The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

It isn't the words that matter, it is what they refer to that does. There is a distinction between acting in one's self-interest, but not affecting anyone else, or not doing something at the expense of others, on the one hand, and acting in one's self-interest and, by doing so, affecting others adversely and at their expense. It doesn't matter what you call these two different kinds of actions. Does it? And the first kind of action is morally neutral, but the second kind of action is not morally neutral, but morally negative. The particular words we use to name these two kinds of actions are irrelevant. (Call them actions of Type A, and actions of Type B, if you like. Makes no difference to the fact that they are different kinds of actions, and are morally different).

Kennethamy,

The reason these terms are said to be synonyms is they can be interchanged in the said context, they are synonyms relative to said context. Morality is indeed a value judgement but does not change what the modivating force of an action was, the context the terms refer back to is that of human modivation. No one said there was no distinction morally, The question of the judgement of the morality of a action I believe should come after the fact, the consideration of its modivation before, they are not the same.

Is an action only moral if it serves others, is it immoral to serve ones self-interests, in fact it is impossiable to act in any way without first serveing ones self. All possiable human actions are synonymous with self-interest. The actions we have spoken of are essentially the same, it is only in their relations to other/s that the value judgement of morality is pronounced, yet it is the character, morality, psyche of the individual which will determine the quality of said action. It will however, still serve the individuals self-interest. I suspect one would have to go to the madhouse to find individuals that did not act in their own self-interest, no one would accuse these poor souls of a profound morality.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Kennethamy,

The reason these terms are said to be synonyms is they can be interchanged in the said context, they are synonyms relative to said context. Morality is indeed a value judgement but does not change what the modivating force of an action was, the context the terms refer back to is that of human modivation. No one said there was no distinction morally, The question of the judgement of the morality of a action I believe should come after the fact, the consideration of its modivation before, they are not the same.

Is an action only moral if it serves others, is it immoral to serve ones self-interests, in fact it is impossiable to act in any way without first serveing ones self. All possiable human actions are synonymous with self-interest. The actions we have spoken of are essentially the same, it is only in their relations to other/s that the value judgement of morality is pronounced, yet it is the character, morality, psyche of the individual which will determine the quality of said action. It will however, still serve the individuals self-interest. I suspect one would have to go to the madhouse to find individuals that did not act in their own self-interest, no one would accuse these poor souls of a profound morality.

You mean there is no difference between doing something for yourself without its affecting anyone else adversely, and doing something fpr yourself, and its affecting others adversely, and your caring that it does?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

You mean there is no difference between doing something for yourself without its affecting anyone else adversely, and doing something fpr yourself, and its affecting others adversely, and your caring that it does?

Kennethamy,

I am saying there is no difference in the concept of that which is self-serving, it always refers itself back too human modivation. The value judgement of morality comes after the action, it is what we chose to dress it in, it is largely the judgement of others. If you wish to speak of what modivates, morality is only one possiablity of a great many in the human psyche. The physical world might be thought of as full of triggers for good and bad behaviours, it is the individual that determines the quality of said action, which might be highly moral yet judged immoral. That is why intent is so important in the justice system, the product of a act may be unfortunate, but the judgement of the act is tempered by what is considered good intent [modivation]. Objective evalution of an act,[moral judgement] does nothing to change the nature of modivation in the immediate sense of pre-action.In other words one is modivation, one is evaluation, they are not the same.I am concerned here with modivation, you on the other hand seem entirely concerned with the evaluation,that is fine, they just are not all apples.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Kennethamy,

I am saying there is no difference in the concept of that which is self-serving, it always refers itself back too human modivation. The value judgement of morality comes after the action, it is what we chose to dress it in, it is largely the judgement of others. If you wish to speak of what modivates, morality is only one possiablity of a great many in the human psyche. The physical world might be thought of as full of triggers for good and bad behaviours, it is the individual that determines the quality of said action, which might be highly moral yet judged immoral. That is why intent is so important in the justice system, the product of a act may be unfortunate, but the judgement of the act is tempered by what is considered good intent [modivation]. Objective evalution of an act,[moral judgement] does nothing to change the nature of modivation in the immediate sense of pre-action.In other words one is modivation, one is evaluation, they are not the same.I am concerned here with modivation, you on the other hand seem entirely concerned with the evaluation,that is fine, they just are not all apples.

