If by "cause" you mean "political movement," then you may be right. But parents will kill to protect their children, and die for them. And the world is full of unscrupulous people who do indeed kill to protect their wealth, and others who would rather die than let their secrets be known. For them, those are causes. And to say that no cause is worth dying for is, in my opinion, a little offensive towards the legacies of people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus.
While it's often productive to define your own approach to life, doing it completely internally can lead to all kinds of flawed conclusions. Bouncing your ideas off of others is major part of figuring out how to approach life, because you get different perspectives based on experiences with certain things you might not be that familiar with.
Quote:
|
The system is rational, individualy hedonistic in that it emphasises the survival of the individual in order to ensure the survival of the group (Race, Species etc).
|
That's actually a political statement, not a philosphical one. The right argues that one should be left to one's own devices -- the free market ideology -- and be allowed to protect and concentrate one's assets, instead of being forced to pool them with the community and to support those who cannot keep up, like the left wants to do.
Additionally, the left is, of course, very "cause" oriented, while the right would much rather go about its own business, which is usually doing quite well anyway, so what's this fuss about?
Suffice to say that I find myself wondering if the origination of this system is philosophical, or political.
This goes back to what I was saying about bouncing your ideas off others, because what you have here is a little colored by political standpoint. And that's shaky ground.