So a few days ago my brother asked me via text what my thoughts on the refugee crisis was and the following was my response. I thought you guys might like to hear about possibly a different perspective. Let me know what you guys think:
- This is how I view it: This is a Middle Eastern problem as most people would agree but there's a few caveats to that.
(1) We created the problem (ISIS) through the Iraq War;
(2) The Middle Eastern countries are already accepting millions of refugees, the remaining ones either (a) aren't being let in to the other countries or (b) can't go to the Middle Eastern countries that are accepting refugees because they can't deal with any more of them;
(3) This is a humanitarian crisis that all of humanity needs to deal with.
(4) If the West turned their backs on these people now then ISIS propaganda chiefs would have a field day using that bit of information to show people that "the west doesn't want you", creating an "us against them" mentality which makes people more prone to join their cause. I honestly think that was the entire intention behind the Paris attacks: to get Europe to close their borders
The fact that (3) seems to be abundantly clear implies something has to be done. The fact that (2) shows that the countries that really should be helping out (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc.) actually aren't and won't in the near future raises the question: "Who can help these people?" Well, the answer is clearly the West (EU + NA). That only raises the question: "Should we help?" I think so for two reasons:
(1) We helped cause the problem through destabilizing the region by removing Sadam and
(2) We have a moral responsibility to help our fellow man, EVEN THOUGH the Middle Eastern countries have more responsibility to take care of this than we do, the fact remains that they won't, and that we (the West) can and should. That summarizes (we helped cause it, we're their only option, ethical responsibility) why we should. But there's the obvious concern about security. The thing with security is that Islamic terrorism can come from anyone, domestic citizens or refugees (hell, just look at France; they were all EU citizens). The issue here is ideology which transcends whether you were born here or immigrated here. On top of that, our security has been impeccable since 9/11. While there's still risk to be had, it's minute relative to the 100,000 lives that we could not only return to stability, but promote to prosperity.
I only sort of agree that it's a Middle East problem. Logically, I think the expectation for action increases with proximity and increases with ability. The key point I agree with is that it's a humanitarian crisis. These are people, and we can help them so we should to the extent that we can. The security thing was always a bogus issue, and the Paris shootings highlighted that. Oklahoma City, Planned Parenthood this weekend and Anders Breivik in Norway were all attacks perpetrated by someone who looked like their victims. There's no such thing as perfect security. The question becomes "does being Muslim or Syrian predispose someone to be more likely to commit violence?" I find that question revolting, and I find the security question to be propaganda.
That's a beautiful way of putting it. Making responsibility a function of proximity and ability puts the burden on what we would otherwise intuitively think carries it: Middle Eastern countries and the West. To be fair, I think the question being asked is more of: "Will our open borders (I know, not completelyopen, but still) allow the IS to infiltrate the West?" That's more of an understandable question but I would still think the answer is the same regardless: we should still help these people out. The fact that terrorism happens regardless of your status as a refugee or domestic citizen further proves the point that this fear is unfounded. Hell, even if it is somewhat founded, relative to the amount of lives that could be saved, it's miniscule. Logically, I think the expectation for action increases with proximity and increases with ability
The question becomes "does being Muslim or Syrian predispose someone to be more likely to commit violence?"
