Let us consider this;
We do things because:
a. It benefits us physically (Food, Sleep, etc.)
b. It makes us feel good (Listen to music, Fighting, etc.)
c. It is the "Right" thing to do (Stop a fight, Give to homeless, etc.)
Most fights occur when reasoning for "b" and "c" conflict.
Since all of our actions are selfish, there is no true altruism.
Thus, it would be in our best interest to show religion that no true altruism exists and that we should be nice because altruism is scarce and we need to make up for that
(This is my first post outside of intros, so yeah, hit me hard :eyes:)
I agree. Even Mother Teresa was doing what she did so she could go to heaven, when she thought suffering was good because it brings you closer to God. Solitary
Agreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
QuotePsychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism.
A specific form of psychological egoism is psychological hedonism, the view that the ultimate motive for all voluntary human action is the desire to experience pleasure or to avoid pain. Many discussions of psychological egoism focus on this type, but the two are not the same: theorists have explained behavior motivated by self-interest without using pleasure and pain as the final causes of behavior.[1] Psychological hedonism argues actions are caused by both a need for pleasure immediately and in the future. However, immediate gratification can be sacrificed for a chance of greater, future pleasure.[2] Further, humans are not motivated to strictly avoid pain and only pursue pleasure, but, instead, humans will endure pain to achieve the greatest net pleasure. Accordingly, all actions are tools for increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, even those defined as altruistic and those that do not cause an immediate change in satisfaction levels.
I did charity work as a Christian, from cooking turkey dinners for Thanksgiving to Angel Tree to other supportive works. But ultimately it is for feeling good about yourself.
It just goes to show that sado-masochist live the ideal life. :eek: :biggrin2:
Quote from: Solitary on December 11, 2014, 07:30:17 PM
It just goes to show that sado-masochist live the ideal life. :eek: :biggrin2:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpIrvVXkzjf_xtA2DLK4eUQjiSPht-J7anjBwxY9U-_Knikneg)
All organisms are inherently self interested, and will act accordingly. The sad truth is, Machiavelli was dead right about human nature. Everything in life is about sex, money, and death. Every decision every human has ever made, save for a few of the most deluded, was about one or more of these. This is the most fundamental problem in every human society: The Abrahamic religions evolved largely to address this. So did communism. The ultimate problem comes down to the monkey sphere, which is evolutionarily hardwired into our brains. It keeps us from caring about anyone outside of our close circle, and to always value ourselves over even them.
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
I'm such a selfish jerk. I just coughed up some phlegm.. I'll feel good about myself and offer it to someone here, but only for the most selfish reasons.
I'm guessing that almost everyone who has made a sizeable donation to an organization they appreciate is well aware of the good feeling involved in the process. It's not hard to realize that this is a matter of self interest. But for the person doing the giving, it probably doesn't make any difference whether you see him as a respectable philanthropist or a fool parted with his money. The act is it's own reward.
Quote from: dtq123 on December 11, 2014, 06:46:35 PMThus, it would be in our best interest to show religion that no true altruism exists and that we should be nice because altruism is scarce and we need to make up for that
Actually, we should be nice because both the helper and person being helped benefit from it in the long run (http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/e7/e7/d1/e7e7d15462c1eedf1b7aa836716075f3.jpg). That's the how and why civilization works. Religion - at its very best - tries to foster this state of mutual truce and cooperation. At its worst...well, it's a very long list. Suffice it to say that "God says so" is a pretty dodgy way to build a system of ethics and that humanity can do a lot better than that.
Sizable donation=tax break. Even our altruistic nature is ultimately self serving, because what protects the herd protects you.
I don't fart because I enjoy it or want to fart. It just sort of happens. Sometimes I fart without even knowing it.
How is farting without knowing it selfish?
I chose to become a societal assistant out of a sense of 'duty' rather than it being my 'dreamjob'. It's not that I really enjoy listening to people's problems and be confronted on a daily basis with the underbelly of society. It's not that I want to face such poverty and spend too much of my time denying starving people financial aid because my organisation simply can't provide it.
Sure, it has 'other benefits'. It's a more secure carreer-choice than becoming an actor, for one. And yes, I get a sense of accomplishment, pride and happyness when I am able to help a poor family get ahead in life. And it even makes the society I live in a better place. So of course it has benefits for me.
But it makes less money than for example going into research with my sociology degree. It would cause me personally less stress to do a job like that as well. (Social workers, over here at least, have some of the highest burn-out rates.) And it makes me lose trust and confidence in people from times to times.
But it's something I'm rather good at. And it's something that needs to be done.Yet even then, I suppose, I'm simply trying to calm the nagging feeling inside me that says I should be helping people and society.
It comes down to this: I'm sure that every choice we make is up to a point serving our own interests. But that doesn't mean all our choices are equally selfish. It's not as selfish to donate a million dollars to a good cause, as it is to keep it. It's not as selfish to share a six-pack as it is to down one on your own. It's not as selfish to enlist in the army because you feel you must protect your country as it is because you see it as a good way to advance your studies and career-path. And if there is gradience in the level of 'selfishness' in each choice, it becomes possible to say that one choice is the least selfish of them all, meaning that it can't be 'the selfish choice'.
I dunno. Typed in a hurry. Got to get going.
But ultimately, at some point, we gain by our actions. I have done things as a sense of duty in my life that I didn't care for, but there was something gained, a sense of grim self worth or the sense I did something beyond what was required, and in some way grew from it.
I worked after my children were born in a variety of capacities as a DOD employee and frankly most of it was repetitive, boring work. But it was for my family. I gained from the awareness of knowing I was doing something for their future, ultimately getting their respect for what I did for them. I believe it still comes back to personal gain at some point, no matter how we perceive it in the short term.
