One of the problems for me is that each side in this discourse seems to think the other is sociopathic. Today’s discourse is polarized and antagonistic. I’d like to see more civil conversations between people with different worldviews. — Tom Storm

The polarization and antagonism can also be simply due to the fact that the two parties are having a conversation at all.

Further, due to the two parties interacting, the polarization can also artificially elevate particular tenets on each side, giving them more prominence than they originally had.

All in all, discourse generally seems overrated. There'd probably be less strife if people talked less.

I haven't had many discussions with Bob Ross, but in the few I did, it seemed he had a bit of a "comprehension problem", the kind that many people do, especially self-taught "philosophers". That is, they tend to mix up their interpretation of the words on the page with the words on the page. Trying to talk to them is very tedious and time-consuming.

In his case, I think it's actually philosophical inexperience and a measure of incompetence, rather than malice.

I must confess I'm unimpressed by explanations of Christianity's success which are variations of DEUS VULT! — Ciceronianus

Someone who claims to believe in God but doesn't base his explanations in claims of God's will, is not a proper theist, so beware of such a person!

It's common for theistic apologists to present quasi-rational and quasi-scientific reasoning for theism (and they'll even say they do it for you, to appease the atheist/the atheist's ego (sic!)). But according to theism itself, such apologists are wrong, for they are not acknowledging God's place.

If they really believe in God, they should have no qualms stating that such and such is God's will. And if there's reason to bellieve they do have such qualms (as mentioned above) then they're not to be taken seriously in a discussion.

, or which are based on claims regarding the workings of the Holy Spirit, or Christianity's preaching regarding love, justice etc. which is, I think it must be acknowledged given our history,

more honored in the breach than in the observance.

This is hardly limited to Christians, though.

Just look at this forum, for example. There are, for example, some prominent posters here who are vocal proponents of charity, humanism, and liberalism. And yet from the way they treat other posters here it's clear that they themselves don't practice what they preach. And what is more, they and their defenders take umbrage at being reminded of that. Apparently, it's somehow beyond the pale to point out that the preacher doesn't practice what he preaches.

Perhaps this points at something more fundamental about humanity: Namely, that moral claims are not supposed to be taken seriously. That it's important to talk the talk -- but that this is all there is to it. The walk is supposed to be quite different than the talk.

Everyone: I don’t understand why you are offering me a false dichotomy for resolution, outside the context in which I explained my position? — Astorre

What false dichotomy?

I've known Christians who said God was "lovingly condemning". Apparently, it is an act of "love" when God sends people off to eternal torment.
Or when the Holy Inquisition condemned people to be burned at the stake: surely the inquisitors considered this an act of "love", no?

One thing I've learned (and the hard way, at that) is that religious/spiritual people tend to have vastly different ideas than I about what constitutes "good" and "bad", "love" and "hate", and so on. To the point like we're from different universes, hence my question to you earlier.

What do you mean by "love"?
If you believe that someone deserves to die, to be killed (by you, even), and you spare them, is that an act of "love" on your part?
— baker

Sorry, but I didn't understand your question. — Astorre

What is there not to understand?

You don’t know how Bob feels. Unless Bob says or acts like “I am superior to you” then you have to make this judgment about how Bob feels from outside of Bob.
True/false judgments aren’t banishing people to hell, or inferiority. — Fire Ologist

If he claims to know better than I (and he does), then he deems himself superior to me. That's it.

I am not sure what you think, because you reduce Christianity to feeling superior, but then say the reduction is an evolutionary advantage.

There you go: reduce. This "reducing" is all in your mind. I said nothing about "reducing".

My opinion: feeling superior to fellow brothers and sisters is specifically something Christianity teaches against.

Sure. Except that he's not my brother, and I'm quite sure he doesn't consider me a brother/sister either.

Don’t believe any Christian or anyone

Says you. You against all the other people who say otherwise.

The only hell to worry about being in is the one you create for others, and the simple way to avoid it is to make life better for others.

I should be nice to others, but they shouldn't have to be nice to me ...

I'm not going to defend things you merely imagine I said.

The view that God creates living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering is the view with the most damning implications, and as such, it's the one that needs to be refuted or resolved, or overcome, or whatever.

Not a single mainstream version of Christianity believes this. Not one. I would be interested to hear why you believe this, though. — Bob Ross

And you just don't listen. Read again what I said.

