The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[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.

Even if, in fact, there were no altruistic behavior, it would not mean that all behavior was selfish behavior. For altruism and selfishness are not the only two alternatives. When I go to sleep at night because I am tired, that is neither altruistic nor is it selfish. I am not trying to benefit others, nor am I affecting any other person adversely by doing something at his expense.

And, even if altruistic behavior is accompanied by the pleasure of helping others, it is not self-interested behavior unless it is done in order, and with the purpose, of achieving pleasure by helping others. And, I may very well want to help someone simply because I pity him, and not in order to gain pleasure by helping him, even if when I help him I do gain pleasure.

In fact, if I help a person in order to gain pleasure by doing so that may prevent me from gaining pleasure from doing so, because it will mean that my helping him was done from self-interest, and thus I would be deprived of the pleasure of helping him. That is the paradox of trying to gain pleasure from acting from a selfish motive. If I succeed, then I will fail. It is a little bit like being good so that Santa will bring you presents. If that is why you are good, Santa will know, and not bring you presents.

[boagie]

A case for altrusim

http://blindedscience.blogspot.com:8...mily-ties.html

It would seem Schopenhaur's theory might hold even for the plant world.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Dexter78

I tend to agree that there is a selfish component in all human action, but I wonder if it is always to root cause. With charity, people may give $5 or $10, which is likely very little expense to themselves, and in return they get to feel good, and I would say that this is a fairly shallow, selfish act.

You make it sound as if before a person gives charity, he says to himself something like, "This is a pain, but I am going to do it, since I know after I do it, I will feel a rush. So, I'll do it for that feeling, although I really don't want to hand that beggar my 5 dollars. Why doesn't he go to work?" It may be that a person does feel good after he gives the charity, but do you think that people who give charity do so just because they expect to feel good after they do it? It seems to me that if someone was motivated in such a way, that it would be hard for him to feel good about giving charity, because he would know he did it only in order to feel good about it. Maybe some people operate that way, but I doubt very much that most people who give charity do. It sounds to me a little self-defeating. I know that if I did something for someone just in order for me to feel good, and not caring about the person I helped, I would not feel good about helping him, since I would then know I did it for self-interested reasons. (I think, by the way, that you are confusing self-interest with selfishness. Even if I do give money to a beggar in order to feel good about it, that is not being selfish, since I am not doing anything at the expense of another person. Certainly not the beggar).

[boagie]

This might help clear some confusion, although Twains little story is very good.Actually this fellow is not the most articulate but the link on psychological egoism should straighten out any problems of understanding,if not, Elvis has done left the building!


This is a continuation of an atheistic ethic that I’m arguing for.

I think there is an element of self-interest in almost every act we do, which is the position of modified psychological egoism, and might be better called "predominant egotism." I view altruistic acts and self-interested acts on a continuum,with one side representing acts that are almost completely self-interested ones, and the other side representing those acts we would call altruistic but which nearly all contain some self-interest in them. Let me present my case.

To show this let me take some of the toughest scenarios, then in a later post I'll deal with some objections to what I’m saying.

1) How do you deal with the obvious counterevidence against psychological egoism provided by, say, the firefighters on 9/11. What does it mean to say that their actions, which apparently resulted in their risking their lives for others, were really selfish?

In the first place I'm not saying their actions were selfish. As I argued earlier, I made a distinction between selfish acts and rational self-interested acts. Selfish acts do not gain a person happiness in the long run.

These firefighters have been trained to do a job. Their reputation is on the line. They have accepted the challenge of seeing how many people they can save. They did not think they would die in the process. Besides, people do risky behavior all of the time, most of it for fun. People enjoy taking risks and accepting challenges, especially if they can get paid for it. They also love the mutual respect from other firefighters (and policemen) for being a part of an organization that saves lifes.

Of course, some of them may have been operating from the delusion that God will reward them in heaven. But if this life is all there is, and we will die one way or another, then why not be remembered for doing great deeds? For the egoist that might be the only way for your life to count. If however, someone shirks in the face of responsibility, and saves his life while letting others die, he is known as a coward from that day onward. Sometimes in such a situation as this, it's better to die and be remembered as a great person than to live with the social shame and loss of employment in the only job said person ever wanted to do.

