The joke is you're a German (I think I got that right) talking to an Australian. Reread what you posted from my perspective. Look at our entire culture: Who are our heroes? What makes them great?
Killing Turks, I guess. And risking their ass while doing so - that's the main point.
Well yeah. Pretty much all good things mankind has created or achieved only came into being because folks cared more about an issue than about themselves.
Art. Good Food. Wine. Planes. Games. Sports. yada yada yada. I can think of a bucket load of good things mankind has achieved that have been created for both selfish or selfless reasons. Long story short I find the statement overly simplistic. If you dropped the "all" from it I'd agree with it. I'd also have to add that the inverse is true (again with out the all & some adjustments). "Mankind achieves bad things when it cares more about the issue then themselves (pluralized)"
I agree - as it is written, the statement has problems. Dropping 'and' is not how I'd fix this though - I'd rather replace 'good' with 'great', and then work out a definition of 'great' that fits the bill.
A lot of what you listed is an example for my statement though. Take art: It's a common truism that
Art Is Suffering. It's a wrong truism, sure - but it does contain a germ of truth. You don't produce great art as a happy, fulfilled, content person who gets laid three times a week - at most you produce pretty decoration. Great art needs a special sort of drive behind it. Without that sort of drive, why would anyone choose a career like that, with shitty job prospects, marginal chances of success, and almost certainly a lifetime of poverty and - eventually - ridicule?
Turning the statement around is interesting, I agree - and yes, it does work just as well. I think someone said once - I don't remember who - that ideas can lead to inhumane things because ideas simply aren't human. Hell, there's a considerable amount of overlap in the examples for both statements: A lot of the time a disregard for oneself translates into disregard for others, too. How many artists, for example, had a messed-up private life and treated people like shit?
Consider the following: Do you think it's justifiable to advocate a war you'd not be willing to fight in yourself?
Simple answer: yes. Stop thinking about philosophy & quoting Kant for a moment & look at the people in the real world. You'll find plenty of people doing exactly that.
How do you justify it, then? How do you justify that others should die, but you shouldn't*? Plenty of folks doing it is hardly an indicator for it being good or even just logically consistent. Hell, if nobody did it I wouldn't have to think about it. That's why I apply philosophy and refer to Kant: I'm interested in the how and why, not in the who.
By the way, I resent the populist appeal of 'people in the real world'. Please don't do that.
*I'm not talking about immediately enlisting as soon as you support an intervention somewhere. I'm talking about accepting the draft notice instead of pulling a Reagan.
E: Are more people interested in the topic? Maybe we should start a new thread instead of cluttering this one.