The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Just as if the act were really murder, we could not justify it, so we would not call the act "murder", so if the act were really selfish, we could not justify it, and so not call it "selfish". It the soldier has chosen not to sacrifice himself, that would not have been selfish since he was under no obligation to sacrifice himself. He would then have behaved as his companions did, who did not sacrifice themselves either. And none of them would have been selfish for not doing that. The soldier, like his companions, would have acted self-interestedly. But on what ground would you have called him "selfish"? I don't see what you have in mind by your question about calling the soldier "unselfish". Unselfish for what? "Selfish" is a term of blame. That is what the dictionary indicates.

By the way, if might be helpful to distinguish between "justifying" and "excusing". One can sometimes "excuse" a bad action by giving extenuating circumstances for its being done. For instance, I may spill soup on you because I was careless. But when I give an excuse I am admitting that what I did was wrong. I am not justifying the action. To justify the action would be to insist that it was the right, and not, the wrong thing to do under the circumstances. So, to return to my illustration about spilling the soup on you, I am excusing myself when I say that I was careless (and sorry). The point of making the excuse, of course, is to point out that I did not spill the soup on you intentionally, so my action was not so bad as it would have been had I intentionally spilled the soup on you. It may not be much of an excuse, of course, since I should have been more careful, but at least I did not do it intentionally, and that is something.

First, I agree that ethical statements imply an obligation, and by definition murder implies an obligation. You cannot invoke the concept of murder without also saying one shouldn't murder. However, at no point in the definition that you provided for selfishness is there any mention of an obligation. It only mentions a disregard for others, and one can certainly invoke the concept of selfishness without saying one shouldn't be selfish.

Murder = wrongful death = obligation not to murder

Selfishness = Disregard for others + Argument for why disregard is wrong = Obligation not to be selfish.

Murder is inherently wrong, selfishness needs further argumentation.

For clarity, answer these two questions:

1. Why is murder wrong?

2. Why is selfishness wrong?

Also, let us expand on my question. When does the soldier become selfish, when he loses a leg, when he fails to save 10,000 other soldiers?

If the soldier saves his own life at the expense of 10,000 other soldiers, how can that not be considered selfish?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

First, I agree that ethical statements imply an obligation, and by definition murder implies an obligation. You cannot invoke the concept of murder without also saying one shouldn't murder. However, at no point in the definition that you provided for selfishness is there any mention of an obligation. It only mentions a disregard for others, and one can certainly invoke the concept of selfishness without saying one shouldn't be selfish.

Murder = wrongful death = obligation not to murder

Selfishness = Disregard for others + Argument for why disregard is wrong = Obligation not to be selfish.

Murder is inherently wrong, selfishness needs further argumentation.

For clarity, answer these two questions:

1. Why is murder wrong?

2. Why is selfishness wrong?

Also, let us expand on my question. When does the soldier become selfish, when he loses a leg, when he fails to save 10,000 other soldiers?

If the soldier saves his own life at the expense of 10,000 other soldiers, how can that not be considered selfish?

Can you really mean that there is no obligation not to disregard other people in the pursuit of your own goals? It is the violation of this obligation that makes selfishness wrong.

A soldier is not under any special obligation to sacrifice his life for his companions. Where did you get the idea that he is? Just as you are not under any special obligation to provide a kidney to someone you do not know for a transplant to save his life.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Can you really mean that there is no obligation not to disregard other people in the pursuit of your own goals? It is the violation of this obligation that makes selfishness wrong.

A soldier is not under any special obligation to sacrifice his life for his companions. Where did you get the idea that he is? Just as you are not under any special obligation to provide a kidney to someone you do not know for a transplant to save his life.

Did you even read my post?

I only said there is no obligation inherent to the word "selfish". If your moral sentiments lead you to believe people should not be selfish, that is fine, but don't confuse your morality with the definitions of words.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

First, I agree that ethical statements imply an obligation, and by definition murder implies an obligation. You cannot invoke the concept of murder without also saying one shouldn't murder. However, at no point in the definition that you provided for selfishness is there any mention of an obligation. It only mentions a disregard for others, and one can certainly invoke the concept of selfishness without saying one shouldn't be selfish.

Murder = wrongful death = obligation not to murder

Selfishness = Disregard for others + Argument for why disregard is wrong = Obligation not to be selfish.

Murder is inherently wrong, selfishness needs further argumentation.

For clarity, answer these two questions:

1. Why is murder wrong?

2. Why is selfishness wrong?

Also, let us expand on my question. When does the soldier become selfish, when he loses a leg, when he fails to save 10,000 other soldiers?

If the soldier saves his own life at the expense of 10,000 other soldiers, how can that not be considered selfish?

Of course that depends on how the soldier does it. But, if you have in mind simply that the soldier does not sacrifice his life to save others, then the soldier is not being selfish, since the soldier has no obligation to do such a thing. You seem to be, once more, confusing selfishness, which is to take something (or in the present case, keep something) to which the person is not entitled to have at the expense of others, with self-interest, which is taking something (or, as in the present case keep something) to which someone is entitled to keep. Every person is entitled to keep his life and not give up for the benefit of another. If he does, then that would be an altruistic action, and there is no moral obligation to be altruistic. I think we need to distinguish among: altruism, self-interest, and, selfishness.