2) The "Freedom Rider" who went south to work for civil rights at the potential -- and actual -- risk of his life to benefit people he did not know, and in so doing expanding their own political power and rights, lessening his own or those of his family and friends.

What must be understood is that human beings enjoy a challenge. They enjoy fighting a good fight and winning, like any contest. They also have a need to belong. So they join causes to belong. Life would be boring if they didn’t. Those who fought and won can say they accomplished something great in this life. Why was this considered a good fight? Because whenever the rights of some people can be denied in a democracy then the rights of all people are at risk. Many of them did so because they had friends who were black, so it was personal with them. Many of them did so because they couldn’t stomach their own country. They might’ve thought, “If this was my country, and I am a part-owner of its policies, then I object to what I am allowing to happen, since I value freedom for all. I don’t like who I am for allowing it.” To deny anyone rights is to deny everyone's rights to some degree. It's about the kind of country they wanted to live in, and they valued the rights of everyone, because everyone includes themselves and their kin.

Why should they care about anyone else? Largely because they care for themselves. How many times have you heard that in order to love others you must first love yourself? Once people do care for themselves, in the rational self-interested sense I've previously argued for, they will quite naturally love others.

3) The soldier who sees the war he is fighting is lost, but who continues to fight on and even go on a 'suicide mission' out of a sense of honor or duty.

Once a soldier is in an army he gives up his rights to his own life. At that point he’s already committed to the possibility he might die. He was either forced into the army (in other countries) or he volunteered. If he volunteered he didn’t volunteer to die, although some volunteers are not acting rationally in that they just may want to die. He volunteered for the challenge. Some of these volunteers saw no better option, given the fact that they needed structure in their life and couldn’t do well out in a free society. Some wanted the hope of an education. Some are raised in military families who highly prize their service in defense of their country, so they might not know anything different. Seeing how his family highly values military service, he will probably do so as well. As a soldier he is also trained to follow orders and it’s terribly difficult to disobey such a command, since his mission may help save other soldiers in the field, and since being a deserter brings shame upon him and his family as a punishable crime. No one knows for sure it’s a suicide mission, either. And no one knows for sure the war is lost, since a soldier on the field doesn’t have all of the information needed to make that judgment. He’s defending his homeland, his family and his friends, even if the war is in fact “lost.” And since we are all going to die anyway, what better way to die than to be a hero, since being remembered well is the only thing a man has to live on after he dies.

4) The soldier who falls on a grenade to save his fox hole buddies.

Once the grenade hits the dirt this soldier is dead anyway, one way or another. If he chooses to run away, his life will never be the same, even if he does get lucky to save his own skin, and that's not sure. The guilt will be unbearable if he lives. Like Sophia in the movie "Sophia's Choice," she died the day she chose to save one of her children while letting the Nazi take the other one away. So why not do what the soldier was trained to do and save others by falling on the grenade? In the process he will be remembered as a hero, and by saving others who will continue to fight he will help protect those who will remember him back home.

5) Why should we care for pets? Because they give us pleasure. It makes us feel loved. They make us laugh. To hurt them is not acting rational. It would betray a hatred for oneself, and that’s not acting out of rational self-interest.



read more...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

This might help clear some confusion, although Twains little story is very good.Actually this fellow is not the most articulate but the link on psychological egoism should straighten out any problems of understanding,if not, Elvis has done left the building!


This is a continuation of an atheistic ethic that I’m arguing for.

I think there is an element of self-interest in almost every act we do, which is the position of modified psychological egoism, and might be better called "predominant egotism." I view altruistic acts and self-interested acts on a continuum,with one side representing acts that are almost completely self-interested ones, and the other side representing those acts we would call altruistic but which nearly all contain some self-interest in them. Let me present my case.

To show this let me take some of the toughest scenarios, then in a later post I'll deal with some objections to what I’m saying.

1) How do you deal with the obvious counterevidence against psychological egoism provided by, say, the firefighters on 9/11. What does it mean to say that their actions, which apparently resulted in their risking their lives for others, were really selfish?