I could spend hours, days, weeks trying to explain. In fact, I have done so for years. But when someone doesn't read what is on the page and instead injects his own projections, there's just no point in trying to discuss anything.

(However, I do think religious/spiritual people do so deliberately.)

This is the feeling superior to others that I'm talking about.
— baker

Seems to me that on a discussion forum feeling superior or better informed to the other person is a frequently occurring idea. — Tom Storm

No, it's more substantial than that. It's fundamental to religion/spirituality. Religion/spirituality requires inequality, it requires hierarchy. It's why the religious/spiritual are so opposed to "cultural marxism".

Religion/spirituality necessitates one-way relationships and can only operate within such one-way relationships:
I have to respect the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to respect me.
I have to trust the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to trust me.
I have to listen to the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to listen to me.
I have to believe the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to believe me.
And, of course:
I have to give the religious/spiritual money and do favors for them, they shouldn't have to give me money or do favors for me.

Maybe part of the issue is that people arrive here to defend positions.

Or try to heal their existential anxiety.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight. — Tom Storm

See, I'm talking about the view that has the most damning consequences, that's the one I think is the most relevant to address. And I said so. But religious/spiritual people just don't listen. They inject their own interpretations into my words, they see things that aren't there on the page, and so one has to deal with strawmen pretty much all the time.

s the success of Christianity different from the success of any other religion or cultural mythology? Some Native Americans have maintained tribal beliefs, but they have a system of converting people. That was also a problem for Jews. A failure to convert enough people to dominate.

Both Christians and Muslims have converted people by making it impossible to live in peace if they do not convert to the religion in control at the moment. It seems to me that a large part of the success depended on who won the wars. I don't think Hinduism and Buddhism converted people in the same way. — Athena

Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are not expansive religions; normally, they do not even try to make converts because it is not even theoretically possible to convert to those religions. With Judaism and Hinduism, one needs to be born into them, one cannot normally convert to them (there is some degree of exception such as in the case of marriage). And the Buddhists believe one needs to come to them and beg instructions; they don't go out and actively try to make converts.

Both Christians and Muslims have converted people by making it impossible to live in peace if they do not convert to the religion in control at the moment.

This!
One cannot peacefully coexist with someone who despises one.

This actually works, because In my view real damage happens when it is the perceived or actual is biased with differential treatment. — ssu

In the UK, Two-Tier Justice Is Now Undeniable
/.../
Last Friday, a jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court in London cleared Jones, a now suspended Labour councillor, of encouraging violent disorder at a protest last August. Jones attended a counter-demonstration in Walthamstow, London, in response to a planned right-wing protest—one of many last summer, sparked by the Southport murders. Surrounded by his fellow protestors, Jones made an impassioned speech, captured on video, denouncing the far Right: “They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.” At this point, Jones drew his finger across his own throat.

The clip subsequently went viral, and Jones was soon arrested and charged. He pleaded not guilty and, a year later, faced a jury of his peers who decided he had not committed any crime.

Jones, rightly, walked free. Words are not violence and should not be treated as such. Contrast this with the example of Lucy Connolly. Despite being arrested and charged at almost the same time, for very similar actions, the outcome for her was completely different.

/.../

Perhaps the most galling part about all of this is that the state continues to pretend there is no such thing as two-tier justice. When asked about the issue last summer by a journalist, the chief of the Metropolitan Police grabbed the reporter’s microphone and threw it to the ground in a tantrum. To this day, legal higher-ups will deny there is anything untoward at play. Just recently, the UK attorney general, Lord Hermer, said that calling the legal system hypocritical was “frankly disgusting.”

If you dare speak out against the blatant two-tier justice, the government will brand you as a far-right extremist. The Telegraph revealed last month that a unit in Whitehall was keeping tabs on people who complained online about the UK’s unfair justice system, in case this “exacerbated tensions.” A leaked government report from early this year also warns that those who are concerned about two-tier policing feed into an “extreme right-wing narrative.”

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/in-the-uk-two-tier-justice-is-now-undeniable/

This is a topic that cannot actually be discussed.

I find the period during which the Roman Empire transitioned from a largely tolerant polytheistic society to an intolerant monotheistic society fascinating.
/.../
I wonder how and why this enormous alteration in the ancient world took place — Ciceronianus

The Fall of the Roman Empire and the associated economic downturn seem to be part of a reasonable explanation.
Once people have to struggle for survival, the knives come out.

