The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[Didymos Thomas]

I still do not see how Mr. Fight the Power's argument is convincing. Equating "will" with selfishness does not seem to be accurate; unless someone can explain why I cannot will that I act on behalf of another, even if my own interests are compromised, I don't see the argument having much success.

If you are going to try to argue that I cannot will myself to act in a way that disregards my own interests, for the sake of another, I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I still do not see how Mr. Fight the Power's argument is convincing. Equating "will" with selfishness does not seem to be accurate; unless someone can explain why I cannot will that I act on behalf of another, even if my own interests are compromised, I don't see the argument having much success.

If you are going to try to argue that I cannot will myself to act in a way that disregards my own interests, for the sake of another, I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this.

Didymos,

If your action is in serves to another, is other, then in charge of your will? No, premeditation and action are functions of ones understanding and ones own will. Who or what is it some of you imagine takes over--------divine intervention? I suggest you ponder Mr Fight The Powers posts. Again function is the priority here not content, it does not matter what the stimulus be, the process of premeditation and action belongs to the understanding and will of our hero. If this does not makes sense to you, you tell me how this then comes about, if it is not the action/s of our hero that satisfy his will, what modivates and what then acts to fulfill our hero's will.


"If you are going to try to argue that I cannot will myself to act in a way that disregards my own interests, for the sake of another, I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this.quote

If you make yourself act in a way that disreguards your own apparent interests, is that not your will doing the disreguarding action, is that not now your interest. You see, you cannot escape responsibility for your own actions.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Lync

If, for a moment, I were to assume that all actions are selfish, it is clear to me that there are some selfish acts which help (aka by some as altruism), and some which harm, and some (probably most) which are neutral.

But why would you call actions done in order to help others "selfish"?
Such actions are the very opposite of selfish, as the word is used in English.

If you can call actions done in order to help others at the doer's expense "selfish", I guess I can call actions done which harm others in order to aid the doer "altruistic". Is that all right with you?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I provided a long proof of a tautology.

Human action is an expression of one's own ends, no other conception of human action is fathomable.

From there the definition of human action can be shown to exclude true altruism, that is acting towards another's ends. Only a weak form of altruism, where one's ends are coincidental with another's, can exist.

I agree. And actions whose which express one's end to help others, even at one's own expense are altruistic. And actions which express one's own end, but which do not affect others are only self-interested (such as my urinating when I feel the urge) are quite morally neutral, and neither selfish nor altruistic. But why anyone should think that if my goal is to help others, and do it even at my own expense, that my action is selfish, is what is unfathomable.

[Didymos Thomas]

If your action is in serves to another, is other, when in charge of your will? No, premeditation and action is the function of ones understanding and ones own will. Who or what is it some of you imagine takes over--------divine intervention?

What needs to take over? Why is it impossible for me to act for the sake of another?

Again function is the priority here not content, it does not matter what the stimulus be, the process of premeditation and action belongs to the understanding and will of our hero. If this does not makes sense to you, you tell me how this then comes about, if it is not the action/s of our hero that satisfy his will, what modivates and what then acts to fulfill our hero's will.

Again, I'm not sure why this gives support to the notion that all actions are selfish actions. I understand, the individual acts, acts on his own will, but what prevents his will from being selfless?

If you make yourself act in a way that disreguards your own apparent interests, is that not your will doing the disreguarding action, is that not now your interest. You see, you cannot escape responseability for your own actions.

I'm not arguing against personal responsibility. I think I can will myself to act contrary to my own interests. If I can, then not all actions are selfish.

It is "I" who acts, but "I" can act in a way that is in the interests, as best "I" can tell, of another, even if this action "I" take is of no benefit, or of harm, to "me".

To say 'all action is X' where X is any motivation is a statement that cannot be demonstrated. You have no way to contest my claim if I say 'I dropped a dollar into the Salvation Army bucket out of compassion for my fellow man'. At best you can make wild suggestions about what things, other than compassion, could motivate someone to act such a way.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

What needs to take over? Why is it impossible for me to act for the sake of another?



Again, I'm not sure why this gives support to the notion that all actions are selfish actions. I understand, the individual acts, acts on his own will, but what prevents his will from being selfless?



I'm not arguing against personal responsibility. I think I can will myself to act contrary to my own interests. If I can, then not all actions are selfish.

It is "I" who acts, but "I" can act in a way that is in the interests, as best "I" can tell, of another, even if this action "I" take is of no benefit, or of harm, to "me".

