Being rich is an inner value? I have the impression that how much being rich has to do with your own will is still not decided. If anything, social mobility has been shown to be very overrated in recent years. And then one can ask, how much did that one person striking millions have to do with ingenuity, and how much was it just being at the right place and time (lucking out)?
One could say that, 'in a very real sense, men love you for who you are (how is how you look not part of "who you are"?) and not for auxiliary things that have nothing to do with you as a person, such as money'. It's all just semantic quibbling, anyway.
Being successful is, and being rich is one of the markers for success. I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting success as a man. The argument goes that beauty has absolutely nothing to do with inner values, while success does (false positives not withstanding).
Then again, there might be a huge cultural component to this. I come from Germany, which has the most unapologetically darwinistic dating scene I ever experienced. German girls are by and large no-nonsense, goal-oriented, and not prone to poetic whimsy.
> One could say that, 'in a very real sense, men love you for who you are (how is how you look not part of "who you are"?)
Hey, the darker part of my epiphany story is actually up to that conversation I had believed finding a mate was about finding a partner that matches your inner essence, finding someone who recognizes the "real you". So I had dismissed both success and beauty as meaningless, because they tell you nothing about that essence. Again, I was very young at that point and had a lot of misconceptions.
There's no 'moral' right or wrong either way - both are biological indicators.
Women often look for men who can provide for their children, and who are capable of producing sexually successful offspring. In violent climates, physically strong men are valued more than financially strong men as that's what's required to protect offspring.
Men often look for women who are fertile and healthy.
In both cases, market value is simply a partner who's capable of carrying on one's genes.
Man when I realized that people were really (subconsiously) seeking some biological imperative based on child survival from superficial materialistic characteristics instead of a best friend type to spend their life with in a mate it really messed up my head about the dating game. But you got to do what you got to do.
So if we are talking about ethics, the explanation for why people do what they do from an evolutionary standpoint doesn't say much about the moral implications of it. There are probably a lot of evolutionary theories on anti-social behavior in humans, say. Maybe some people are inclined to kill people in a surge of passion because that is some latent fight-or-flight instinct that has been beneficial for the survival of the organism, yadda yadda yadda. So what, though? That is not interesting when it comes to considering what is ethical and what is not.
It may seem that I am bringing up extreme cases, when procreating is seemingly benign. There are still considerations that one might have, though; even if it is beneficial for the propagation of the organism's DNA to have a certain amount of children - maybe for example 5 is the best in order to make sure they grow up relatively well - it isn't necessarily ethical. Maybe 3 children is the best for a happy and full childhood, with enough parental attention. Maybe bringing children into the world isn't something that a certain person should do, because of some terrible genetic disease (now we're straying into eugenics, and we probably know too little about DNA to be able to say that so-and-so should procreate and so-and-so should not). Propagating DNA shouldn't even be a goal in itself, ethically speaking. Humanity might have done more harm than good in becoming 7 billion people. And I don't just mean bad for each other, but in causing stress to ecosystems and the global climate which lead to natural disasters and other organisms struggling to adapt and survive.
So what if there is some evolutionary basis for some behavior? There has to be some reason. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we should endorse or encourage that behavior (whatever behavior is being considered).
Why did he kill him? Elementary, my dear Watson; first, we have to go back approximately 20,000 years ...
> I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting success as a man. The argument goes that beauty has absolutely nothing to do with inner values, while success does (false positives not withstanding).
Is this supposed to be novel concepts to me, things that I have "problems" with? I am questioning the assumption that being rich is wholly a matter of will and inner values, I am not questioning what women like or dislike.
"I had problems with this view as well until ..." - I don't have "issues" or hang-ups with this opinion, neither is it too hard for me to understand.
Obviously if you take a really superficial, surface reading of 'rich' then it's not going to be very useful. But look at what they are making of their life - are they capitalising on or squandering their opportunities? Are they improving their lot, or settling for what comes easily, or mooching through life?
One could say that, 'in a very real sense, men love you for who you are (how is how you look not part of "who you are"?) and not for auxiliary things that have nothing to do with you as a person, such as money'. It's all just semantic quibbling, anyway.