[coldtea]

>"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?

It will profit them, well, the whole world. Duh!

(Yeah, I know what the Christian sentiment means. But it requires the belief, if not in soul, in some trancedental good, for people to care about "loss of soul" over "gaining the world". Which, alas, we don't have as much...)

[sojournerc]

There's a secular interpretation too.

What good is all the money in the world if you don't respect/ recognize yourself after you get it.

[coldtea]

Well, there's the even more secural interpretation "who said I don't respect/recognize myself? Those 'morals' are just ideals and don't exist, meanwhile I have the world".

[loveistheanswer]

That would be a great rationalization for a narcissist to use while wreaking havok on other people's lives with no remorse.

[AwaAwa]

I think that was the point of the 'more' secular interpretation?

[greenonions]

That's not an interpretation, that's just pointing out that people who do not have a strong conception of themselves or have self-imposed limits on their behavior according to their moral system have no reason not to blindly pursue enhancing their material wealth.

[8note]

They don't have a reason to pursue that material wealth either

[coldtea]

How so? Material wealth gives all kinds of tangible benefits as control, pleasure, influence, access, etc -- even better health and surely better healthcare.

Whereas, what does being moral/good give (to the invididual practicing it, not to the community) except a feel-good feeling (and that only on those who care for it)?

(I'm in favor of being moral, just point their point of view).

[sojournerc]

I tend to think of morality as an emergent property of successful social structures.

It's a necessary common value system that underlies peaceful cooperation. In this sense it's an evolutionary advantage to treat each other morally and have a shared ethic. That includes not exploiting others for personal gain.

[Clubber]

>But it requires the belief, if not in soul, in some trancedental good

The soul is your conscience, you're comfortability with yourself. The judge is your peers, family and ultimately yourself.

[coldtea]

Well, the soul (as in "ultimately yourself") might not give a fuck about morality and goodness, and judge you on failing or not to get what you want. What then?

As for family and friends, people find that those like you just fine if:

(a) you can fake being good succesfully (while still being bad and doing bad things for your benefit - common with politicians, CEO doing "charity" with corruption and cruelty on the side, etc.)

(b) you win material wealth and so they depend on kissing your ass

(c) they are actually treated well and kindly by you (while you're still fine to fuck over everybody else for profit - king of like in mob - their families don't dislike them because they're mobs)

[shoemakersteve]

>What then?

Then you're a sociopath.

[bobthechef]

Losing your soul to acquire something less valuable defeats the point of acquiring the inferior good in the first place. Every sin, every immoral act, is such an act of self-betrayal and spiritual self-mutilation. It is an act that is so profoundly nonsensical, stupid, and absurd that it boggles the mind. But given what we might call the human condition, the moral life is made difficult, especially because we have a tendency to rebel against the truth and because we are cowards. But it is the only road to true happiness.

So here's your city of gold and your garden of delights, but only if you desecrate and destroy yourself, cripple your mind, poison your heart, and blind yourself first. Oh, and here's the cherry on top: when you lay in your self-made gutter, let all these riches taste to you like ash.