In the first place I'm not saying their actions were selfish. As I argued earlier, I made a distinction between selfish acts and rational self-interested acts. Selfish acts do not gain a person happiness in the long run.

These firefighters have been trained to do a job. Their reputation is on the line. They have accepted the challenge of seeing how many people they can save. They did not think they would die in the process. Besides, people do risky behavior all of the time, most of it for fun. People enjoy taking risks and accepting challenges, especially if they can get paid for it. They also love the mutual respect from other firefighters (and policemen) for being a part of an organization that saves lifes.

Of course, some of them may have been operating from the delusion that God will reward them in heaven. But if this life is all there is, and we will die one way or another, then why not be remembered for doing great deeds? For the egoist that might be the only way for your life to count. If however, someone shirks in the face of responsibility, and saves his life while letting others die, he is known as a coward from that day onward. Sometimes in such a situation as this, it's better to die and be remembered as a great person than to live with the social shame and loss of employment in the only job said person ever wanted to do.

2) The "Freedom Rider" who went south to work for civil rights at the potential -- and actual -- risk of his life to benefit people he did not know, and in so doing expanding their own political power and rights, lessening his own or those of his family and friends.

What must be understood is that human beings enjoy a challenge. They enjoy fighting a good fight and winning, like any contest. They also have a need to belong. So they join causes to belong. Life would be boring if they didn’t. Those who fought and won can say they accomplished something great in this life. Why was this considered a good fight? Because whenever the rights of some people can be denied in a democracy then the rights of all people are at risk. Many of them did so because they had friends who were black, so it was personal with them. Many of them did so because they couldn’t stomach their own country. They might’ve thought, “If this was my country, and I am a part-owner of its policies, then I object to what I am allowing to happen, since I value freedom for all. I don’t like who I am for allowing it.” To deny anyone rights is to deny everyone's rights to some degree. It's about the kind of country they wanted to live in, and they valued the rights of everyone, because everyone includes themselves and their kin.

Why should they care about anyone else? Largely because they care for themselves. How many times have you heard that in order to love others you must first love yourself? Once people do care for themselves, in the rational self-interested sense I've previously argued for, they will quite naturally love others.

3) The soldier who sees the war he is fighting is lost, but who continues to fight on and even go on a 'suicide mission' out of a sense of honor or duty.

Once a soldier is in an army he gives up his rights to his own life. At that point he’s already committed to the possibility he might die. He was either forced into the army (in other countries) or he volunteered. If he volunteered he didn’t volunteer to die, although some volunteers are not acting rationally in that they just may want to die. He volunteered for the challenge. Some of these volunteers saw no better option, given the fact that they needed structure in their life and couldn’t do well out in a free society. Some wanted the hope of an education. Some are raised in military families who highly prize their service in defense of their country, so they might not know anything different. Seeing how his family highly values military service, he will probably do so as well. As a soldier he is also trained to follow orders and it’s terribly difficult to disobey such a command, since his mission may help save other soldiers in the field, and since being a deserter brings shame upon him and his family as a punishable crime. No one knows for sure it’s a suicide mission, either. And no one knows for sure the war is lost, since a soldier on the field doesn’t have all of the information needed to make that judgment. He’s defending his homeland, his family and his friends, even if the war is in fact “lost.” And since we are all going to die anyway, what better way to die than to be a hero, since being remembered well is the only thing a man has to live on after he dies.

4) The soldier who falls on a grenade to save his fox hole buddies.

Once the grenade hits the dirt this soldier is dead anyway, one way or another. If he chooses to run away, his life will never be the same, even if he does get lucky to save his own skin, and that's not sure. The guilt will be unbearable if he lives. Like Sophia in the movie "Sophia's Choice," she died the day she chose to save one of her children while letting the Nazi take the other one away. So why not do what the soldier was trained to do and save others by falling on the grenade? In the process he will be remembered as a hero, and by saving others who will continue to fight he will help protect those who will remember him back home.