Is there, or is there not a difference? And is an action which affects only the agent not morally neutral, and is an action which affect not only the agent, but others adversely, when it should not have done, not morally neutral? That's a yes, or a no. No miasma of words, please.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Is there, or is there not a difference? And is an action which affects only the agent not morally neutral, and is an action which affect not only the agent, but others adversely, when it should not have done, not morally neutral? That's a yes, or a no. No miasma of words, please.

kennethamy,

The distinction you are concerned about his been acknowledge for quite some time, it is acknowledge with qualification. There must be a need created in the subject for any action to take place, the subject acts upon that need, where there is no need there is no action, no function. The fulfilling of that need is said to be self-serving for the subject. Your evaluation is correct, there are morally neutral actions as well as moral actions, both serve to fulfill the need of the subject in the form of satisfying the subjects own needs. I repeat, there is no action which is not self-serving FIRST. If this does not make sense to you, I suggest you never really understood the introductory premise. How could you answer to a question you have never considered?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

The distinction you are concerned about his been acknowledge for quite some time, it is acknowledge with qualification. There must be a need created in the subject for any action to take place, the subject acts upon that need, where there is no need there is no action, no function. The fulfilling of that need is said to be self-serving for the subject. Your evaluation is correct, there are morally neutral actions as well as moral actions, both serve to fulfill the need of the subject in the form of satisfying the subjects own needs. I repeat, there is no action which is not self-serving FIRST. If this does not make sense to you, I suggest you never really understood the introductory premise. How could you answer to a question you have never considered?

It is not self-serving to sacrifice your life for others. Why should it be? I suspect that what you mean by a self-serving action is that it is a voluntary action rather than one that is compelled. You think that if someone merely wants to do something, that it is self-serving. But that is clearly not true. "Self-serving" and "voluntary" do not mean the same because although all self-serving actions are voluntary actions, not all voluntary actions are self-serving actions. A person may voluntarily give his life for another, but that does not make his action self-serving.

But maybe you will explain why every action is self-serving (I don't mean just "voluntary").

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

It is not self-serving to sacrifice your life for others. Why should it be? I suspect that what you mean by a self-serving action is that it is a voluntary action rather than one that is compelled. You think that if someone merely wants to do something, that it is self-serving. But that is clearly not true. "Self-serving" and "voluntary" do not mean the same because although all self-serving actions are voluntary actions, not all voluntary actions are self-serving actions. A person may voluntarily give his life for another, but that does not make his action self-serving.

But maybe you will explain why every action is self-serving (I don't mean just "voluntary").

Kennethamy,

The brainstem takes care of most involentary actions, but I think that, that too is in our self-interest. Every action with the acception of a convulsion is willed, the will acts upon a need or desire, the action of which fulfils said will. If it is not absolute it is bloody near it.

I am referring to, in the matter of self-sarifice, Schopenhaur's theory on the foundations of morality. You have not had cause to reference said paper I believe, it is what the opening premise about self-sacrifice was based upon. If in your metaphysics self-sarifice is indeed an utterly selfless deed, and it is done that other people might be happy and this includes complete strangers, it sounds rather straight forward to me.

It is not difficult to see in our everyday actions that their nature is one of self-interest, but even here I find it puzzeling that you do not think there is anything happening in the subject which would modivate said action.Is this make other people happy a prime directive of man? The foundation of compassion is identifing with,the intensity of this process determines the quality you might say of compassion, and degree to which it is realized in action, self-sacrifice would be taking it to its limits.

The way I understand self-sacrifice, particularly for complete strangers is as stated by Schopenhaur, there is a breakthrough. This breakthrough is not a loseing of the self but one of incorporating the other in the concept of self, self includes other. So, in this understanding the hero's action is said to be self-serving.

I remember one such hero when ask why he did not let go of a young man that had attempted jump to his death, he stated if he had of let go he would not have been able to enjoy another day of his life--how come? This man had a job, wife and kids, plans for the future ect..., all that is lost in this moment in which he is taken. This could be understood though your statement that he just wanted the young man to be happy and your prime directive carrys the day,seems really inadequate to me.Time and time again when heros are asked what they were thinking they reply, there was not time for thought,it is an act of the heart not of the head,it is as Schopenhaur stated a metaphysical breakthrough, time and space which normally inform us of our separateness is broken,and you and other are one.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Kennethamy,

The brainstem takes care of most involentary actions, but I think that, that too is in our self-interest. Every action with the acception of a convulsion is willed, the will acts upon a need or desire, the action of which fulfils said will. If it is not absolute it is bloody near it.

