The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[Didymos Thomas]

"All other actions fulfill the conscious intent/modivation of a subject."

And how do you determine, for example, my motivation or intent?

[NeitherExtreme]

Just wondering boagie, if you would say that there are better/nicer selfish actions? Or all they all equal?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Just wondering boagie, if you would say that there are better/nicer selfish actions? Or all they all equal?

Well I think that my selfish action the other day of stopping and helping another motorist to get his car going, even when it made me late for a very important appointment was a very nice selfish action on my part. But I am still ashamed that I was so selfish.

But I know I was very selfish because I wanted to help this stranger. And the more I wanted to help him, the more selfish I was to help him.

[Didymos Thomas]

But I know I was very selfish because I wanted to help this stranger. And the more I wanted to help him, the more selfish I was to help him.

What is necessarily selfish about wanting to help a stranger?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

What is necessarily selfish about wanting to help a stranger?

But how could it not be selfish, since I wanted to help him. Isn't that the argument which is given to show that all action is selfish? Namely that the fact the action is voluntary makes the action selfish. So that even if I decide to go to bed because I am sleepy, since that was a voluntary action on my part, that was a selfish action. The argument is, of course, absurd.

[Harby]

The logic used here is the following:
Any observable voluntary action somehow benefits the agent. Therefore all actions are self-beneficial, therefore for an action to be done it must atleast benefit the agent, if not others as well.

Again I reiterate that you are taking the word "selfish" to the extremes.
This theory simply states that any living organism cannot create intention without any benefit to itself, as no willing action (unless you can provide a definite example) does not benefit the agent somehow.

EDIT: As for what is "selfish", or better put self-beneficial, in the above mentioned example: you acted upon your moral code, therefore you helped your self-esteem. Its even apparent that it did, cause if it did not you would not have come here and used it as an example, explicitly stating that it did occur in real life instead of providing another example (i.e. someone else doing something else).

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Harby

The logic used here is the following:
Any observable voluntary action somehow benefits the agent. Therefore all actions are self-beneficial, therefore for an action to be done it must atleast benefit the agent, if not others as well.

Again I reiterate that you are taking the word "selfish" to the extremes.
This theory simply states that any living organism cannot create intention without any benefit to itself, as no willing action (unless you can provide a definite example) does not benefit the agent somehow.

EDIT: As for what is "selfish", or better put self-beneficial, in the above mentioned example: you acted upon your moral code, therefore you helped your self-esteem. Its even apparent that it did, cause if it did not you would not have come here and used it as an example, explicitly stating that it did occur in real life instead of providing another example (i.e. someone else doing something else).

Any observable voluntary action somehow benefits the agent.


But that is false. The soldier who sacrifices himself and dies to save his men is not benefiting himself. And he does it voluntarily. If I stop on the road to help a motorist in distress, at cost to myself, I am not benefiting myself. On the contrary, in both cases, I am harming myself.

Then again, you seem to be confusing two different things. It may be that when I do an action, I will derive benefit from doing that action, and also know that I will derive benefit from doing that action. But that need not mean that I am doing that action with the motive of gaining benefit from doing that action. That is to say that even if it turns out that I get some satisfaction from doing that action, it need not follow that I did that action in order to gain that benefit.

So, 1. the idea that any sane person would give up his life in order to contemplate any satisfaction (which, since he is dead, he is unlikely to get) is ludicrous. On a cost-benefit scale of evaluation (which seems the one being used) the idea is preposterous. And, 2, the motive seems to be mixed up. What is being confused is the difference between getting some satisfaction from doing an unselfish action, and doing that action in order to get that satisfaction. My motive may just be to help a person who needs help, and not to gain any satisfaction from doing so.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Harby

The logic used here is the following:
Any observable voluntary action somehow benefits the agent. Therefore all actions are self-beneficial, therefore for an action to be done it must atleast benefit the agent, if not others as well.

Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from. But even from that standpoint I think that while some decisions are %100 self-beneficial, some are more beneficial to others than to myself. Again I'll use the common example of someone dying to save someone else. Yes, there was a piece of that decision that was self-beneficial (doing what I thought was right, thereby saving conscience), but I think there was a much bigger piece that was others-beneficial. So I think that, in a way, all decisions could be weighed on a scale (not scientifically of course), with self-benefit on one side, and others-benefit on the other. And you would say (and I think I'd tend to agree) that there would always be at least something on the self-benefit side of the scale, but do you agree that the others-benefit side could at times "out-weigh" the the self-benefit side? And I'm talking about motivation behind making the decision, not necessarily outcomes... I guess the short version is this: I think that some decisions are made for the benefit of others more so than for the benefit of self.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Dexter,

Some very interesting points you make here,if self-interest was not thought of as a negative,would there be as much guilt in the world.The Flip side though is perhaps the psychopath,who has no problem with self-interest,and sees compassion for others as simple weakness,his lack of human emotions tells him of his superiority.

I believe you are right,the model of humanity is just fine the way it is.Perhaps in the interest of a greater humanity and social cohesion in the future,people will choose to tweak what is there.This looks like it is going to become entirely possiable in the not to distant future with the advancement of neurology.There will be a new dawn for humanity when we have the keys to a greater compassion and who knows what else!Which reminds me, pychopaths represent around 2% of the population-----of course not all psychopaths are violent---psychopaths can be detected in our midst but I don't think they can be legally tracked,at anyrate neurology just may provide the means of cureing the psychopath.

You brought up another point which stirs the interest,instinct,is there any reason to believe that on some level instinctive behaviour is not in a creatures best interest,surely its origins are just that,behaviours which best serve ones survival would perhaps be the purest form of self-interest,ingrained tried and true.

The dog you said did not desire,well here we are going to argue over the thoughts of a dog.He is a pack animal and his best interest is in serveing the pack.A human family fills the ticket when the animal does not have his own kind as a pack.This principle of self-interest is quite likely true across the board,for all living forms.Though denied for eons compassion seems to be a common property in animals as well.Glad they decided not to use us for lab experiments to make better cosmetics.

Self-interest is one thing, and selfishness is a quite different thing. No one blames me for deciding to go to bed early because I am tired, as long as I have not harmed anyone, nor neglected any duties, although by going to bed early, I am undeniably doing something that is self-interested. But, if on the other hand, I decide to go to bed early when my children still need to be fed, and, themselves, put to bed, and need care, then my action would be rightly called "selfish" and not merely self-interested. And I should be blamed for being a neglectful parent. As Adam Smith and others pointed out, it is self-interest that makes the world go round, and is a generally good thing. The baker and the butcher provide us with food, not out of altruism, but out of self-interest. But selfishness is quite another thing, and is, in general a negative force in the world. That is why self-interest is not blamed, except, of course, when it is confused with selfishness, whichmunfortunately, some people do.

[Harby]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

I guess the short version is this: I think that some decisions are made for the benefit of others more so than for the benefit of self.

Well possibly, but as you yourself stated we have no way of measuring it. Something might be done at a greater cost than benefit (and provide more benefit to someone other than ourselves), I'm not at all rejecting this possibility, I am merely stating that in order for something to be voluntarily done at all there must be atleast a bit of self-interest involved.