Dull thoughts on a shiny, shiny world.
A crutch for the oh-so-modern
Published on December 3, 2006 By cactoblasta In Humor
Good is out. No one who's anyone aspires to be a good person anymore. And why would you? As a person of considerable virtue you get absolutely nothing of any value in life.

I mean, what do you get?

Self-satisfaction? Off-hand I can think of dozens of extremely satisfying but not particularly moral ways of getting a thrill.

Freedom from Guilt? As a Catholic I have religious course to Confession, the sinner's greatest boon. Just confess and all that guilt washes away like milk off teflon. As a heretic there are still plenty of avenues - liquor, music, logic, hypocrisy (my personal favourite), and the best of all - self-righteousness. If you believe you sin for a purpose (whether it's the guiding hand of economic prosperity or the furtherance of the Dark Lord's vile plans) guilt is no more than a passing fancy, to be indulged in when in company and discarded when there's a hint of pleasure on the breeze.

The love of your neighbour? I can't speak for you, but I detest my neighbours. It's one of my favourite hobbies. There's nothing in life more cleansing than a deep and full loathing for someone who is utterly deserving. It makes art of petty cruelty.

Friends, we need to face the facts, and what better way than through a hackneyed cliche of a truism. the wages of sin may be death, but at least with sin you get a day off. Virtue's all day every day and holidays are out of the question due to the horrors of relatives and people who refuse to speak English (dirty foreign buggers).

But what do you get out of being a selfish bastard?

Why everything dear friend!

Do you know you're doing something despicable, but need some justification? Reach into the selfish bastard toolbox and justify, justify, justify. As any career diplomat will tell you (and trust me, I know a few) there is no sin so great it cannot be explained in a footnote. You bulldoze an orphanage and have the kids shipped off to the bottom of the Thames? Bury the details and hold a press conference announcing that you sent them to an exclusive London clinic for their health.

No one's going to believe you, but the press'll have little choice but to report your story.

Not quite that famous? Life becomes even easier.

Did you steal from your next-door neighbour? Totally understandable, but if you get caught claim Ayn Rand. I can guarantee you hardly anyone has read her, so if you make up some ostentatiously absurd theory involving instilling the value of price-demand econometrics in a post-Bretton Woods world in your children they may let you go.

Selfish is good, and increasingly these days it's seen as the noble choice. American children have been taught for generations that they have rights, and by now they've even begun to believe it (precious little beggars that they are). So naturally, being a thoroughly modern individual and a student of the American school, declare your 'rights' at every opportunity. You have a right to respect. You have a right to free stuff. You have a right to be called sir, maam or whatever else rocks your boat.

The world now has a responsibility to provide your needs - it would be intolerable for a right to be refused, right?

But are there any other advantages to sin, I hear you demand in an aggressive tone that truly touches your humble teacher's heart, are there any other advantages beyond simply being able to get away with it?

My only reply would be that you are a simple soul, and have missed the essential point. It's not just that you can do what you want. It's that people will think highly of you for doing so!

Never before has it been possible to drive a man out of house and home and come off looking noble, but if recent court cases are any judge the tides have changed. The slumlord and the weaponsmaker no longer merely command the respect of high society but all society. Their incurable lust for injustice is lauded as 'economically sound' and 'patriotic', their excesses as 'infotainment' and their artificially beautiful spouses as 'desirable' and 'as now as the adoption of black babies'.

The racist and 'culturalist' (one of my absolute favourite new words by the way - note how its bland nature avoids the infamy of the word racist whilst simultaneously suggesting there is something horribly inferior about other cultures. It's charmingly two-faced!) can speak freely, get admonished, and then ferociously defended with a tenacity and fervour that is most pleasing to other selfish bastards.

So, to end my rambling call to arms, I leave you this message:

God so loved the truth that he gave us lies, and virtue that he gave us vice; for what is yin without yang and up without down except a word empty of all meaning waiting for the opportunistic to fill it? So bring vice into your heart and use virtue as a human shield, a whore wheezing and oozing after years of your abuse but, with a wig, still proudly proclaiming your dubious virtues to the world.

Drag virtue down to the level of vice and smear it with the excrement of contempt and the blood of abuse. Be the selfish bastard, the downfall of western civilisation. Be the Future.