I hate moral arguments like this. They are shallow, emotional attempts at getting someone to follow a cause simply because the way they were raised to see what is right and what is wrong. Do not simply say "we should do this because it is right". There is no such thing. Give an argument. ___ Culture is the problem, the core issue of dealings with the middle east and the west. By our notions, the middle east is an ancient, backwards, highly negative culture that restricts freedom of speech, womens rights, and so on. By their notions, the west is a group of nations engorged on wealth, not satisfied with remaining in their own borders, and bringing holy moral wars to places where they were once secure. You can see the polls of opinions in the middle east, the thoughts of those through those groups of nations. You can see the way radicals come from that region/culture in such larger numbers. Yes, this is not an inherent problem with Islam. However, the middle east is not the way it is for no reason at all. For some reason, the average person in these nations want rule based on religion. To them, it is the way things should be. Perhaps they aren't extremists, and perhaps their presence in the west will infuse our own culture into their own, killing off the views in their children and saving a generation. However, when we accept these people into our borders, we accept a group with a far heavier prevalence of those views. We have people like this in the west. The super-right, the Christians, the people going about and shooting up abortion clinics because they are "killing babies". The reason an atheist hasn't ever been in office. The reason a red cup without snowflakes will start a shit-ton of drama about the oppression of Christianity in society. They lost. They were a strong part of US culture, religion was, and that day is over. Secularism, the idea of freedom of speech, and so on, are very rapidly overcoming the idea that all that is great is God. In the middle east, in the culture these people are coming from, these ideas did not lose, they haven't had the time or stability to disappear. These people coming into the west have the same view of insulting Mohammed as the strong-right in the US has the view of allowing abortion. A moral crime. A thing that, if you stand against it, you are a justified and righteous hero. These people will ignore the laws, and enforce what they feel, what they know is right. This will come in the form of playing loud prayer songs six times a day across towns they are a majority in. It will come in the harassment of anyone who isn't wearing appropriate dress. It will come in the banning of alcohol. All things the west has been oh so slowly working to rub out of the minds of those who make it up, as church bells still gong in our cities and preachers pass out bibles outside of schools. These people haven't been part of that process, and accepting them into society makes them part of our society, part of the massive network of emotions and ideas that decides what our society, as a whole, does. The question on if we should allow these refugees in, then, falls to this question: Can we prevent those ideas from gaining hold. Can we reduce the negative effects of allowing those with these ideals into our nation to a degree where the benefits of doing so outweigh the harms of not? I think it is, with the appropriate checks, limits, and guards in place to assist that goal. We did it once, after all, and we can do it again. ___ Security, in my opinion, is only a part of the above. A cohesive culture with a single, aligned set of ideals will have less violence, less terrorism, less hated, than one that does not. ___ This all lines up to why I really think the west needs to shift gears in the middle east and propagandize the crap out of it. Enforce "re-education" of all it's citizens. Enforce that all children will go to school. Enforce and restrict the culture that feeds ISIS and similar groups, strangling the ideas that allow it to flourish. We need to phrase it as the moral way, "the enlightened ones stand up for true capitalism, for wealth, for family. The true great young man fights with their dollars, fights with their education, with their country, not with their religion". We need to be willing to allow some things to pass, to accept their religions and traditions just enough to twist them until they align with the views of the west. To turn their literal interpretations into figurative ones, just as we do to Christianity. "Do not lie with a man as one would with a woman" is the west's hot topic at the moment, and it's fading away as well, just another literal commandment of God that wasn't ever meant for us, no, it was just commanded as the moral thing to do a few thousand years ago. Blessings for the man who remembers to turn off their neighbors sprinklers. If we can't do that, if we aren't willing to put up the resources, to put away the sense of morality we have held up for so long, we just need to leave. We will never fix the problem with more and more war, not ones fought with guns at least. ISIS knows that, or they are powerful and successful because they incidentally create the environment that helps them by way of some other belief.(2) We have a moral responsibility to help our fellow man,
Saying there is no such thing as right and wrong is a bold choice. While I'm not about to open up the can of worms that is the moral realism debate, I encourage you to read about it here. Just keep in mind there's a difference between what people believe to be right and what is actually right, which is the whole topic of investigation of ethical philosophy. The point is, don't be so quick and so confident in your verdict that right and wrong don't exist. It's much more complicated than that.Do not simply say "we should do this because it is right". There is no such thing. Give an argument.
Not really, it's the default choice until someone actually proves that right and wrong exist beyond the way we are raised and taught to view the world. Nobody has. I'm fairly confident that nobody will. I'll be just as confident in my belief that right and wrong do not exist as I am my verdict that God, or a god, does not exist. I'm keeping it until proven otherwise.Saying there is no such thing as right and wrong is a bold choice.
don't be so quick and so confident in your verdict that right and wrong don't exist. It's much more complicated than that.
I did, and it doesn't appear to support the idea that right and wrong exist, at all. But I only skimmed it quickly, so I may have missed some important nuance.