Ideally, one should be virtuous for the sake of being virtuous. — Ciceronianus

But not in a world where there is God.
In a world where there is God, everything is related to God and ordered (ie. put in order) by God, which is why virtue, too, has to be directly related to God, and not be something stand-alone.

@Fire Ologist @Tom Storm
See this:

/.../ why you believe it as true (although it is false). — Bob Ross

This is Bob Ross feeling superior to me.

Twice he invents the charge of strawmanning against me, and he believes he knows The Truth About God while I don't.

This is the feeling superior to others that I'm talking about.

After he created us by default such that we only deserve to suffer for all eternity.

In Christianity, we reap what we sow; and only those that on their demerits will they go to hell. What you have done is omitted justice from the discussion and straw manned Christianity with the idea that everyone should go to hell despite having sinned or not. — Bob Ross

Strawmanned? Eh?
Learn your doctrine.
Once born, we are said to bear the stain of the Original Sin, and this is enough to send us straight to eternal suffering.

Likewise, it is up for debate what exactly ‘suffering’ is like in hell. The popular view in present day is that hell is just a maximally distant place from God—from goodness itself—and those who deserve to be there tend to want to to be there by obstinately rejecting goodness itself.

Then they'll be happy!

Think of Satan as an embodiment of this: he was a high-ranking archangel with solid knowledge of God’s goodness, and he rejected in favor of his own autonomy—to be his own god.

That story would be silly if it weren't so cruel in its misrepresentation. Angels are incapable of even desiring autonomy.

He first fucks us up

God didn’t cause us to fall: adam and eve did and we suffer the consequences—but not guilt—of their sin.

And yet God made Adam and Eve.

It has to be conditional to be just. If you do not want to be saved, for example, then it would be unjust to force you to be saved: that would violate your free will and autonomy to choose what is good or evil. God’s plan is the perfect synthesis of justice and mercy—not one at the expense of the other.

These are all truisms that mean nothing until we clearly specifiy what exactly is "good" (and "evil").

 resting on picking the right religion.

This isn’t true, and is a common misunderstanding among areligious and even some religious people. There is a Divinely revealed and guaranteed way to end up saved (which is the Sacraments); but this does not mean that anyone not on that path is going to hell.

Why, yes, indeed, according to the Catechism of the RCC, it's virtually impossible to go to hell.
However, the RCC is just one Christian denomination claiming to have the right understanding of God, among several thousand.

You are straw manning traditional Catholicism with an oversimplification of ‘picking the right religion’.

Again with the accusation of strawmanning! You don't say!

How is it an act of infinite wisdom and goodness to create living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering?

I would like to ask you why you believe that Christianity teaches that we deserve only eternal suffering by merely being born human: that’s not the traditional nor a predominant view.

It's not a specifically Catholic view, sure. But I never claimed to be presenting or arguing against the Catholic view to begin with. That's your strawmanning. You should be sorry.

The view that God creates living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering is the view with the most damning implications, and as such, it's the one that needs to be refuted or resolved, or overcome, or whatever.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with you: I think that if I understood your background and what you have come to know and why you have come to believe it that I would completely understand why you believe it as true (although it is false).

Oh, and I should believe you, and not the other Christians. Right.

You Christians should first sort things out amongst yourselves before you go out to preach to others, blaming your confusion and lack of unity on others.

I don’t think there is a single “Christianity” as such. There are multiple religions that use the title Christianity and often consider themselves to be the truer account. — Tom Storm

Of course. They've even killed eachother over who has the right understanding of God.

It seems part of Christianity's success is precisely its vagueness, its amoebic, shape-shfting identity. How its concepts mean everything and nothing, how it can go a million ways. How it's ungraspable.

(And that wasn’t Christlike or Christian, so should account for any “success” of Christianity.) — Fire Ologist

So this behavior of Christians is not to be taken as exemplary of Christianity, and that behavior of Christians is not to be taken as exemplary of Christianity. But then what is? Why are we always supposed to make these exceptions and always look for ways to excuse Christians?

The core Christian message is that God is trying to bring us to know and love him. There is no such thing as knowing someone or loving someone without their free, honest willingness.

But there's a catch: We have only one lifetime to do it, and if we fail, that's it, hell, forever.

This in itself is more universally appealing.

Under the pressure of only one lifetime for action, it becomes absurd. Even more absurd when one considers the possibility that one could die at any time.

Christianity democratized human value, not to each other, but to a God who loves each one.

