completely exert goodness to its fullness on a large scale all the time. Therefore, we should dismiss fantasical ideals of goodness and face reality as it is: self-interest is always placed in front of goodness.

INTRODUCTION: Just for the Teacher

Streaking is okay. Think about it. When you see any (unclothed) animal running along, would you be thinking of expelling it from its lodgings? If not, then why would you want to do the equivalent to humans? Perhaps it is because you are some crazy vegan who thinks animals are superior to humans. Or perhaps it is because deep down inside, you are highly insecure and emotionally unstable and hence become afraid of these confident people who have the courage to streak. Their very act of streaking contrasts starkly and exposes the timidity inside you.

Streaking is Okay

Streaking is okay. Think about it. When you see any (unclothed) animal running along, would you be thinking of expelling it from its lodgings? If not, then why would you want to do the equivalent to humans? Perhaps it is because you are some crazy vegan who thinks animals are superior to humans. Or perhaps it is because deep down inside, you are highly insecure and emotionally unstable and hence become afraid of these confident people who have the courage to streak. Their very act of streaking contrasts starkly and exposes the timidity inside you.

When humans first come into this world, they are unclothed. Only upon entering human society, for practical reasons such as protection or safety or otherwise arbitrary reasons like conforming to religious or cultural requirements, then are clothes necessary. I would say that most rational streakers would take into account of their reduced personal safety and protection from the absence of clothes before streaking, hence that should be a moot point.

In other words, the point of contention is really the violation of religious or cultural rules, which are intrinsically irrational! Secularism has attained political correctness, hence the only point that really matters is cultural expectations. 

Now, let me point to communism and fascism: these ideologies has been criticised due to the authoritarian regime it generates; of how the state decides things for its people instead of vice versa; of how personal choice is being violated. If one were to condemn streaking, one would be essentially agreeing to how the culture of a society can violate the freedom and dictate the actions of any individual. What difference is there between this and communism and fascism? 

Now, of course you may claim that the "state" in those political ideologies are in fact a small group of priveleged politicians, whereas the culture of a society is defined by what the majority of its inhabitants accept. The counter is obvious: popular opinion should not affect what is right or wrong. Once, it was popularly believed that the earth was flat, but apparently that does not make it true.

Lastly, allow me to remind the remaining unconvinced people out there that streaking is entirely non-sexual. So unless you are the 'you' characterised in the first paragraph, why would you have any problem with seeing other people naked?