This is a really dense subject that you can't just "skim" so I suggest giving it a good read. I will say this though, I don't have to prove good and evil, right and wrong, etc. exist at all. You already believe it. Watch: So what? Who cares about autonomy, liberty and freedom of speech? If there is no right and wrong, then you wanting to uphold those values is completely arbitrary. You seem to value objective, absolute truths, I presume? So let's throw away these values since they have no grounding in reality and truth. But you don't. So surely you can't think that way so you must place at least some value on ideal that are beneficial for humanity as a whole (a). Social constructs can't be entirely useless(b). So once we admit that you care about things that exist solely within the scope of humanity, i.e. social constructs (b) then it's fair to say that you value what's best for humanity (a) (or, hell, just yourself if you wanna go that route). So now we've established: (1) you have values and (2) those values are either what you think is best for humanity or yourself. That means, any action that aligns up with your value is a good action. You might say, "my definition the goal is just my opinion and doesn't make it objectively the right goal." Sure. You're absolutely right, but at the very least you have admitted to saying that a goal, and therefore good/bad actions which are measured against it, exists and you have reasons for choosing that good over another. Thus you do believe that a good and bad exist, regardless of whether you think that good is the right one.[The Middle East] restricts freedom of speech, womens rights, and so on.
This is going to be interesting... I do, of course. Assuming I am an actor whose decisions and actions are based only on the idea of doing what is "right" or what is "wrong". Also assuming that "right" and "wrong" are defined as "things I think should be done" and "things I think shouldn't be done". In reality, I am a selfish actor. I make decisions that, in the long term, will benefit me. If I truly cared about helping pain or fixing the world, I would be donating lots of money to africa and living a fairly humble life of farming food with low impact to the environment, not living a consumerist life where I will likely end up working in an office and buying lots of excessive computer equipment. Free speech being upheld means I continue to speak freely. liberty means I have liberty. Why throw away a way to get something I want? Society puts pressure on us all. It tells us to act certain ways, to stay in line. Society depends on the actors within it following rules, to take hits for the benefit of the group. It benefits everyone if we follow this standard, and I have to assume, as I am a single actor, not in control of others, that my actions must be taken as to attempt to make the world where I benefit most. That world, through my action, will be one where I follow the guidelines laid out by society. The things which are mandated, and so on. These guidelines, these "morals" are not strict, they are not concrete, they are not objective. They are not right and wrong, but instead simply me acting to make the best world for myself. If that best world was to be made another way, that is the direction I will take. If that best world was created by going back to eras similar to those existing in the middle east, where women are expected to fit their role of being in a home with a husband, where slavery is a thing, and so on, then I would likely be here arguing with you why slavery is OK, justifying it with a thousand different reasons. I would give you a thousand reasons why women should be in their home serving their husband in the natural order. Go back a few decades and you will see people discussing things in ways we couldn't imagine today. Lincoln himself had speeches where he spoke of how slavery is bad because it causes indirect oppression of the poor whites. We do it today for our consumption of meat. We do it for our abuse of the environment and use of fossil fuels. We will do it tomorrow for something else as well, and the day after tomorrow will have yet another topic of controversy. Perhaps the excessive use of fusion power reducing the time before heat-death, or the oppression of martians. That's because those things aren't "moral" in the empathetic sense, but they are moral in the "we do what is best for us" sense. Each generation what is moral or immoral changes. It isn't a definite category. This is why you can't argue something based on "This is moral" because if a thing is moral is purely a quick term for "this is what we should do for these reasons". If you want to argue a point, argue those reasons, not a sense of right or wrong. This is what I mean when I say morality, right and wrong, do not exist. Not that there is not a "right" and a "wrong" thing, but instead that what is right or wrong depends on who you are, and where you are standing. What those in the middle east see as right and wrong are fundamentally different than what those in the west see as right and wrong. What if I valued murder and the destruction of humanity? So morality is: There is a goal Actions are measured as to how they effect that goal Except most people do not see morality like that, they see morality as a definite set of things that are good, things that we should discover that are in this set, and perform. They see immoral actions as things inside a different set of actions, and things we have to discover and not perform. "Do this because it is moral" is an argument that X falls into objective set Y, and as a result X should be done. I am arguing that no objective set Y exists, and as a result, that form of argument to morality, the argument for an idea of right and wrong, do not exist. Consider what I said originally: It is clear, here, that when I say morality, it does not mean as you defined it above. If I didn't believe a good and bad existed, I would take no actions, as I would make no decisions. This essentially is an argument that "Because we chose between two options in making a decision based on the things we want, morality exists".You already believe it. Watch:
So what? Who cares about autonomy, liberty and freedom of speech?