How is it an act of "love" that God grants some people the privilege of being born and raised into a religion and thus never having to struggle with choosing a religion and joining it -- but witholds that privilege from others?
That's not love, that's sadistic perversion.

I agree with your assertion. Moreover, I'd like to point out that the question itself is already posed within the paradigm of "why did this ideology take off," rather than, for example, "is Christianity a doctrine of love?" — Astorre

What do you mean by "love"?
If you believe that someone deserves to die, to be killed (by you, even), and you spare them, is that an act of "love" on your part?

Just as it is "wise and effective" for lions to hunt antelopes.
— baker
Then you may as well classify any societal human endeavor as "lions hunting antelope". — Tzeentch

Are you the antelope?
How does one cope with being the antelope?

This is a topic I am very interested in, I started several threads on it.

It makes them feel superior
— baker

What position is the person in who says about another person “it makes them feel superior?”

That doesn’t seem right. Pots and kettles scrapping for the superiority of their color. — Fire Ologist

Eh?
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that feeling superior to others is somehow wrong, or that I am criticizing religious/spiritual people for feeling superior to others.
It's not and I don't. If anything, it's evolutionarily advantageous to feel superior to others.

For the first approximately 300 years (that’s 3 centuries) how many Christians felt superior then?

The whole point of religion/spirituality seems to be to feel superior to others -- even if one is in the gutter, and especially when one is in the gutter. Or on the cross, as the case may be.
"Yes, I am poor and weak and ill, but I still know the truth about God!! And you don't!!"

Seems like a solid foundation in humility to me. Not supremacy at all. Christ was God, and he never did anything but what his father told him to do, unto death, on a cross, at the hands of we pigs and rats. Find the superiority over others in that!

I just did.

And let's get something straight: Make up your mind whether you want to be a proper monotheist, or a demigod worshipper.
If Jesus was indeed the Son of God, God incarnate, then the whole episode on the cross was a sham, a PR stunt: nobody actually died, nobody suffered, nothing, it was just an act, a play for some particular audience.
If, however, Jesus was an ordinary man, and was made divine only after the crucifiction, then he was only a demigod, not God proper, or an incarnation of God, which opens up a number of other problems.

My understanding of a Christian success would be sainthood. How many saints do you think there are? Having met many people in my life, I suspect not many.

So you'd say Christianity is not (particularly) successful?

But my straight answer, talking history or psychology, Christianity is the most widespread through history and across the globe because it is the most practical (easy rules) and welcoming of all religions, calling sinners first and foremost (so every single soul is wanted).

And my answer talking theology is that the success is mostly because God wants it that way.

If God exists, then everything is as God wants it anyway.

This belittles the point: Christian’s were brutally persecuted throughout the early church. — Bob Ross

Who wasn't?
Who isn't?

You are singling out the Christians in Rome as if everyone except the Christians had a great time and an easy life.

Or what are you saying? That it was okay for the Romans to treat everyone, including other Romans, poorly, but that they should have spared the Christians, and only the Christians?

Maybe that's a projection on your part. Certainly an overly complicated frame. If I experince irreversible pain I would like to die. — Tom Storm

It's not a projection, it's a fact. Not everyone thinks the way you do, it's not universal, it's not a given, it's not something that can or should be taken for granted about people.

How much suffering someone experiences along with the pain they're feeling is not the same for all people. This is kind of the whole point of Buddhism: to distinguish between pain and suffering. Pain is unavoidable, but suffering isn't. Suffering is that which, arguably, hurts more than the pain.

I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here until we talk about the desire to not have your friend/family member die. But that's not what's in your response. Hmm.

But, to respond: Yeah, obviously. Its not a serious claim. Its edge-lord nonsense. I can see why a particularly vulnerable person would be harmed by those words. But the idea that it would lead to actual suicide is extreme. Yep, it happens, but then the desire was not that of the actor.

Is that what you're getting at? I think that's prima facie a totally different conversation. — AmadeusD

On all levels, humans actually wish that certain other humans would die or not exist.
From children telling other children "Do me a favor and die!" to governments acquiring massive amounts of weapons and starting wars.
It's normal. It's normalized. Even if tacitly.

I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here — AmadeusD

Why on earth not?? Can you explain?

If other people want you dead, should you not kill yourself?
By staying alive, you are offending them!

Can we unpack this? Because other people's desires that someone should die or not exist certainly play a part in how worthy of life someone deems themselves.