Because to be anything else is to show a thoroughly un-modern personality that is utterly unfashionable.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 03, 2006
The church is near, but the way is icy. The tavern is far, but I will walk carefully.
--Ukranian Proverb
on Dec 03, 2006
Awesome Cacto!!

I don't believe Devil, I don't believe his words But the truth is inot the same without the lies he's made up

- U2 God part 2
on Dec 03, 2006

God said: Man shall be good.
The Devil said: Man shall be man.
on Dec 03, 2006

I happen to be one who believes that actual actions matter more than warm fuzzy words. But that's just me.

The problem with today's "virtue advocates" is that they think empty but pleasing rhetoric matters more than deeds that benefit society.

Meanwhile, the so-called compassionate people will mortage society's future in the name of being labeled kind, compassionate, and noble while the "evil bastards" of the world are doing the actual work of making the world a better place for everyone.

 

on Dec 03, 2006
The church is near, but the way is icy. The tavern is far, but I will walk carefully.


Exactly. Plenty of time to pray when you're dead, but beer and women don't last. You've got to get in quick.

Xythe: I have musical differences with U2 - I think they're overrated and, frankly, shit - but they have a point. How can anyone be virtuous without sin? Why not have the sin at 90% and the virtue at 10%?

I happen to be one who believes that actual actions matter more than warm fuzzy words. But that's just me.


Excellent! It's very hard to sin when you're only prepared to use words. It's not impossible - I suppose you could do a Socrates and corrupt the youth - but it ain't easy. I'm glad to hear you're prepared to do more in service of selfishness.

The problem with today's "virtue advocates" is that they think empty but pleasing rhetoric matters more than deeds that benefit society.


Ah yes. But it's the key to being a modern selfish bastard. Without the empty, hypocritical rhetoric you'll never be able to find an excuse for the dead hooker in the bathtub.

Meanwhile, the so-called compassionate people will mortage society's future in the name of being labeled kind, compassionate, and noble while the "evil bastards" of the world are doing the actual work of making the world a better place for everyone.


Hmmm, I thought you understood what I was saying until this. You shouldn't be trying to make the world a better place at all. If it somehow occurs while you're snorting blow off a hooker's back or firing rifle shots from the balcony at a parade then all well and good. But selfish bastards only talk about making the world a better place; you should never actually aim to do anything about it.
on Dec 03, 2006
wanna be real evil? follow whips advice but write them a bad check.
on Dec 03, 2006
You got hookers on the brain again, cacto?


Not just on the brain-izzle but on the train, on the plane, on the mane... it's all good-izzle.*

wanna be real evil? follow whips advice but write them a bad check.


Nah man, they pay me. A life of sin leads to devilish good looks, and devilish good looks are better than hard currency when it comes to easin' the sleaze.


*In accordance with the Pimps and Hoes Act of 2005 (DOGG, NY (R)) random izzles have been added to this statement.
on Dec 03, 2006

Excellent! It's very hard to sin when you're only prepared to use words. It's not impossible - I suppose you could do a Socrates and corrupt the youth - but it ain't easy. I'm glad to hear you're prepared to do more in service of selfishness.

One of the reasons I disdain "compassion" and "charity" is that they've been hijacked by people who think that compassion and charity are about saying nice things and intending only good but in reality accomplishing very little.

Here's the crux of the issue for me: The people who think that good deeds mean nothing unless there is "sacrifice" involved. 

I don't do "good deeds" as a sacrifice. I do them because they make me feel good about myself.

on Dec 03, 2006
I don't do "good deeds" as a sacrifice. I do them because they make me feel good about myself.


Exactly. If it feels good do it. Self-sacrifice in aid of others should be discarded with all those other tired old-fashioned notions, like compassion, forgiveness and love for one's fellow man/woman/child in need. Something to talk about over a good cognac and a cigar, but never to actually do. Mud might get on one's clothes, there may be unwanted pain/heartache, poverty might really be catching etc, and where's the pleasure in that?

Oh, I suppose a masochist might get a kick, but there's no point structuring society around but a single flavour of sex. It would make life like an icecream store that only sells boysenberry. Not exactly plain and boring, but limited none-the-less.

No, doing good without getting a hefty reward is utterly undesirable to a properly structured soul. It combines all the awfulness of duty with no tangible benefit, and the sooner everyone learns to accept the modern way of virtuous selfishness the sooner we'll be able to do really depraved things without adverse effect.