Murder is wrong because we have a positive obligation not to destroy the lives of other human being (although, in certain cases, e.g. self-defense, this obligation can be defeated) and selfishness is wrong because we have a positive obligation not to gain that to which we are not entitled at the expense of others.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Of course that depends on how the soldier does it. But, if you have in mind simply that the soldier does not sacrifice his life to save others, then the soldier is not being selfish, since the soldier has no obligation to do such a thing. You seem to be, once more, confusing selfishness, which is to take something (or in the present case, keep something) to which the person is not entitled to have at the expense of others, with self-interest, which is taking something (or, as in the present case keep something) to which someone is entitled to keep. Every person is entitled to keep his life and not give up for the benefit of another. If he does, then that would be an altruistic action, and there is no moral obligation to be altruistic. I think we need to distinguish among: altruism, self-interest, and, selfishness.

Again, no where in the definitions of selfishness or selflessness are the concepts of wrong and obligation. That is your addition because of your moral sympathies.

What if we judge a situation that is more morally ambiguous? Suppose a young man with two working kidneys is asked to donate one to an old man whose last is failing him. Is it selfish to withhold his kidney? Is it immoral to withhold his kidney?

I say it is selfish, but not immoral, proving a disconnect between selfishness and morality. Show me that it is either both selfish and immoral, or show me that it is neither (or you could concede).

Murder is wrong because we have a positive obligation not to destroy the lives of other human being (although, in certain cases, e.g. self-defense, this obligation can be defeated) and selfishness is wrong because we have a positive obligation not to gain that to which we are not entitled at the expense of others.

You agree that killing is not an absolute moral forebearance. This means that there are justified killings and unjustified killings. Murder, by definition, includes all of those killings that are unjustified. Murder, by definition, is unjustified and wrong.

Murder is wrong because murder is wrong.

There can be no further argument because one cannot possibly say that murder is right. (Unless refering to the legal, positive definition of murder, but that veers away from our discussion)

Selfishness, on the other hand, is wrong because we have an obligation to not be selfish (at least by your standards). When you say that selfishness is necessarily wrong, you have a hidden moral assumption thrown in, rather than selfishness being wrong be definition. Where I cannot contend that murder is wrong without defeating myself, I can contend that selfishness is not wrong.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Did you even read my post?

I only said there is no obligation inherent to the word "selfish". If your moral sentiments lead you to believe people should not be selfish, that is fine, but don't confuse your morality with the definitions of words.

I don't know what you mean by a moral obligation inherent in a word. I suppose that if an action is a moral/immoral one, then the word which names that action will have a derivative moral meaning. Thus, it is because the act of murder is wrong, that the word, "murder" has an implication of immorality. But words have no obligation. In fact, it is people who have obligations. And it is people who are morally obligated not to be selfish or to commit murder. And the words, "murder" and "selfish" have moral implication and are condemnatory on that account. It is, I think, literal nonsense to talk of words as having inherent moral obligations. Of course, their use does imply moral attitudes on the part of the speaker. We cannot serious call someone a "murderer" unless we are expressing moral disapproval of his action. And, similarly, with the word, "selfish". The mother who called her son "selfish" for taking the cake intended for his brother was clearly expressing disapproval of him and of his action. Since you are a fluent English speaker, I am sure you do not think that calling someone, "selfish" is neutral as would be saying of him that he is a carpenter. Calling someone a selfish person is implying moral disapproval of him just as it would be to imply moral disapproval of him to call him a mean person, or an envious person.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I don't know what you mean by a moral obligation inherent in a word. I suppose that if an action is a moral/immoral one, then the word which names that action will have a derivative moral meaning. Thus, it is because the act of murder is wrong, that the word, "murder" has an implication of immorality. But words have no obligation. In fact, it is people who have obligations. And it is people who are morally obligated not to be selfish or to commit murder. And the words, "murder" and "selfish" have moral implication and are condemnatory on that account. It is, I think, literal nonsense to talk of words as having inherent moral obligations. Of course, their use does imply moral attitudes on the part of the speaker. We cannot serious call someone a "murderer" unless we are expressing moral disapproval of his action. And, similarly, with the word, "selfish". The mother who called her son "selfish" for taking the cake intended for his brother was clearly expressing disapproval of him and of his action. Since you are a fluent English speaker, I am sure you do not think that calling someone, "selfish" is neutral as would be saying of him that he is a carpenter. Calling someone a selfish person is implying moral disapproval of him just as it would be to imply moral disapproval of him to call him a mean person, or an envious person.

DICTIONARY DEFINITION

[nameless]

Originally Posted by boagie

This is a premise a great many people have difficulty accepting.The premise is that no matter what you chose to do or chose not to do it is still selfish.

I do not accept the premise. It has never been demonstrated that such a thing as 'free-will' and 'choice' are anything more than egoic prideful vanity. All that is 'selfish', is the 'egoic fantasy'.

“We do not possess an ''ego'', we are possessed by the idea of one.”
Wei Wu Wei

[boagie]

Originally Posted by nameless

I do not accept the premise. It has never been demonstrated that such a thing as 'free-will' and 'choice' are anything more than egoic prideful vanity. All that is 'selfish', is the 'egoic fantasy'.

“We do not possess an ''ego'', we are possessed by the idea of one.”
Wei Wu Wei

Hi Nameless,

The premise is that what modivates action is the will, so, doing the action fulfills the will, and in that, the action is self serving. Freewill I think is another topic though not unrelated.

[nameless]

^^^ I think that 'will' is just another egoic (lie/fantasy) Pinoccio wanting to be (fantasizing that it is) a real boy.