I am currently well and healthy, but I want to retain the option of ending my own life if circumstances deteriorate. If I were to develop a terminal illness that involved significant suffering, I would want that option available. — Tom Storm

In other words, you have internalized your local cultural standard of what makes life worth living and from when on life isn't worth living anymore.

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights".
— baker

If your own son or daughter was suffering of some illness, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim. — Corvus

Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.

It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do.

It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering. — LuckyR

How can a person be free from "external coercion" when they are living in a culture telling them that by failing to live up to the culture's standards they have lost the right to live?

Do you think that accounts for 100% of them at all times? — Tom Storm

Sure, they occasionally forget their doctrinal tenets or stray from them ... But the ideal has always been supremacy.

Christianity laid forth rules of life that were wise and effective. — Tzeentch

Just as it is "wise and effective" for lions to hunt antelopes.

For those who are not Christians, like me, it is often difficult to understand why the faith resonates so strongly and what hold it has on people. — Tom Storm

It makes them feel superior to the outgroup and makes them feel justified to destroy the outgroup.

In fact, Christians were notorious for their eagerness for martyrdom. Tertullian actually boasted of this death wish. He wrote of an incident when a crowd of Christians accosted a Roman magistrate and demanded he kill them. The annoyed magistrate told them that if they wanted to die so badly they could find rope to hang themselves or throw themselves off a handy cliff, but he wouldn't accommodate them. — Ciceronianus

Good response by the magistrate.

Yes, it's typical for religious/spiritual people to be eager to play the victim. It's a defining characteristic of religiosity/spirituality.

Christianity is uniquely the only religion where God is so merciful and loving that He comes down to us out of genuine concern for us: — Bob Ross

After he created us by default such that we only deserve to suffer for all eternity.
He first fucks us up, and then offers us some conditional salvation, resting on picking the right religion. That's "concern for us"? In what world is this "concern for us"?

all other religions place God as this being way above us that it would be beneath Him to care about us in any personal way—let alone die for us.

Sure, but those religions also don't expect people to believe that God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness (!!) created humans in such a way that they deserve nothing but eternal sufferring.

Because of this, it gives a unique view that we can achieve union with God through God’s mercy; and not by the super rare chance of doing everything right to make it. Why is this uninspiring to you (even if you don’t believe it is true)?

How is it an act of infinite wisdom and goodness to create living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering?
I don't find that "inspiring". Of course, your ilk are going to tell me that there is something wrong with me ...

Nothing was said about ending someone elses life. — AmadeusD

What discussions of this topic so often so frustratingly lack is an acknowledgment that many people often have the desire that some other people would not exist or that they would die.

Have you ever been told, as a teenager, by another teenager, "Do me a favor and die!"?

Do you think that people magically stop thinking like that once they become legal adults?

X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life. — Corvus

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights".

Countries where medically assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal are basically telling people, "If you can't live up to our culture's standards, then it's better that you don't exist at all. And we are gracious enough to make options for this available to you." Some people internalize this and make use of those options. (And there is no shortage of those who will comment on this with, "Finally, at long last."

/.../
Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive. — Ciceronianus

All major religions are like that.

If anything, the reason for the success of Christianity doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianity per se, it's just that at the time and place, there was/is no other religion to fill the niche. The niche was/is calling for a religion that is authoritarian, hierarchical, compatible with slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. All major religions can fill that nichem (and they do so, in their respective locations), it's just a question of coincidence which one will arrive in a particular geographic location first.

Lacking what is my point? — AmadeusD

They lack social acceptability.

"We have the right not to be reminded of the ugly sides of life" is the usually unspoken stance underlying this topic.

Sometimes, this stance is even fully verbalized. I remember reading a story where a woman didn't want an autistic (IIRC) relative of her husband to be around her children, calling that relative "an abomination in the eyes of God". Or another one where parents were campaigning against a student with some obvious deformity attending the same school as their children, claiming that their children should not have to be "exposed to this".

What has changed from, say, 50 and more years ago, is that now people with various forms of deformity or disability are now more allowed to live among the abled than they were in the past, where they were often confined to various institutions or private care. So now more people who hold such stances as the parents mentioned above have cause to also utter those stances (not to mention that there are now communication platforms that didn't exist back then).

Can you define Normal?[/quote]
Normal is not to ask what is "normal".