I am referring to, in the matter of self-sarifice, Schopenhaur's theory on the foundations of morality. You have not had cause to reference said paper I believe, it is what the opening premise about self-sacrifice was based upon. If in your metaphysics self-sarifice is indeed an utterly selfless deed, and it is done that other people might be happy and this includes complete strangers, it sounds rather straight forward to me.

It is not difficult to see in our everyday actions that their nature is one of self-interest, but even here I find it puzzeling that you do not think there is anything happening in the subject which would modivate said action.Is this make other people happy a prime directive of man? The foundation of compassion is identifing with,the intensity of this process determines the quality you might say of compassion, and degree to which it is realized in action, self-sacrifice would be taking it to its limits.

The way I understand self-sacrifice, particularly for complete strangers is as stated by Schopenhaur, there is a breakthrough. This breakthrough is not a loseing of the self but one of incorporating the other in the concept of self, self includes other. So, in this understanding the hero's action is said to be self-serving.

I remember one such hero when ask why he did not let go of a young man that had attempted jump to his death, he stated if he had of let go he would not have been able to enjoy another day of his life--how come? This man had a job, wife and kids, plans for the future ect..., all that is lost in this moment in which he is taken. This could be understood though your statement that he just wanted the young man to be happy and your prime directive carrys the day,seems really inadequate to me.Time and time again when heros are asked what they were thinking they reply, there was not time for thought,it is an act of the heart not of the head,it is as Schopenhaur stated a metaphysical breakthrough, time and space which normally inform us of our separateness is broken,and you and other are one.

Yes, you appear to think that merely because an action is voluntary, it is self-serving. I don't see the point in talking that way, since there are clearly voluntary actions that are not self-serving. But go ahead, if you think that proves anything except your decision to confuse "voluntary" with "self-serving".

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes, you appear to think that merely because an action is voluntary, it is self-serving. I don't see the point in talking that way, since there are clearly voluntary actions that are not self-serving. But go ahead, if you think that proves anything except your decision to confuse "voluntary" with "self-serving".

kennethamy,

With the acception of self-sarcifice which calls for a somewhat different understanding, perhaps, if these selfless acts are so plentiful you could give us some examples. Just an add curiousity, does not the term willed infer there is something to be willed, something to be fulfilled, is that not the function of an act, the function of a self-fulfilling act, to fulfill the will. Do you believe there is anything whatsoever going on in the subject? Even in your understanding when the hero sacrifices himself to another to make him happy, was there no intent on the part of said hero, was there nothing the action fulfilled, even to create happyness? If you think there is any process here at all please enlighten.




Where there is no choice there is no virtue,thus there is only virtue in what is willed. Boagie

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

With the acception of self-sarcifice which calls for a somewhat different understanding, perhaps, if these selfless acts are so plentiful you could give us some examples. Just an add curiousity, does not the term willed infer there is something to be willed, something to be fulfilled, is that not the function of an act, the function of a self-fulfilling act, to fulfill the will. Do you believe there is anything whatsoever going on in the subject? Even in your understanding when the hero sacrifices himself to another to make him happy, was there no intent on the part of said hero, was there nothing the action fulfilled, even to create happyness? If you think there is any process here at all please enlighten.



Where there is no choice there is no virtue,thus there is only virtue in what is willed. Boagie

People can, and do, will to sacrifice themselves for others. If they die in the process, they no longer exist to be fulfilled.

Perhaps there are some people who are about to die when they sacrifice themselves for others, outweigh the pain and fear they feel as they do so, but I would not bet that there are very many of them.

Let me mention, once more, another distinction I have made: the distinction between (1) sacrificing yourself and, as a result, being "fulfilled", and (2) sacrificing yourself with the motive of being "fulfilled". Those are two very different things. But only (2) can be said to be "self-serving".

I agree that there is virtue only in what is willed. But it doesn't follow that because you will it, it is virtuous.