The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,



The main point I have tried to make is that no matter what the nature of the action is,it is first serving the self-interest of the subject,that is,no matter what the action is.




http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html

Why do you think that is true? Sometimes it is. But sometimes it is not. A soldier who is sacrificing his life for his companions is not first serving his own interest.

For example:

Navy SEAL Dives on Grenade to Save Others
By THOMAS WATKINS, AP

CORONADO, Calif. (Oct. 14) - A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.
"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."
Monsoor, a 25-year-old gunner, was killed in the explosion in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. He was only the second SEAL to die in Iraq since the war began.
Two SEALs next to Monsoor were injured; another who was 10 to 15 feet from the blast was unhurt. The four had been working with Iraqi soldiers providing sniper security while U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted missions in the area.
In an interview at the SEALs' West Coast headquarters in Coronado, four members of the special force remembered "Mikey" as a loyal friend and a quiet, dedicated professional.

[boagie]

kennethamy,

Yes even in these cases there is a reality that the act serves some preconceived notions, ideas of ones self that makes such sacrifice possiable.Now these perhaps are very high ideals but none the less proceed or modivate the action.If you had read the link that I provided it would explain it better than I might do.It is about a fifteen minute read perhaps twenty minutes.

We all have preconceived ideas about ourselves,in the military there is a whole warriors mythology involved, some things we must do or give up that idea about ourselves.Of course I am always weary of absolutes but if you do the read you might decide for yourself if you can see where this is a exception.Essentially there is a premise which is at least mostly true,and that is,one must be moved within before one moves without.I can think myself of a possiable acception,perhaps if you do the read we could discuss it further,it really is a bit of an eye opener though.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

Yes even in these cases there is a reality that the act serves some preconceived notions, ideas of ones self that makes such sacrifice possiable.
.

I wonder how you know that. Why isn't the "reality" that the Navy Seal desires to save his comrades more than he values his own life? At least, that seems to be the evidence. Have you other, contrary evidence? Did you know the person? Or is this just a priori?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by mike9989

If this be the case, I might just say this:
If our actions are always selfish, then getting a glass of water to relieve thirst is selfish (as mentioned originally), however, if we must be selfish to survive we must ask firstly, is selfish then, always bad necessarily? if so, what is selfish?

In other words, using the term, "selfish" in such a loose way that it covers all action, robs the term of its meaning. If all actions, even those we normally do not call "selfish" are nevertheless, called, "selfish" then the term is drained of all its usual meaning and just comes to mean an action we desire to do. As W.S. Gilbert wrote, "If everybody's somebody, then nobody's anybody".

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I wonder how you know that. Why isn't the "reality" that the Navy Seal desires to save his comrades more than he values his own life? At least, that seems to be the evidence. Have you other, contrary evidence? Did you know the person? Or is this just a priori?

Read the link I provided in previous posts,the dialogue will be much richer if you do.As someone had stated earlier we seem to be caught up in a problem with semantics.All actions are self serveing first, whether they are relative to another individual or not.As I stated myself I tend to feel some discomfort when considering an absolute and indeed I personally believe there are acceptions to this statement but not many.Schophenaur delt with this topic of over rideding the prime directive of personal survival but I do not wish to get into it unless others read the link I provided.This link was the stimulus for starting this thread,

http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html

[Irishcop]

I had to edit this post, after reading your link, Boagie.

I see the point you are trying to make, and I'm big enough to admit I was wrong, by misinterpreting your meaning.

However.

O.M. It is a quite natural opinion--indeed an inevitable opinion--but YOU did not create the materials out of which it is formed. They are odds and ends of thoughts, impressions, feelings, gathered unconsciously from a thousand books, a thousand conversations, and from streams of thought and feeling which have flowed down into your heart and brain out of the hearts and brains of centuries of ancestors. PERSONALLY you did not create even the smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit of PUTTING THE BORROWED MATERIALS TOGETHER. That was done AUTOMATICALLY--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make that machinery yourself, but you have NOT EVEN ANY COMMAND OVER IT.

I can possibly buy into your argument, but where does all original input come from?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

.All actions are self serveing first, whether they are relative to another individual or not.

http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html

How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?

[boagie]

Hi Irishcop,

I do not mean to lessen the importance of self-sacrifice either.I had intended to approach this from both the perspective of Mark Twain the said link no one is apparently willing to read and Schopenhaur's treatment of explaining what might over ride that prime directive self-survival.These story are inspireing but I shall check back in at a later time to see if anyone has been willing to read the inspirational link that started this thread.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?

kennethamy,

The link is provided I think five times throughout the thread and in the quote of me in your last post.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Irishcop

I had to edit this post, after reading your link, Boagie.

I see the point you are trying to make, and I'm big enough to admit I was wrong, by misinterpreting your meaning.

However.


I can possibly buy into your argument, but where does all original input come from?

Irishcop,

You could always put god there!,but I will hold him responsiable for the flaws in his work----------lol!