[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But we're heading down murky waters if we accept the entire premise - which will ultimately end up at extreme social darwinism and the conclusion that there are no ethics, no rights, no nothing except for the rule of the strongest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why *aren't* we at "extreme social darwinism" right now? What does give us this sense of ethics and rights if not merely rational self-interest? I think the idea that we act in any way other than based on what's most desirable to us is responsible for many misconceptions, and thus problems.

"Ethics," as I've said before on this forum (not really sure who all agrees), is an empty word to me. It sort of strikes me the same as "species." Actions are actions. The consequence will determine the desirability. "Ethics" only exists when you seek to conveniently classify the merits of an action. But it's nothing more than an intangible recognition of what's tangibly desirable. Since humans share the same basic condition, you can reasonably say that ~all humans will consider some actions desirable or undesirable, and that we will effectively be able to defend what is best for our prosperity (by defending what is best for ourselves). It seems (since we share the same basic condition) you needn't have anything more than self-interest to come out with this result, and the sense of "ethics" and "rights" that you're looking for.