If there is no right and wrong, then you wanting to uphold those values is completely arbitrary.
You seem to value objective, absolute truths, I presume? So let's throw away these values since they have no grounding in reality and truth.
So surely you can't think that way so you must place at least some value on ideal that are beneficial for humanity as a whole
That means, any action that aligns up with your value is a good action.
Sure. You're absolutely right, but at the very least you have admitted to saying that a goal, and therefore good/bad actions which are measured against it, exists and you have reasons for choosing that good over another.
They are shallow, emotional attempts at getting someone to follow a cause simply because the way they were raised to see what is right and what is wrong. Do not simply say "we should do this because it is right". There is no such thing. Give an argument.
Thus you do believe that a good and bad exist, regardless of whether you think that good is the right one.
Great. So this along with your very long winded way of saying you only care about self gain is you admitting to what I've been trying to prove all along: you have a moral system and it's happened to be called Egoism. Any action that benefits you is good by that end (end being your goal of self gain). You say that there's no objective good yet you subscribe to the belief that your good is the good you ought to measure actions against. You have your reasons for valuing your own selfish gain over everything else; possibly because you think it's in your nature (read: psychological egoism), or some other reason, but you have your justification for your belief. I could sit here and argue why that's not a good end to have in mind, or why that's the only logical end to have, either way you're now doing ethical philosophy with the ethical position that you have taken. Welcome to the club.I do, of course.
You are missing the point I made, I think. "Do this because it is moral" is an argument that X falls into objective set Y, and as a result X should be done. I am arguing that no objective set Y exists, and as a result, that form of argument to morality, the argument for an idea of right and wrong, do not exist. My argument, when I said right and wrong do not exist was to argue that there is no objective moral right or wrong that can be discovered. My good is the good I ought to measure actions against. Yes. It is my opinions, my assumptions, that I live by. That does not make such a thing an absolute good, a moral truth, or anything else of the sort. It does not imply the existence of, or the belief in such a thing. What I describe are the actions of a selfish actor seeking to better their world. No true objective moral weight falls on my actions, just subjective ones placed there by those around me, or society. If I did not have justification, would I have the belief? You seem to continue to imply that simply having beliefs, making decisions about actions, inherently implies that there is some form of morality in play. It turns morality into something that must exist in humans, as humans inherently make decisions, rationalize actions, and so on. Imagine I am a worm. I decide to eat the dirt in front of me, or I do not decide to do so. If I decide to do so, because I am a worm and I like dirt, have I made a moral judgement? If so, what is the difference between a moral judgement, and any average judgement? Imagine I am a human. I decide to participate in society, to not steal, and so on, because I am a human and I like doing those things. Am I making a moral judgement? If so, how is this action different than the above action? What I am trying to do with my "moral" system is to explain the way people act, the rationalization between choices. Why the worm chooses to eat dirt, why the human chooses to eat meat. Not to say "there are things which we should and should not do". Which does not imply the existence of some form of objective morality.Except most people do not see morality like that, they see morality as a definite set of things that are good, things that we should discover that are in this set, and perform. They see immoral actions as things inside a different set of actions, and things we have to discover and not perform.
You say that there's no objective good yet you subscribe to the belief that your good is the good you ought to measure actions against.
you have your justification for your belief.
either way you're now doing ethical philosophy with the ethical position that you have taken.
