The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

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.

kennethamy,

I think in considering action one must assume the subject is moved within before moving without,so what is it that moves this individual from within to over ride through his actions the prime directive? Even in more mundane circumstances ones actions towards a compassionate act for another may well depend upon that individuals beliefs about themselves.If they consider themselves compassionate individuals,then,something must be done at this given time to maintain that belief.If one refuses food to the hungry how could one maintain such a stance.There is time for this mental operation in the more mundane examples of kindness.I remember myself one time giving into a panhandler who in all probablity was feeding me a well prepared line,but it was more painful refuseing than giveing into someone at least in poorer circumstances than my own.These examples of kindness are not quite like an example of sacrifice,it really is a matter of degree.As compassion is the bases of all morality so to identification with, is the bases of all compassion.

Just as often as not, the act of self-sacrifice is done for complete strangers in grave circumstances.There has to be some means of understanding this.As is often stated by the heros in these cases,there was no time to think,so what happened,Schopenhaur says it is a metaphysical breakthrough,space and time which generally informs us of our separateness,is broken and you and other are one,subject and object are one.In the more mundane examples there is a logic which is very understandable and which was put forward in Mark Twains,"What Is Man." Self-sacrifice you might say is the ultimate example of identification with,ultimate compassion.The term hero is often misused in this culture,often applied to someone sick or fallen, someone who does another a great kindness,the term is very freely used.Our sense of the hero is properly when the individual self-sacrifice,is sacrificed to the group,to other.This in my thinking does not diminish the sarifice but simply underlines a greater reality,one only those who have made the sacrifice can claim to have touched.



Schopenhaur:"The Foundations Of Morality"
Mark Twain:"What Is Man."

[Justin]

Boagie makes a good point!

"From his cradle to his grave a man never does a single thing which has any FIRST AND FOREMOST object but one- to secure peace of mind, spiritual comfort for himself." - Mark Twain

Twain further explains that there is no sacrifice to big for the master inside of us. Our spirit, will sacrifice our body to have peace of mind and spiritual contentment.

Consider the Navy man who jumps on a grenade to save harm to his fellow officers. The act may have looked to be selfless but if he had not done this his spirit would have suffered great discomfort.

Deep inside of man is his spirit. His body and his spirit are separate and apart. The spirit (the ether and energy), which is the essence of man, controls the body of man. Whether we realize it or not, our spirit is eternal and our spirit knows this. Therefore, the sacrificing of the body for the contentment of the spirit is not as heroic as we may tend to believe.

Our consciences take no notice of pain inflicted upon others until it reaches a point where it gives pain to us. In all cases without exception we are absolutely indifferent to another person's pain until his sufferings make us uncomfortable. - Mark Twain "What is Man?"

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Justin

Consider the Navy man who jumps on a grenade to save harm to his fellow officers. The act may have looked to be selfless but if he had not done this his spirit would have suffered great discomfort.

And so you think that the Seal said to himself, "I guess I am going to feel very uncomfortable unless I kill myself, so I think I'll kill myself so that I won't feel uncomfortable then"? How come, do you think, that the others didn't think that way? Maybe they wouldn't feel quite so uncomfortable if they didn't kill themselves, or what? I, myself, think it would be pretty uncomfortable to blow myself up, but that's just me, I guess.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

And so you think that the Seal said to himself, "I guess I am going to feel very uncomfortable unless I kill myself, so I think I'll kill myself so that I won't feel uncomfortable then"? How come, do you think, that the others didn't think that way? Maybe they wouldn't feel quite so uncomfortable if they didn't kill themselves, or what? I, myself, think it would be pretty uncomfortable to blow myself up, but that's just me, I guess.

Actually, no I don't. It's something that happened in an instant. There was probably no rational thoughts involved because the spirit could do no other during that instant. In Twains book, the spirit can do none other than seek peace of mind and spiritual contentment.

Why the others didn't think of it or do it, I don't know. You'd have to go all the way back to birth and understand the thoughts and languages and the basic spiritual building of the mans being. Why do most people separate themselves from their spirit? Why do most people not even realize they are spiritual beings living in a body? Lots of questions....

You said you would feel uncomfortable blowing yourself up and I have to disagree with you. What if a child was near? You blew yourself up and saved the child. Would your spirit be content? Sure it would because you did what would bring your spirit peace of mind and contentment. Now what if you had the chance to do something to save this child but you didn't do it and the child died? Then what... would your spirit be content then? Maybe people where there and they seen you had the opportunity to act but didn't... would this cause spiritual discomfort? What if the story made the news and reporters were talking about how the boy could have been saved but heroism and sacrifice wasn't shown by the person nearest.... Would your spirit be subject to great discomfort then? If the spiritual discomfort became something you couldn't live with, you'd more than likely take your own life...

Basically Twain is saying that if the spirit is uncomfortable, it's going to do only that which eases the discomfort. If that means suicide or a heroic sacrifice, our spirit will sacrifice our body without second guessing.

Spirit is eternal and our bodies are not. If we do something to our spirit that makes it uncomfortable, it has to live with whatever has been done for eternity. The body is a simple shell that is here today and gone tomorrow and forgotten soon after.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by chad3006

A great book on this topic is from one of my favorites--Mark Twain. It's called What is Man? You can get a free ebook version here. An example of a seeminly selfless act from the book is: If a man jumps into the water to save another, he's really acting selfishly because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't. So, he's essentially acting to please his own nature. Twain's version is more eloquent, of course, so I encourage anyone interested in this subject to give it a read.

I wonder how Twain doesn't know that the man's nature is unselfish?

