The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Does that mean that you accept that we do not always desire to do the actions we do? For, I don't have to have a theory of action, or compassion, or morality, in order to point out that obvious fact. I do not desire to visit my aunt, and yet I am going to visit her. What part of that don't you understand?

kennethamy,

I am saying lets hear your theory, enough of the little abstract negative tangents of yours, give us the goods on this kennethamy! I am all ears how does it work kennethamy, surely after such a journey you are going to fill us in on the big picture?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

I am saying lets hear your theory, enough of the little abstract negative tangents of yours, give us the goods on this kennethamy! I am all ears how does it work kennethamy, surely after such a journey you are going to fill us in on the big picture?

It's not abstract or a tangent at all. It is quite concrete, and directly to the point. It was claimed that whenever anyone does an action, he always desires to do it. I said that was not true in my case because I was going to visit my sick aunt in the hospital, not because I desired to do it, since I not only did not desire to do it, but I hated to do it, and it made me feel sick to do it. I was going to do it because I had to do it. So what is abstract or tangential about that? Theories are abstract. Facts are not. And the theory that no one does anything except if he desires to do it has to take account of the fact I have just pointed to. So, either the theory has to be given up, or else, somehow, the fact that contradicts it has to be shown not to be a fact. There are no two ways about that. Now, what part of that don't you understand? I have no theory except that people do not always do what they want to do. But I never thought that was a theory, at all! I thought that was just the common experience of us all. If it isn't part of your experience, then I have to tell you that you must be one lucky person, never to have had to do what you did not want to do. However did that happen?

[Justin]

Two post were removed due to personal attacks rather than intelligent conversation. Please refrain from poking each other with personal insults. Thank you!

[Harby]

Wow, you guys certainly didn't make this thread easy to read. If you intended to help other forum users by your posts kennethamy, you failed.

Anyhow, lets first solve the problem of semantics. I don't understand why such a problem was made out of it, words are made by humans and can be twisted by humans, they are, believe it or not, not set in stone.

Now, what I understand boagie was saying is that an action is only taken when it is needed or desired on the primal level, therefore an action translates to a need or desire and fulfilling the need or desire brings a certain "Good" feeling which is, in retrospect, the actual fulfillment of the need or desire which we are not aware of conciously. Sort of like an instinct.
Therefore action, or rather the intention of it (as actions may backfire) exists primarily to help the agent, and only secondly to affect another person or not.

Lets call that "Good" feeling the acquiring of "Psychological/Spiritual Gratification", or in short "PSG". Now, the theory proposed states that each action is subconciously (or unrelated to conciousness at all) motivated by the acquisition of PSG, therefore both "Good", "Bad" and "Neutral" deeds are all performed in the search of PSG. Whether or not PSG is the cause or the effect of the action, it is always the motivator.

There, didn't use the term "Selfish" anywhere, happy?

Furthermore, your argument of boagie not knowing what was in the Fallen SEALS head was ludicrous, you didn't know it either! He might have very well, by your logic atleast, tossed himself on the grenade cause he thought it to be a potato and he was so hungry. Can you prove this is not the case? What is not speculation when regarding that example?

PS: boagie, The 2nd chapter (and more if there are any) of "What is Man?" is missing, may you have another link? I've wholeheartedly agreed with the first one, which seems to focus mostly on Determinism rather than this topic though...

EDIT: Here's an excerpt from one of my posts on a different forum of this subject:

Now we get to your altruistic nature, the "most good with least bad" argument.
Here's some news, true altruism does not infact exist, everything is selfish. Here is the proposed situation:
You're sitting in a buss and an elderly woman enters it at the station. There are no seats left, therefore you let her take yours as you can endure standing anyway. Did you do it solely to help her? Did you not feel good when you did that? Yes, you indeed felt quite good, infact you felt more good than if you kept your seat. It may not seem to you like a selfish act at the time, but it really was. Granted, it benefited both but trust me it was selfish. Furthermore, there is a threshold at which you would be so tired as to recieve more gratification from keeping the seat, yet still the more tired you are the more gratification you would feel if you stood up as well.

Everything you do is selfish cause it:
1. Is an action that represents who you are or want to be.
2. Is an action that benefits you in some way.
I challenge you to name one deed that one can do completely selflessly, one. Everything you do can and is selfish, even if you choose not to do something good for you to spite me, you're doing it to emphasize that you are strong of will, another selfish act.
It all stems from nature really, all instincts are selfish. Animals feed to survive. Animals tend to their offsprings to help improve the chances of their genes get passed on. Everything is selfish in one way or another, throught any life forms, sapient or otherwise.

Infact, the reason people demonize selfishness is purely selfish, to help itself grow in a stable manner. Society has created an elaborate lie, called being "Benevolent" or "Good", when infact you have no reason to be or act so other than you were raised to be this way, therefore believing this to be true, and each action of "Good" in return gives you selfish gratification. I don't believe being "Good" is at all bad (put intended), but don't lie to yourself its any less selfish than simply directly helping just yourself. Granted, being "Good" helps other people as well most of the time, but I reiterate that it still stems from the gratification recieved by the act.
Therefore we come to two conclusions:
1. You are not as righteous as you pass the belief you are, as every act of "Good" you do in turn helps you and the image you created of yourself.
2. Smokers find it a "Good" thing to smoke, as there is no apparent way of doing something that is not helpful to the acting person somehow.

