People act like having a big ego is a bad thing, but isn't it a driving force in morality?

Good point. Part of ego is reputation. That's the part that's missing in anonymous internet communications. That's one reason I use my real name, despite the (remote) threat that some nut will come after me because of something I said.

I think voting has the same problem. With secret ballots people will vote to steal from their neighbors, but they wouldn't do that if it impacted their personal reputations.

Being "selfish" just means being true to yourself, pursuing your own values, not letting anybody coerce you or fool you into substituting their values for yours. If you yourself value donating to charity, then go for it, anonymously or not. But if you just what to be known for being charitable, you might want to ask yourself if you're letting other people substitute their values for your own true values.

It's good to pursue a reputation for being who you really are. A reputation for honesty is the most valuable thing you can have.

"This above all: to thine ownself be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man."

http://www.thyorisons.com/#Plus_Tax

. . . .

Minds are the fountainhead of all value in the world. To acquire value, you must use minds, your own and others. People attempt to acquire value by three methods: force, fraud, or trade. Force can interact with minds only indirectly, by threatening to destroy them. Thus force would destroy what it seeks to control. Fraud interacts with minds directly but still destructively. Minds create value by finding truth, but fraud destroys value by obscuring truth. Trade is the natural interaction between minds, creating value in the process of giving and receiving ideas (or objects which are solidified ideas).

Morality is an individual choice. In order to further his own goals an individual chooses a set of internal rules of thumb by which he will voluntarily limit his own behavior. He also chooses a set of external rules that he expects others to obey. In order to be accepted in the group of people who obey his preferred set of external rules he must make his internal rules identical to his external rules. All the above is just a roundabout way of saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or equivalently "Do not initiate force or fraud."

"In order to further his own goals" is a key phrase. What are those goals? Everybody has different goals. I could say that some goals resulted from evolution, some from brainwashing, some from reasoning - but that's irrelevant. A person's goals are what they are. Morality is not about prescribing goals for people. Morality is just about people finding ways to cooperate with each other so that each person can maximize the achievement of his own goals, whatever they may be.

There is an exception to "whatever they may be." If my goal is not just to help myself but rather is to help or hurt you, then you and I can never have a cooperative relationship. Whether I'm an altruist trying to help you or a sadist trying to hurt you, what I'm doing is trying to substitute my goals for yours within your mind. There can be no basis for cooperation and trade if we don't honor the sovereignty of each other's goal-setting.

By natural law, you own what you create or what you acquire from others by trade (without the use of force or fraud). If I steal from you, it's theft. If I and five other people steal from you, it's still theft. If I and a hundred million other people steal from you, we may call it taxes, but it's still theft. Majority rule has been wrongly elevated to a moral principle, a principle born of the unholy union of the modern cult of numbers with the ancient veneration of violence.

. . .

From its earliest beginnings, government has been rooted in the worship of violence. "Might makes right. Without majority rule, there would be war, in which the majority would win anyway. So, let's avoid the bloodshed and submit peaceably to the mighty majority." This assumes that violence, or the threat of violence, is the only way people can interact. It excludes the possibility of reasonable debate and free exchange, to which people naturally and profitably resort whenever they eschew violence.

Submit to force if you must, but never condone it, for that would make a mockery of morality.

I don't think the internet suddenly makes people have a double personality. Like others said, if you're an a__hole online, chances are, you're like that already or you're too cowardly to show that part of yourself in real life. It reminds me of the whole situation with women and their periods. A lot of women and men want to pinpoint as that being the time where, uh oh, you gotta hide but chances are these women are already a force to be reckoned with...this is just the EXCUSE to really let it out. I could picture my husband when we first met kinda wanting to grab some garlic and a cross around my time but what do you know, I didn't turn out to be that way. Just like when I'm online I won't go out of my way to be an a__hole because it's not me.

As for the ego and the morality thing, not sure how they relate exactly. The ego is more of a "me, me, me" attitude and not sure how that would really benefit other people...at least not without some sort of angle. To me, morality with an ego is kind of like the people who donate to charity because they'll get a tax reduction later on or helping a rich person because they might give you a nice tip. The ego is important for self-identity but when it comes to morality, it's just way to selfish to really do anything of value. As for a big ego, I don't see the benefit. It takes the healthy independence and development of a personality and amps up the selfish qualities (judgmental, arrogant, etc.) to the point where you disconnect yourself from other people and you forget that you have so much in common still. Not only is living like you're better than everyone else a total illusion but it also seems like a very lonely place to be.