[TK421]

*jumping in, without having read all of the previous posts*:

"Selfishness" is the act of satisfying one's own needs or desires at the expense of another's and usually implies morally reprehensible behavior.

Originally Posted by [B

chad3006][/b]An example of a seeminly selfless act from the book is: If a man jumps into the water to save another, he's really acting selfishly because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't. So, he's essentially acting to please his own nature.

Even if our would-be savior didn't have a choice, which is debatable, and risks his life simply "to please his own nature", it does not follow that the act was selfish. Clearly, those aspects of his nature which he can't help but satisfy are selfless. Claiming that the man was selfish in acting to please his selfless nature just doesn't make sense.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by TK421

*jumping in, without having read all of the previous posts*:

"Selfishness" is the act of satisfying one's own needs or desires at the expense of another's and usually implies morally reprehensible behavior.



Even if our would-be savior didn't have a choice, which is debatable, and risks his life simply "to please his own nature", it does not follow that the act was selfish. Clearly, those aspects of his nature which he can't help but satisfy are selfless. Claiming that the man was selfish in acting to please his selfless nature just doesn't make sense.

TK421,

Actually, you raise again a difficulty of the past in this thread, one of a problem with semantics. When someone takes advantage of another for their own material gain it is said to be selfish, when one reaches for a glass of water to quench their thirst it is said to be selfish, self-serveing ect..,. According to Mark Twain's, "What Is Man", most every action one can think about is in this class of the self-serveing principle,even when it is not immediately apparent.Actually if you re-read this thread and straighten out for yourself this small problem of semantic it would be most appreciated. For such a small problem, it has cause much disruption-------------Thanks TK421!!!!!!!!

[TK421]

I see that Kennethamy has already explored one of the points I just made. Apologies. On the issue of semantics, very few, if any, philosophical arguments will not at some point break down into a battle over the meanings of the words we use. Semantics is a huge, inescapable part of philosophy.


So if we replace the thesis of this thread "All Actions are Inherently Selfish" with "All Actions are Inherently Self-Interested", we have a much more solid conclusion which proves trickier to refute. Looking again at the case of self-sacrifice, probably the best representative of selfless acts, those who claim that the man who, at great peril, swam to the other, drowning man's aide, benefits greater from the act than if he'd not risked his life (the capacity to live with himself thereafter - or, simply, that it makes him feel good), agrue therefore that the act was self-interested rather than selfless.

Hmm. I think my argument stands even if we replace the morally loaded "selfish" with the more neutral "self-interested". Here it is again, slightly modified:

Even if our would-be savior didn't have a choice, which is debatable, and risks his life simply "to please his own nature", it does not follow that the act was entirely self-interested. Clearly, the characteristics of his nature which drove him to save the drowning man are selfless. Claiming that the man was self-interested in acting according to these selfless features of his character just doesn't make sense.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by TK421

I see that Kennethamy has already explored one of the points I just made. Apologies. On the issue of semantics, very few, if any, philosophical arguments will not at some point break down into a battle over the meanings of the words we use. Semantics is a huge, inescapable part of philosophy.


So if we replace the thesis of this thread "All Actions are Inherently Selfish" with "All Actions are Inherently Self-Interested", we have a much more solid conclusion which proves trickier to refute. Looking again at the case of self-sacrifice, probably the best representative of selfless acts, those who claim that the man who, at great peril, swam to the other, drowning man's aide, benefits greater from the act than if he'd not risked his life (the capacity to live with himself thereafter - or, simply, that it makes him feel good), agrue therefore that the act was self-interested rather than selfless.

Hmm. I think my argument stands even if we replace the morally loaded "selfish" with the more neutral "self-interested". Here it is again, slightly modified:

Even if our would-be savior didn't have a choice, which is debatable, and risks his life simply "to please his own nature", it does not follow that the act was entirely self-interested. Clearly, the characteristics of his nature which drove him to save the drowning man are selfless. Claiming that the man was self-interested in acting according to these selfless features of his character just doesn't make sense.

A many would be loony on the score of just rational cost-benefit analysis to risk death (for heaven's sakes) just so that he can avoid the discomfort of a guilty conscience (which is probably unjustified) thereafter. Can you imagine the man arguing with himself: "if I don't risk my life, the discomfort will be very great. So I'll risk the probability of death". It is preposterous.

[TK421]

Yeah, I think if we can conceive of a situation where an atheist risks her life to save another's, knowing or believing that she will die in the attempt, the notion that all actions are purely self-interested becomes suspect. I doubt anyone would disagree that the above example is possible and if we admit the possibility the theory collapses.


An additional problem with the view that all actions are fundamentally selfish is the implication that all actions are also fundamentally immoral. If all actions are fundamentally immoral, then all actions should be condemned. I can't imagine anyone seriously holding this position. Of course, we could alter the meaning of the word "selfish" but, as has already been discussed, arbitrarily changing the meaning of words in an argument undermines the purpose of philosophy. To give a very simple illustration, it's something akin to arguing that "good" really is "evil", after having changed the meaning of the word "good" to mean "evil", for no sensible reason (I don't believe this numbers among the official fallacies, though it seems as if it should).

But "selfishness" has already had the snot beaten out of it and I only raised it's bludgeoned corpse to draw attention to a further problem with the claim that all actions are fundamentally self-interested. Reaching for a glass of water to satiate your thirst is not selfish (assuming of course that the action does not negatively impact another) as it is an amoral act. Acts which are purely self-interested are acts which are purely amoral. Holding that all actions are self-interested robs all actions of any sort of potential moral dimension and we lose the system which allows us to praise or condemn actions in a way that we clearly need (which actions deserve condemnation or praise is another matter).