Some kinds of acts, such as theft, clearly would cause the positive-sum game of civilization to break down if it wasn't treated as evil.So if I understand right, we treat theft as evil. It is not actually evil, we just treat it that way for our own common good.
Mmmm... that's not quite right. Strictly speaking it's not intrinsically evil in that sense, but that also doesn't mean it's just some kind of useful fiction either.
A person performs an act. As a result of their act, I've lost $100. My reaction to the act is anger, frustration, sorrow, whatever - after all, I've experienced $100 in damage to something I value.
But in trying to decide whether the act itself was evil or simply a normal risk - an unavoidable "cost of living" that I should just live with, I ask myself what the world would be like if such an act was always excused. The answer is radically different depending on the details of what the act was:
I don't know about you, but when I think about how I should feel about what should be done in these circumstances, my sense of justice hinges on what it means for society if the rules of the game were structured one way (acceptable behavior - live with it) vs. the other (condemn/fight/punish the behavior).
You and I, and anyone else who is sufficiently well read or astute, will realize that the evil of theft is a fiction for others. We want others to avoid theft as that hurts all, including/especially ourselves. But given the opportunity to steal successfully, you should go for it. It’s just smart.No, because the world I live in would be a lousy place to live in if people were able to steal and get away with it. Would I be better off, in an immediate sense, if I - and only I - could steal and get away with it? Sure. But then we'd be talking about me prospering inside a poor, crippled society.
See, people don't understand the concept of enlightened self-interest because they don't realize that it's the part about taking a principled, long-term view of a proposed act's consequences that makes it a moral system. (Whatever the system is.) If you limit your analysis to the immediate outcome of an action that affects you, then you're simply not "doing morality", no matter which moral system you think you are working from. It's called a self-serving argument.
Incidentally, I say that this type of analytical framework is so successful in ensuring a life-affirming, positive-sum world, that's why we are hardwired for empathy. By putting ourselves into the place of both the proposed victim (whose valuable thing we're coveting) & aggressor (us if we do steal their stuff), we can immediately feel the consequences of an action by both sides. It helps us come to a more objective judgement about our proposed actions. That's why the vast majority of us feel that it's wrong to steal, and why we'd feel bad if we did.
(I feel bad when I realize too late that I forgot to tip the waitress or left 10% instead of 15% or that she gave me too much change!)