This is an interesting thought. For technical reasons I want to point out when I think of ego in this sense, sense of self and Freud comes to mind.

Now... big ego as thinking you know everything... that is different. I believe you can make a case that BOTH are driving forces in the creation of a specific morality and maintenancing it from time-to-time to keep it up-to-date.

Normally when you think of morality you think of something that is shared, and when you think about exercising to follow or not to follow some set of morals, that's ethics.

One must have a FIRM resolve that he or she is capable to make big decisions, and moral decisions tend to be big ones. Therefore, having a big ego (albeit a justifiable one) is a good thing. Can one be humble and have a big ego? The answer is yes because of the way this is worded. A large sense of self and abundant self-knowledge accompanied with humbleness... sure. That'd be a nice intellectual person. Being that way does advance morality in the way I spoke of above.

Of course, it is possible to have a "big head" and be humble... obviously not. At least not in the same moment.

I wonder how your proof supports your proposition? What does that point have to do with the driving force? I guess my question is... driving force in WHICH direction?

Are you trying to say that having a big ego lead to a degradation of moral values as evidenced by.... something something internet anonymity. It's a bit jumbled, and not evidence as it is worded.

Like someone else said, some people are JUST ASSHOLES. On the other hand, some otherwise completely nice people have no arena to be assholes in. Being an asshole, at times, is QUITE FUN. People get on the web for diversion from the daily grind, and if being an asshole is not part of your daily grind, it certainly would be a diversion. Internet anonymity does lead to a congregation of people being assholes.. quickly. I know what you mean... I have been on topix.

In sum, make sure you define ego in your argument. Explain in which direction the "force" is going. Morality is a specific term, so make sure you use it correctly. It is not the same as ethics.

I have a big ego, by the way.

The anonymity is not the cause of people's being assholes. They are already assholes but in the world where their identities were known they hid their true nature. I would guess that the reason they are assholes is that they hate the world and its values they live in and don't know how to resolve that conflict.

But this is independent of whether have a big ego is related to morality. I would have to say that it is related but in an opposite fashion. Being selfish means one is less concerned about others but being concerned about others is the nature of what morality is all about.

Well you're wrong about it being rare for someone to commit a selfish act, and the other people who says there's no such thing as a selfish act obviously has no idea what they're talking about. Everybody is selfish, it's in our nature to be so. There's nothing wrong with it either.

Having Ego for oneself is become his Self Confidence, But when He impose his Ego on others ,

His Ego becomes bad thing for others.

undecided, I continually questioned an identical element. i think of that there are various large human beings interior the U.S. yet our management has notably plenty continually sucked. One truism in lifestyles nonetheless, is that to take administration of persons and shop them from questioning you create a mob mentality. that's what has been accomplished in usa. You flood the media networks with propaganda and watch the persons mindlessly repeat it collectively as questioning they have the visual charm of being modern on international events. In stead of asking the main astonishing questions and dissecting suggestion they're presented. They mindlessly settle for it as reality (usa must be large with the aid of fact they informed you it is large, people who easily carry the government in charge at the instant are not patriots) and different nonsense like this. you have diverse individuals that can not have faith in themselves or their own understand-how, so blind loyalty to the country provides them something else to be happy with. They experience that to criticize usa (regardless of if usa has taken a incorrect stance) is unpatriotic. -basically the rich income off of divisions- Republicans positioned on turn flops

Everyone has a big ego whether or not they admit it.

When it's misplaced they think the world revolves around them. When it's abused they flaunt it to hide their insecurity. When it's a lie they think being self effacing is pious. Donald Trump has a huge ego, but he can back it up because whether you like him or not, he's successful. If you can't back it up, don't flaunt it.

You might enjoy reading Ayn Rand.

not sure what internet anonymity causing asshole-ness has to do with big egos?

big egos causes arrogance.... pomposity.... and what can only be described as "dick-headedness!"

How big an ego is irrelevent.