To say 'all action is X' where X is any motivation is a statement that cannot be demonstrated. You have no way to contest my claim if I say 'I dropped a dollar into the Salvation Army bucket out of compassion for my fellow man'. At best you can make wild suggestions about what things, other than compassion, could motivate someone to act such a way.

Of course people will to act contrary to their interests. Some actor just died from a drug overdose doing exactly that. In fact, as Joseph Butler once put it, it is not so much as that people act always in their own self-interest that is a problem, as it is that people so seldom act in their own self-interest. The world would be a much better place if they did.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Lync

Ok, here I go…diving into an active philosophical fray with no qualifications whatsoever.

I love the internet.

If, for a moment, I were to assume that all actions are selfish, it is clear to me that there are some selfish acts which help (aka by some as altruism), and some which harm, and some (probably most) which are neutral. The overall tendency of these acts it would appear depends upon the wiring of the brain of the person performing the act. This wiring I think is being variably referred to as one’s moral code, one’s social indoctrination, one’s temperament, etc.. The question for me, then, comes down to what is the origin of one’s selfish nature. Do identical twins possess the same tendencies toward help or harm? Kids of the same socioeconomic and cultural upbringing? Old people? Young? Those raised in religious households, or not? Etc..

This is almost certainly a multifactorial trait, subject to genetic predisposition and environmental/experiential influences…but is there something else? Something even more fundamental than genetic code and up-bringing…oops, I’ve just switched topics and fallen into the “Free Choice” debate. Sorry…

Gosh, this is fun. Do you people have jobs?

First I would recommend reading The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. It deals specifically with the questions you are asking, i.e. the roles that nature and upbringing play in determining our our dispositions, abilities, and behavior.

Another good book to read would be The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It explains how seemingly altruistic phenotypes could come from a system of evolution and genetics that is inherently competitive and selfish. It would also introduce you to the concept of memetics.

In the end, I think that it is quite plain that there are innate mental functions that guide us to "moral"/"altruistic action, although to call this "moral" or "altruistic" is kind of a misuse of the terms, and there are certainly cultural factors (although these are powerful only for other genetic predispositions) that also trigger behavior that the rest of society would consider morally acceptable.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I still do not see how Mr. Fight the Power's argument is convincing. Equating "will" with selfishness does not seem to be accurate; unless someone can explain why I cannot will that I act on behalf of another, even if my own interests are compromised, I don't see the argument having much success.

If you are going to try to argue that I cannot will myself to act in a way that disregards my own interests, for the sake of another, I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this.

Can you fathom a will an intention that is not generated from our own values and interests? Certainly if our will or intent rests with someone else's ends, we must admit that their ends are the same as our own.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I agree. And actions whose which express one's end to help others, even at one's own expense are altruistic. And actions which express one's own end, but which do not affect others are only self-interested (such as my urinating when I feel the urge) are quite morally neutral, and neither selfish nor altruistic. But why anyone should think that if my goal is to help others, and do it even at my own expense, that my action is selfish, is what is unfathomable.

It depends entirely on what you consider to be "my own expense". I personally do not see how, if I am achieving my own ends through my actions, I can be costing myself anything but contrary opportunity which I value less.

It is true that actions can be altruistic, I admitted that. However, this altruism is weak and ultimately self-interested, and cannot be moral, and that is the real crux of the issue.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

First I would recommend reading The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. It deals specifically with the questions you are asking, i.e. the roles that nature and upbringing play in determining our our dispositions, abilities, and behavior.

Another good book to read would be The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It explains how seemingly altruistic phenotypes could come from a system of evolution and genetics that is inherently competitive and selfish. It would also introduce you to the concept of memetics.

In the end, I think that it is quite plain that there are innate mental functions that guide us to "moral"/"altruistic action, although to call this "moral" or "altruistic" is kind of a misuse of the terms, and there are certainly cultural factors (although these are powerful only for other genetic predispositions) that also trigger behavior that the rest of society would consider morally acceptable.

Would either book show that people (not genes) do not sometimes act contrary to their own interests in order to help others. How would it do that? Why would it be a misuse of the term, "altruistic" to say of such people that they are-altruistic? That is exactly what "altruistic" means. Look it up. I simply do not understand how someone can say that a word does not mean what it means, but means something quite different, and if anyone uses the word to mean what it means, that person is misusing that word. It simply makes no sense at all.