Hobo fight anyone?
on Dec 03, 2006

Exactly. If it feels good do it. Self-sacrifice in aid of others should be discarded with all those other tired old-fashioned notions, like compassion, forgiveness and love for one's fellow man/woman/child in need. Something to talk about over a good cognac and a cigar, but never to actually do. Mud might get on one's clothes, there may be unwanted pain/heartache, poverty might really be catching etc, and where's the pleasure in that?

(sarcasm mode on)

Right. Because compassion, forgiveness, and love for one's fellow person isn't based on how we actually behave towards those people but rather how we FEEL.

It's not about good works. It's about good feelings.

If we see some poor woman on the side of the road in distress, it doesn't matter whether we help her or not. Only if we feel sorry for her and hope that someone helps her.

The person who actually does stop and help the person isn't really compassionate because they're probably doing it not as a sacrifice but instead because they feel that what makes them a good person is doing good deeds (like helping others).  If they're getting something out of it, it's not true compassion.

The path to true compassion is just to care a whole lot. Actions are irrelevant. Actions are a remnant of a bygone era. Actions are for animals. Truly enlightened people know that intentions are what matter. As long as we mean well, that's really what counts.

That rich bastard who creates jobs and creates opportunity is soulless compared to today's modern liberal who has the courage to speak (loudly) their convictions that we need to care more about the less fortunate.  Sure, the rich bastard might also help set up an education program for inner city schools but that's not compassionate -- they admit it themselves that they do it to help society produce better workers for tomorrow.

True compassion is giving the man who has done nothing to earn it the last fish that you caught after a hard day's work because he needs it.  Meanwhile, the greedy evil bastard would keep the fish and teach the man how to fish and then try to employ him in his fishing boat.

The beauty of the modern liberal is that it is a much fairer system. Everyone has the capacity to feel compassionate. By contrast, not everyone can or even wants to actually do anything that produces real results. How fair is that?  Should compassion and charity be restricted only to those who have the capability to produce results? No! NO!  Compassion and charity is something we can all feel without having to lift a finger.

on Dec 04, 2006
Huh? Where did that rant come from? This article is supposed to be light and frivolous. I am advocating doing whatever you feel like and then justifying your pleasure-seeking with selfish virtue, which is my favourite 21st century vogue. I have no idea what that has to do with modern liberals, benevolent corporate types and people who only have the courage to speak.

Let's be wholly clear - I'm arguing for vice veiled with virtue, not preachiness backed up with mundanity and an appalling lack of courage (which seems to be what your ranting against). Relax, Brad. Take it easy. I'm not talking about you or whatever it is that brought on your mid-life angst.
on Dec 04, 2006
Do you believe that people really do anything that they don't feel is in their own self interest? I don't.
on Dec 04, 2006
Conscience? Pride? Ego? Maybe the idea that someday you'll be well remembered?
on Dec 04, 2006
I'm a devout Machiavellian Whip, and I don't think that is as bad a thing as people tend to make it. I think when people feel that they "should" be charitable or kind, there are reasons pertaining to their own personal self image that drive them. Frankly, I think the less people have a self-interest in charity the less charitable they are.

I know it sounds jaded, but it isn't. We're biological creatures functioning on billions of years of genetic programming. Altruism, I believe, is the "right" mode of operation, but when I say that I associate myself as being "right" and the uncharitable as being "wrong". Can you really say that there's no internal, personal payoff to what you do, even if it is just solidifying who you believe yourself to be?

I think that if people accept that, they are a lot more likely to devote themselves to altruism that actually works. It's all about 'know thyself' to me. If I accept that I have a selfish instinct for altruism, I'm a lot more likely to devote myself to endeavors that will give me the most bang for my buck, instead of letting subliminal drive lead me wherever.

Look at it in terms of suicide bombers. We hear all time time about how selfless they are. Do you really believe that, or do you believe that their programming has taught them that the "best" people discard that hold on life to fight for a greater cause? You don't think being the "best" people is a personal incentive?
on Dec 04, 2006
"Hardly seems 'altruistic' to me...or even in the best interests of their countrymen or themselves. Then again, I never could get my head around zealotry."


Neither does most charity to me, that was my point. Charity is as much about what the act says about us, even if it is only saying it TO us, as it does about helping people, I think. Humans have a need to be "better" otherwise we'd have always taken the easy and chaotic way. I think we know at a biological level that altruism is "right", so even when there's no apparent payoff we still head in that direction.

2 Pages1 2