The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

I was just about to kill it...thanks Justin.

There's no debating Twain's brilliance as a writer or storyteller, but when it comes to his philosophies on life, he did have a few opinions that were quite ahead of his time and therefore was more than likely misquoted on several occasions due to the political nature of some of his topics.
He may have been on course with the selfless acts idea though.

There have been many stories of people doing great heroic deeds of selfless nature, and many of them are truly selfless...but I wonder how many of them were done by people who were simply trying to martyr themselves, thereby making a selfish act out of a selfless one?

Unless one had some real knowledge of why these people acted as they did, such speculation would be exactly that, mere speculation. I might very well equally wonder how many people who believed that they were acting selfishly were really, unconsciously, acting selflessly. But I wonder how realistic it would be to suppose that the Navy Seal who fell on the grenade, and thereby was killed, but saved the lives of his companions was thinking something like, "Well, let's see. If I blow myself up, I will be a martyr, and (do what?) go to heaven"? Suppose you found out he was not religious. Would that change your mind? Wouldn't it really depend on the facts of the case whether it was reasonable to think that such a person was "making a selfish act out of a selfless act" and if the only facts were that a person who was not particularly religious acted like that Navy Seal, then on the basis of the evidence, we would have to judge that a selfless act. I would suspect someone who, contrary to the evidence, did not do so of having a theory which he would wind around the facts.

[Aristoddler]

Finding out someone was religious or atheist would make no difference to me personally.
Your example of the SEAL on the grenade is good, and I understand what you're saying. I wasn't stating that all acts are selfish, I was merely stating that many selfish acts are misperceived as being selfless for various reasons.

Personally, I find acts based on religion to be more selfish than others in many occurrences.
Doing the will of your god(s) to gain favour with that deity is
selfish in many cases, is it not?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

Finding out someone was religious or atheist would make no difference to me personally.
Your example of the SEAL on the grenade is good, and I understand what you're saying. I wasn't stating that all acts are selfish, I was merely stating that many selfish acts are misperceived as being selfless for various reasons.

Personally, I find acts based on religion to be more selfish than others in many occurrences.
Doing the will of your god(s) to gain favour with that deity is
selfish in many cases, is it not?

Well, as Kant said, moral actions may very well mask self-interest. But he believed that a test (but, by no means an infallible test) for whether someone is acting morally ("for the sake of duty") is whether he acts contrary to his self-interest. And the Navy Seal certainly did that. So his action is prima facie moral. I suppose that means that the presumption has to be that the Seal acted morally. In other words, that presumption can, of course, be defeated, but it stands until it is defeated by other evidence. (Just as the legal presumption of innocence can be defeated, and sometimes, of course, is defeated) but it stands until it is defeated.

Doing the will of God to gain favor with Him would, of course, be self-interested, but hardly selfish unless the action affected others in some adverse way, for instance deprived them of something to which they were entitled. But self-interested action does not seem to me selfish as such. Of course, no one should get any moral medals for doing what is in his interest. But why should he get a moral demerit unless the affect was an adverse one? Maybe God will not be impressed. But let's "leave [the person] to heaven". As Bishop Joseph Butler once pointed out, it isn't that people are self-interested that makes them immoral, but that they are not self-interested enough. We can often get people to do what they ought to do just by appealing to their self-interest.

""It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Adam Smith.

[Aristoddler]

Kant's teachings were debunked in the 40's I believe.
But good points, regardless.

[boagie]

In trying to develop the view of what constitutes selfishness and what constitutes sacrifice,it was intended that Mark Twains views on what modivates us to action and Schopenhaurs view on self-sacrifice and morality in general would be developed.However this seemed to rub against the grain of several people here.It has been mentioned else where that Dawkins idea of the selfish gene would prove Schopenhaur wrong,and that we are not really selfish,our genes are selfish.In fact,in realizeing that subject and object are one,that you as subject and other as object are one,self-sacrifice here is necessarily selfish,the concept now incorporates other[object]in your identification with other[object]you are saveing yourself.If the ultimate self is our genes then so be it,it is genes identifing with genes--still works for me.If indeed that is the mystical reality, that as with subject and object all are one,that would put selfishness into a totally different perspective wouldn't it.

[Aristoddler]

It's difficult to provide an example of true selflessness when you're speaking of a creature who's most basic instinct is self-preservation.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

It's difficult to provide an example of true selflessness when you're speaking of a creature who's most basic instinct is self-preservation.

Aristoddler,

Excellent point,but that is where Schopenhaurs concept of what is happening when someone sacrifices themselves for another might come in,what is it the over rides that prime directive.The act itself of sacrifice is not a rational decision,a value judgement,at this point of identifing with, you are just taken,it is not willed.Think for a moment of all the hero's interviewed after that fact and they tell you,there was not time to think,indeed if they had time to consider that prime directive,they probably would not have done it.It is an act of the heart not of the head.

[Aristoddler]

Now we're getting somewhere!

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

Now we're getting somewhere!

Aristoddler,

The same priciple which enables self-sacrifice is the same principle in action which is labled compassion.Every religious tradition has as it corner stone compassion,you are instructed to be compassionate but seldom if ever are you told what compassion is. Only recently has it become obvious that compassion is not the soul property of humanity but is found also in the animal world.At the point of self-sacrifice Schopenhaur states it is a metaphysical breakthrough,time and space which inform us of our separateness, separateness of I and other is overcome in a heartbeat.In that heartbeat the concept of self is expanded to include other,so the concept now embraces subject and object,you and other are one,the sacrifice is to this larger self,and that is where it can be termed selfish.

An individual unable to identify itself with the self of another is devoid of compassion,and is termed I believe a psychopath.To the psychopath this quality of compassion is a mystery and a weakness,something to be taken advantage of.This process for lack of a better word,is so common we take it for granted,Schopenhaur goes on to say,you can see it everyday in the small careing things people do for each other throughout the day.I suppose it is just a matter of degree from this ordinary careing to self-sacrifice,at the point of self-sacrifice momentarily perhaps, this is the reality you and the other are one,and that is the metaphysical breakthrough.Mark Twains take on what modivates us to action is indeed self-interest,but through this process of identification with, taken to its ultimate,vanquishes our separate self-interest and makes it a common self-interest,without this in some degree I do not believe human society or societies in general would come about.Any additional thoughts out 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.

Isn't the fact that helping others makes a person feel good, significant? Maybe it shows that his motive in helping others in not to feel good, but rather it is simply to help others and in doing so, he also feels good.Why must it be that his motive is to feel good? Why isn't that possible too? After all, it isn't really fair cynically to say that Joe helped Bill only so that he would feel good, when, in fact, Joe helped Bill because he just wanted to help Bill, and just as a result, because Joe is such a good guy, Joe felt good. How, after all, do you know that account of what happened, wasn't true? And, then, too, doesn't it depend on what it was that Joe did to help Bill. Maybe he helped Bill just so he, Joe, could feel good, when Joe gave Bill a ride when Bill's car was being repaired. That didn't inconvenience Joe all that much, and, so, his feeling good as a result of helping Bill might well outbalance the negative feeling of being inconvenienced. But, suppose Joe helped Bill out by going in front of Bill when someone was shooting at Bill, and taking the bullet for Bill. Is it then plausible to say that Joe took the bullet for Bill in order to feel good about helping Bill? Isn't that different? So, although it might be plausible in some cases to say that Joe helped Bill in order for him to feel good, in other cases it becomes very implausible.