Don't think the fact we have concious awareness and are able to think has any influence on the matter, even with the largest degree of thought involved into doing/not doing an action that is selfish, you still act selfish by the very act as you will recieve gratification for being able to do/not do that action. One can f/ex either share a glass of water with a fellow thirsty person or take it whole for himself, in either way he benefits the same. Ah, but what of Regret? What if he chose to take the whole glass and not share, then after regret his decision? Still selfish, he believes he just wasn't selfish enough as he'd recieve more gratification if both of their thirsts have been sated. One could even say that regret is only experienced when someone was not selfish enough, or in other words, recieves less gratification than he believed he could.

Now one might argue that the gratification comes after the act, therefore the motive is infact selfless, but I don't believe that to be the case as I already stated that there is no (known, prove me wrong please) example of a completely non-selfish deed. Furthermore, as I touched the instinct issue already, its probably within us to be selfish from before we're even born, therefore the prerequisite and motive for all actions is already there.

Just imagine every "selfish" is replaced by the appropriate usage of "PSG". And yes, it was somewhat related to smoking and the other party thinking smokers as sub-human... Just skip anything smoking related.

[boagie]

Harby,

Actually Harby you have a full grasp of the topic. To substitute a term or a symbol to avoid the problem would be redudant in most cases. The terms just are not that difficult to understand. It most definately can be made problem as this thread so indicates. If there is any further resistence however I would be most please to see you handle it with your method.

[Didymos Thomas]

I have a question for those who argue that all actions are selfish. What would a non-selfish action look like, as opposed to a selfish action?

[boagie]

An action which might be termed completely selfless might be an epileptic seizure. Perhaps the functions of the brain stem as well, any thing which might fall under involentary function. All other actions fulfill the conscious intent/modivation of a subject.







All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self evident." Schopenhaur

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Dexter78

Perhaps what needs to change is the perception that selfishness is an inherently negative trait, which is of course why no one wants to think they are selfish. In the story of the man who saves the other man from falling into a canyon because he would be unable to live with himself, both parties benefited and little if any harm was done to anyone as a result of this action. Based on what was said about mirror neurons, which appear to be the source of empathy, then from this understanding it seems a selfless act is impossible since it would require a lack of wanting any dersire to do anything, such an entity would be a programmed robot, unless someone can think of another example of how a selfless act it possible. A dog protecting it's master is selfless in that it's doesn't desire, but it is instinct-driven, so would it still qualify as selfless. For the religious, this would mean that their God is either a purely apathetic being or the most selfish entity that can possibly exist. Personally, I am not bothered if my actions have a selfish thread to them since it would need to be shown to me why ignoring myself is good.

The question is why you seem to think that because I want to do something that I do, that the action is selfish? The fact that I want to help someone in distress at a cost to myself does not mean that the action is selfish. Why should it? Selfish actions are actions which benefit the doer at the expense of others. The mere fact that an action is voluntary does not make it a selfish action. It is that premise that needs questioning.

[Harby]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

The question is why you seem to think that because I want to do something that I do, that the action is selfish? The fact that I want to help someone in distress at a cost to myself does not mean that the action is selfish. Why should it? Selfish actions are actions which benefit the doer at the expense of others. The mere fact that an action is voluntary does not make it a selfish action. It is that premise that needs questioning.

The premise that you believe words and languages to be exact and infallible is the questionable thing here.

Why can you not grasp that, atleast in this scenario, selfishness is merely the act of primarily benefiting oneself with possible effects on others which may either be good, bad or neutral.


I'll even reword your post for you with this change:

The question is why you seem to think that because I want to do something that I do, that the action is self-benneficient primarily? The fact that I want to help someone in distress at a cost to myself does not mean that the action is primarily done for myself. Why should it? Actions that primarily benefit yourself are actions which benefit the doer at the expense of others*. The mere fact that an action is voluntary does not make it a primarily self-benefiting action. It is that premise that needs questioning

*not true anymore

There.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Bii

Perhaps the use of the term 'selfishness' is what causes people to have a problem with the premise as selfishness is something people are generally taught is a negative trait. However, I entirely agree that all action is motivated by self interest, whether it is because the action makes you feel good, or because the choice you make is a 'lesser of two evils' choice. I think the only addition I would make to this premise is that people will generally put survival first, and 'happiness' next.

I guess this then leaves the question, 'what is altruism' and 'does altruism exist'? I think it still does but perhaps the goalposts should be moved and altruism relates to the individual's ability to gain pleasure (and therefore generate self interest) in doing good deeds for other people. Accepting that the motive is still self interest, there are people who enjoy doing good deeds for others, and those that don't (and a whole range in between!). Those who can gain pleasure from helping others are altrustic.

But no one has to be either an altruist, or selfish. Those are not the only alternatives. Why can't you simply do something neither to benefit someone else, nor to benefit yourself at the expense of someone else. For instance: suppose I just go to sleep because I am tired. That is not altruistic. And that is not selfish. It benefits no one, and it harms no one. Most of our actions are neither altruistic nor are they, selfish. They are neutral.