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".
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.
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).
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.
>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.
It's an evolutionary advantage for a species.
For an individual animal it's an advantage to not follow morality anytime it can get away with it, and thus gain more sexual partners, food, influence in the herd, etc, and from that, more progeny.