"Do this because it is moral" is an argument that X falls into objective set Y, and as a result X should be done. I am arguing that no objective set Y exists, and as a result, that form of argument to morality, the argument for an idea of right and wrong, do not exist. Sorry I never explicitly addressed this aspect of your argument. I wanted to focus on the overall theme but here are my thoughts: Philosophers will rarely say that there exists a set of actions (e.g. killing, stealing, lying) which are objectively wrong morally. The way ethical philosophy is done is (to use an analogy), create a formula that, when the variables are put into it, will calculate the goodness of an action. The way that the above is done is by defining an aim (happiness, well being, logical consistency, etc.) and then measuring actions against that aim. My argument here is that you choose that aim to be selfish gain (you can be more specific, but you get the idea). The goodness of any actions is then measured against that, as we've already been over. That's great and all but your counter is: but that aim isn't objectively good. Here's my retort: You subscribe to the ethical philosophy of egoism for a reason. You may say it's "just what I want to do" but it's a little deeper than that. You believe that the aim of self gain is the best aim for a reason. You therefore believe it to be the objectively correct aim by the logic that the best solution is the most correct one. So the very fact that you choose one aim over another is you implicitly saying that your aim is the best of all possible ones. Nonexistant. Your original comment about the reasons why we should intervene in Syria, be it economic, political stability, etc., are in fact moral justifications for an action. By that logic you could say even breathing is a moral action, to which I would respond: yes. A miniscule, functionally irrelevant one, yes. But it does serve to further whatever my aim is (because living is required for basically any end). Let's play that game and take a naturalistic approach. Let's talk about "is"s and forget "oughts". Is statements for humans: (1) All humans have the same nature (2) Human nature dictates that we all seek well being (call it happiness, pleasure, etc.) (3) Nurture doesn't change that desire (4) Actions that increase human well being are good in regards to what humans naturally desire (5) We should do what's good as defined above Now I can't empirically prove my first three premises but I'm sure you'll find them to be pretty reasonable. This also might not be your original idea of a moral system, but you might find it interesting as it's rooted in concrete "is" statements (as opposed to tricky "oughts"). Now naturally you will have utilitarian issues with this guideline which is why you can play around with adding a few rules as precursors like "don't violate others' liberty" to smoothen out the edges, but you get the basic idea. I'm most curious as to your thoughts on the above 5 points, what do you think?Except most people do not see morality like that, they see morality as a definite set of things that are good, things that we should discover that are in this set, and perform. They see immoral actions as things inside a different set of actions, and things we have to discover and not perform.
what is the difference between a moral judgement, and any average judgement?
What I am trying to do with my "moral" system is to explain the way people act, the rationalization between choices. Why the worm chooses to eat dirt, why the human chooses to eat meat.
Ok, just thought for a bit, went out to eat lunch: I'm moving this section up to the top from the bottom, just because I like it enough that I'd prefer it to be the main focus of this post. I know this whole argument has been about "I don't hold a moral position", but honestly, by your definitions of what a moral position is, I do. My original statement was simply to say that there is no definite set of moral and immoral things. That's is what I meant when I said objective morality. I meant to say that you cannot, in good faith, simply argue that "we should do X because it is the moral thing to do". All arguments need to be larger in scope and have real points in them. Keep in mind that this was written everything after "THE ACTUAL POST", so if you want more context, read there. ___ This would likely best sum my view of the topic: ___ 1) An actor is any system which can be defined. If it exists, if we can name it, it is a moral actor. 2) A subjectively moral action is any action which, depending on the internal state of an actor, that actor would cause to happen. ___ Now, this is a very vague definition. All conclusions you can draw from it depend on what actor you are considering. You can draw that box around something that is inanimate, and call a leaf an "actor". If that leaf, depending on it's internal state, would move somewhere, then that movement is a moral action. However, if that leaf would not choose to do such a thing, but an external actor, such as wind, interacts with the leaf and makes it move, then the action is immoral. This is a bit more complex when you draw the box around a human (or sentient being), as external actors can act on human beings, while the scope of morality does not include them, and still be moral actions. A human can "want" to have a hundred dollars, and if you give that person a hundred dollars, and they would choose to have that happen if they could, then that action is moral. Say you draw that box around two humans. Now you have two sets of "wants", and creates many possibilities: a) (want want). Any action on that actor is moral b) (want unwant). The state of the actor becomes more like that of the leaf. If the two people in the box, despite their conflicting views, would take an action regardless (140 lb man and a 300 lb titan), then that action is moral. If an actor disturbs that balance, moving the system to a position it would not take on it's own, that action becomes immoral. If both disagree, and are of similar levels of power, then all actions are immoral, as no actions would be taken. c) (unwant unwant). The action is immoral. This idea scales up to as many humans, or conscious actors, as you would like. Say you draw a box so large that it includes all possible entities. The universe. By this measure, there can be no external actors, and as a result, all things that occur, all