> Civil society only exists when there is a collective general trust that most people are trying to do the right thing.

I was taught as a child that most people deep down genuinely want to be "good people". If only I had known what an absolute lie that really truly was, I'd have chosen a very different path for my life. Going out of my way to be a "good person" to the best of my ability was a total waste of a life that could have been spent in the pursuit of wealth and power, which I would have been very good at, had I not foolishly chosen to adhere to a "moral code" that was based on fantasy and naivety and a "reality" that just didn't exist as it was taught in schools, churches, and homes.

It's a recipe for unhappiness to believe in either extreme: either that it's a waste of life to try and live by morals, or that one should shun wealth and influence to live a good life (and give up financial security).

I wasn't happy at all to end up associating with people who were zero-sum, transactional, and only valued wealth and fame. That can promote a constant sense of insecurity and lack of trust, which prevents the formation of true connections to others (which I've found to be important).

I've been very happy to find myself with groups of people, in work contexts and elsewhere, who try to care for others while pursuing their personal goals. There's a sense of belonging and security.

Having made similar experiences, I do have to say your conclusion to not be the good person isn't in your own interest, especially, but even otherwise, if your goal is power and wealth.

People like good things. They'll go out of their way to expend time, energy and money to have "good". You could be the source of that good and receive all of these if you try to truly understand others' view of what's good.

Coercive systems do happen, but rarely last, because people will also spend time, energy and money to get rid of them.

Just don't be fooled that there's a universal moral code. What's good for one might not be for another. You might appreciate "Science and Human Behaviour" by B.F. Skinner if you're interested in the mechanics of it.

What's a "good person" exactly? There are many wildly different definitions.

People do generally want to be good people but it is a fairly basic don't-upset-the-neighbours form of good. You can't rely on them to consider any specific act as being good or bad.

> which I would have been very good at

If you indeed lived morally you probably can’t know this.

Pick up a copy of Crime and Punishment ASAP.

I actually think primatology is quite useful here. We aren't that different from other primates. We selfishly attach extreme morality only to things that impact us, which we would never do when we analytically study primates doing the same kind of thing (stealing and killing). To be frank, your kind of comment makes me more suspicious of human morality itself (as a social tool to mask resentment or overcome collective action problems towards some kind of aggressive action) than it does of humanity.

Not really sure if this was your intention, but you're making a very compelling argument to keep teaching a "moral code" in schools, churches and homes.

No you were not lied to. and thank you for heeding the good advice to not be a jerk.

Whether you see it or not, the vast majority of people /are/ generally good, and more importantly they want to be around other people who value being good, not being a jerk.

Folks who are all about money and power hang in different circles; I can’t speak to their happiness levels, but regular folks steer clear of them and warn others when they get burned.

Stay on the good team. There’s plenty of us and we welcome you. What can I do to help?

I think the grass is always greener on the other side, and I'm glad that you're a good person.