5) Why should we care for pets? Because they give us pleasure. It makes us feel loved. They make us laugh. To hurt them is not acting rational. It would betray a hatred for oneself, and that’s not acting out of rational self-interest.



read more...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

It may be true that when people do good things for others that they feel good about it. But that does not mean that they do good things for other because they expect to feel good about it. If they did good things in order to feel good about it, then they might be justly excused of acting selfishly But I think it is important to distinguish carefully between doing good things for others and feeling good as a consequence, and doing good things for others, and doing them so as to feel good as the result of doing good for others. But, anyway, why is it selfish to do good for others even in order to feel good about it? How can a person act selfishly when what he does does not affect others adversely, nor done at the expense of others? And, after all, isn't that what the word "selfish" means?

You seem to think that it is part of the definition of the word "selfish" that unless it brings happiness to the agent, the action is not selfish. But I wonder why you think that? Don't you think that there can be stupidly selfish actions which are done at the expense of others, which are miscalculated, and boomerang on the agent? Suppose, to take a trivial example, I try to get in front of a person who is standing on a line. Isn't that a selfish action. And if I am caught doing it, and I am, as a punishment, not permitted to stand on that line, does that make the action of trying to get in front of the person any the less selfish?

[boagie]

kennethamy,
You seem to not want to let go of this problem in semantics,it has been beaten to death,if you still don't get it, let it go! I still get the feeling you have not read what the thread was based upon.I must admit I get the same feeling about your previous responses to my posts,you do have to read a fellow associate's posts in order to understand. If you do not read and do not understand,do not respond.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,
You seem to not want to let go of this problem in semantics,it has been beaten to death,if you still don't get it, let it go! I still get the feeling you have not read what the thread was based upon.I must admit I get the same feeling about your previous responses to my posts,you do have to read a fellow associate's posts in order to understand. If you do not read and do not understand,do not respond.

Well, you use the word "selfish" in a way it is not used in English. So I have to point that out. You are not empowered to use words as you please. Words have meanings. Your defenses of psychological egoism are poor because they confuse several different things. You confuse doing something and deriving satisfaction from it with doing something so as to derive satisfaction from it. And only the latter makes an action self-interested. And then, you confuse selfishness with self-interest. In English, someone is selfish only if he does something at the expense of others. Something he is not entitled to do. You do not seem to realize this. And even if you don't understand this, others, who may be reading this thread, should be reminded of that.

Apparently, you do not tolerated criticism very well. But, in that case, I suggest that you initiate a site of your own where you can simply spout you view without fear of criticism. Since Socrates philosophers have been talking about the meanings of words. Why do you think they should stop now?

[boagie]

kennethamy,

Let it go!! Everyone understands the semantic problem.Do you wish to make this semantic problem the topic from here on out.If so,start another thread and list it as your topic.It has been beaten sorely to death,take the time and a shovel,and bury it.If you must kick it some more,open another thread.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

Let it go!! Everyone understands the semantic problem.Do you wish to make this semantic problem the topic from here on out.If so,start another thread and list it as your topic.It has been beaten sorely to death,take the time and a shovel,and bury it.If you must kick it some more,open another thread.

The problem is whether all action is selfish. And that is about whether the term "selfish" ought to be applied to all actions. The answer is clearly, no. One reason is that although people may gain satisfaction from their actions, some people do not do that action in order to gain satisfaction. And for the action to be selfish, the person has to do that action in order to gain satisfaction. And, a second reason is that a selfish action must be done at the expense of other people affecting them adversely. But many actions, even if they gain satisfaction for the agent, and even if they are done in order to gain satisfaction for the agent, do not affect any other person adversely, nor are they done at the expense of any other person. Therefore, those actions are not selfish actions.

I do believe you confused "semantics" with logic. Is it that you do not like logic? Then you ought to get out of philosophy and do something else. Maybe you would be happier being a juggler. I would let it go. But I think you may persuade people, and since you are clearly mistaken, you should not be able to do so. Now, calling arguments "semantics" may persuade those who are not very sharp, but will not, I hope persuade those who are clear-headed. Sematics, you know, is only about the meaning of words. And since you insist on using words, I have no choice but to talk about their meanings. I am sure you will understand-eventually.

By the way, I note that you receive very few (if any) replies except for mine. Would you prefer to talk to yourself?

[boagie]

You truely are a thread killer--------stay away from me --clear enough?