decisions, are the result of the internal state of the actor, and all actions are moral. Overall, if you can draw a "box" around an object, and that actor would result in an action, or would have the mindset required to set that action to occur, then that action can be called "subjectively moral". As you can draw a box around the universe, all actions are technically "subjectively moral". If you can draw a box around an object, and that actor would not result in an action, or would not have the mindset required to set that action to occur, then that action could be called "subjectively immoral". This category is more interesting, as there are things which will never happen, and even if you define the scope of the universe, these actions will never occur. By this idea, there are actions that are subjectively immoral, despite that all actions are subjectively moral. However, subjectively moral actions are actions which will never occur. All possible actions are subjectively moral. If you draw a box around an object, and that actor will either not encounter an event, or would be unable to take a position on the subject, then the action is not a moral one. This one is hard to simplify, as these things just do not exist when the scope is at "the universe", as a result, actions are only amoral when the scope is smaller than that of the whole universe, or the scope is limited. So this creates two classes of entities. One which can conceptualize events and ones which cannot. Sentient and non-sentient beings. A non-sentient being is one of which all external actions which effect it are immoral. A sentient being is one which an external action can be moral or immoral. It may be useful to get rid of "immoral" as a category entirely, and instead only consider actions to be "moral" or "not moral", or "I would cause this" and "I would not cause this". Perhaps it is better to say that an immoral action is "any action which a sentient being would work against", while actions which would not be caused by a being are simply "not moral". So you could, for any action, create a list of possible or obvious scopes, and define the morality when looking at any individual scope. Murder: Knife: Not-moral. I would not have moved. Self-Victim: Immoral. I do not want to be killed. Self-Murder: Moral. I want to kill System-Murderer-Victim: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System-Society: Immoral. Murder is illegal. System-Nature/biosphere: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System-Earth: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System Universe: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. It may be useful to remove all non-sentient, or non-decision-making, non-computing actors, which were not acted upon. Murder: Knife: Not-moral. I would not have moved. Self-Victim: Immoral. I do not want to be killed. Self-Murder: Moral. I want to kill System-Murderer-Victim: Moral. The Victim died as a result of internal actions. System-Society: Immoral. Murder is illegal. Perhaps you could look at this and say "The moral action is the highest level moral action after the removal of non-decision making, non-computing actors, which were not acted upon". Utilitarianism. Perhaps you could look only from where you would be as an individual. The murder or the victim, and decide if you yourself would want such a thing to happen. Perhaps you could look at things from the universe standpoint, and consider all things moral. Perhaps you could look at things from the view of all those acted upon, the victim and the knife, and allow the least-moral consideration to take importance. Whatever view you take, you cannot deny that all the things I list are subjectively true. No matter what position you take the subject matter may be moral, immoral, or not-moral if you were to take a different position. There is no objective morality based on the definition I give above. Perhaps, then, there is a category of definite things where actions are truly moral? I hadn't considered it until now, but it's possible that, for any actor chosen, an action will always be moral. However, I believe such a thing to be unlikely. ___ ___ ___ ACTUAL POST: ___ ___ ___ I focus not of self gain, but of the satisfaction of those drives we are born with. We avoid pain, we seek pleasure. We avoid things that cause pain, and seek things that do not cause it. We have empathy, meaning that pain or pleasure we cause in others is felt in ourselves. These drives explain human action better than any other I am aware of. However, I say this not as a standard with which to judge how good an action is objectively. I can create three people. I can show each of these people a situation, and each can tell me, correctly, that this situation is moral, neutral, and immoral. I myself could be considered as one of those people. The point is, what is and isn't moral under my situation is not defined by anything but the system. You can create a being that seeks only pain and death, and to that being, pain and death are moral things. You can have a being that seeks only joy, and to that being joy is the only moral thing. In this way, morality is only "the state of a system that determines what that system attempts to change in the world". You cannot define it any further, as those states in a system vary highly depending on where and who you are. I am not saying my view is correct when I push humanity, free speech, and so on. I simply push my view. This is what I want, this is where I stand, I stand here because these positions benefit me in some way. It is objectively correct that I think it is moral to have the middle east follow my views. It is objectively correct that the middle east thinks it is immoral that I try to make them follow my views. Neither side is incorrect, both sides are equally "moral". Objectively, no statement or position is more immoral than another, ever. You can always change a view and shift the morality of a statement. When I speak, I speak my view, not the objective one. I am a human, I am an American. I push the views, the moral system that will benefit humans and/or Americans. This is good because this is what I believe is good, but that doesn't mean this is actually good, only that I think so.You believe that the aim of self gain is the best aim for a reason.
You therefore believe it to be the objectively correct aim by the logic that the best solution is the most correct one.