In any event, I draw a rigid distinction between ability and worth, with infinite worth taken as a given, undiminishable and not measurable by ability. That is, to suggest the worth of the deaf person has increased when he has been given the ability to hear is offensive. His worth is not to be measured in terms of the things he can do. — Hanover

To be clear: You promote the adversarial approach to human interaction. How do you reconcile this with your idea of a person having "infinite worth"?

The adversarial approach to human interaction implies that other people are expendable and can be destroyed; so, obviously, it's not a reflection of the belief that they have "infinite worth".

I wonder if he has to attend philo-anon meetings now. “Hello everybody, my name is ProtagoranSocratist and I’m a phil-aholic.” — Joshs

Ha ha. Getting a real taste of aging, illness, and death, such as in the form of looking after a demented, barely mobile, incontinent elderly relative is very existentially wholesome. Cures one of silly ideas.

My concern was more existential than transcendental: how, in the wake of the collapse of shared cosmic narratives, lived significance is actually sustained or whether it decays into nihilism. In that sense, I wasn’t claiming that meaning is constructed from nothing, but that historically we now inhabit conditions where the background structures that once stabilized meaning have broken down and is often experienced as “nothing matters.” — Wayfarer

No. This is simply the thought process of an ostracized or otherwise incompetent person.

For starters, there is no "we", there is no universal human solidarity in the problem you describe. Rightwingers, religious people, and psychologists will say that the above is simply your personal problem, not something shared by all of humanity. Existential incompetence is not a universal human trait. Even if perhaps many people are thusly existentially incompetent, this merely means that many people are thusly existentially incompetent, and nothing more. Even if 99% of the population were thusly existentially incompetent, it still wouldn't be a universal human trait, because human traits are not devised based on statistics, but based on ideas.

For the first time in history, an external, universal, generally accepted authority (God, Reason, Inevitable Progress) has disappeared, one that would say, "None of this is accidental; it's all part of a greater, meaningful plan." — Astorre

See above.

Can you give one reason why what you're talking about shouldn't be considered simply your personal problem?

Helping others. — GreekSkeptic

But are you really helping them?

Do they feel helped by you?

Did you ask them?


There is such a thing as pathological altruism:

/.../
Writing in The New York Times, Natalie Angier called the book a "scholarly yet surprisingly sprightly volume." She wrote,

pathological altruism is not limited to showcase acts of self-sacrifice... The book is the first comprehensive treatment of the idea that when ostensibly generous 'how can I help you?' behavior is taken to extremes, misapplied or stridently rhapsodized, it can become unhelpful, unproductive and even destructive. Selflessness gone awry may play a role in a broad variety of disorders, including anorexia and animal hoarding, women who put up with abusive partners and men who abide alcoholic ones. Because a certain degree of selfless behavior is essential to the smooth performance of any human group, selflessness run amok can crop up in political contexts. It fosters the exhilarating sensation of righteous indignation, the belief in the purity of your team and your cause and the perfidiousness of all competing teams and causes.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_Altruism

If people would really care about the survival of mankind, they would change their ways.

There is a difference, though, between individuals not giving to others because they have no excess to give, and the supposedly God-given right of individuals to accumulate as much wealth and power as they are able to without being morally required to give at all if they don't feel like it. Their right to do this is predicated on the idea of individual merit―if they have the ability to accumulate wealth and power they should be allowed to do so unrestrictedly. But this ignores that fact that individuals use the privilege and benefits of a society that everyone (ideally and if the able to) contributes to, in order to rise as far as they can on power/ wealth scale. There is no acknowledgement , in that kind of thinking, of what the individual relies on―the societal infrastructure. So, I see it as a kind if willful blindness on the part of the right―and a kind of hypocrisy. — Janus

Rightwingers don't exactly believe there is such a thing as "society" to begin with (some explicitly deny society even exists, some have a particularist view of what makes for "society").

Insofar as these rightwingers are religious, they believe that all riches come from God (or through karma). So their refusal to acknowledge the general (!) societal infrastructure needed for an individual to succeed in life is neither willful blindness nor hypocrisy. It's simply part of their religious outlook to think that way. They do, however, tend to acknowledge the importance of the specific (!) societal infrastructure needed for an individual to succeed in life, ie. the importance of the immediate and extended family, mentors, etc.

A while back, a Slovenian right-wing parliamentary representative said, publicly, that the Bible is above the Constitution. And this is in a country that officially does not have a state religion.
This pretty much says it all.