Yep, I have resorted to Machiavellianism in order to figure out what was truly the prize at the end of the puzzle for me and others involved. Most of the time this is unavoidable in the work place and in all matters dealing with money. Other times, I tend to do things to generally feel good about myself or to diminish the guilt I may feel for not doing the "right thing" in accordance to my personal standards.
Many of my interactions with other people and much of my thought process focuses on perceived transactions. I make the general assumption that everybody wants something and everyone can usually be bought - whether with money, favors, appeal to morality, flattery... etc. If I want something then I will offer what I consider a fair trade and if the trade is not accepted, then I will sweeten the deal up to a point. Depending on how badly I want/need the item, favor... etc, will dictate my determination and tendency to manipulate the situation to increase the likelihood of success. However, I have no desire to scam other people because that doesn't serve self-interest. Being negatively viewed by others while I am bartering for something I want or need serves no purpose and decreases the likelihood of success of future transactions with a person and anyone who happens to know them. Destruction of goodwill is very bad when you're a bartering favors.
Even with friends, I try to maintain a balance between our favors and transactions. If a person knows you repay favors, keep track of your own debts while forgiving the trivial debts of others in preference for more important things, and you keep your promises, then the friendship is normally more secure and the person is more inclined to reciprocate the same behavior. If they are not inclined to reciprocate, then mainly goodwill and a reputation of dependability is earned which may prove to be a useful currency for others related in some way to the friendship.
Much of my "selfishness" isn't parasitic, but at best aligns with mutualism and at worst aligns with commensalism. However, I do have moments in which I am compelled by a seemingly altruistic instinct - especially in times of danger. I have put my self in harm's way on countless occasions with no obvious benefit to myself. During a few of these occasions, I've actually felt worse for having done so because of the needless complications as a result. Other times, I am more or less happy with the result.
This reminds me of a discussion on RuneScape's Offical Forums - they have opened up a charity donation to Oxfam, where you can use Bonds to donate and then JaGeX (owners of RuneScape) would give something like $4.5 to Oxfam for every bond donated. RuneScape bonds can be used like in-game currency, but they can also be bought for ingame wealth from bond purchasers. A Bond can be used for a 2-week in-game membership but also sold on the game's auction house the Grand Exchange and they sell for anything between 7m-11m (virtual) gold coins.
It's a good arrangement; IRL rich kids get their virtual currency for IRL money ($5 per Bond) which they can sell for in-game money (gold coins) and people in RuneScape can use their in-game "wealth" to buy membership for.
---
Anyways, back to the Oxfam charity donations; a discussion arose about incentive for donation to Oxfam, because you got cosmetic stuff and other stuff for donating as a token reward for donating to Oxfam. This, for some stupid reason, gave people the impression that people would not donate "out of the goodness of their heart" or some bullshit, but for the cosmetic rewards for donating. I think it is a win-win situation (you scratch my back, I scratch yours), because not only does it make people who otherwise would not donate, make them donate exactly because they want the cosmetic rewards and other shit that you got for donating.
I didn't give a rats ass what motive you have for donating to a charity, as long as the money goes to help people, and if you do I don't care if you think that makes you a better person, or because you want a stupid cosmetic hat in a game, it's the end to the means that matter, in this case.
BTW; this was the perfect opportunity for me to quit (I was basically just waiting for a reason to) so I sold all my ingame items and bought ~280 bonds from the Grand Exchange which I donated to Oxfam. Aren't I such a special snowflake?
Damn it... I should have kept that 500 note that the merchant accidentally gave me instead of 100 for my change...
What of people who sacrifice their lives for strangers?
Since you can't resurrect the dead, it is impossible to know their motives. But altruism has been shown to be a herd instinct, wherein one member will work for the benefit of others. As an old man I would sacrifice my life if others lived, but my motive is I might as well go out a hero than wither and fade away. Just me.
I disagree with this entirely. There are many examples in nature where creatures sacrifice their lives for others.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on December 11, 2014, 08:04:26 PM
I'm such a selfish jerk. I just coughed up some phlegm.. I'll feel good about myself and offer it to someone here, but only for the most selfish reasons.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 11, 2014, 10:36:34 PM
I don't fart because I enjoy it or want to fart. It just sort of happens. Sometimes I fart without even knowing it.
How is farting without knowing it selfish?
Let be clear up a "misunderstanding" (Some people understand what I meant, but I don't believe I was clear enough)
By actions, I meant choices.
Quote from: Jmpty on December 12, 2014, 11:19:55 AM
I disagree with this entirely. There are many examples in nature where creatures sacrifice their lives for others.
One phrase; Natural Selection.
Animals act on a more primitive basis, some know they will die soon, so they help the group instead of being a burden.
Animal mothers allow themselves to get hurt so they can protect their young to spread their genetics.
Males of some species know they will get eaten if they mate, but do it so they have the chance to reproduce.
Does this help? Please give other examples as they appear.
Thanks for all the replies, and have a good time :azn:
"Animals act on a more primitive basis, some know they will die soon, so they help the group instead of being a burden."
Um, which particular animal told you this nonsense?
Quote from: Jmpty on December 12, 2014, 06:30:25 PM
"Animals act on a more primitive basis, some know they will die soon, so they help the group instead of being a burden."
Um, which particular animal told you this nonsense?
Alright, assumption on my part, but this still means that they know they are injured due to nerve endings being fired.
So while in pain, it helps the group because it is in physical pain. You could call this altruism and I would get why, but the animal could kill another rivals to eat them and gain health back instead of helping them, but this would mean that the organism is violent and becomes a less desirable mate for the opposite sex. So it becomes passive and "Hopes" (I'm not sure animals do that but yeah, it hopes) it gets better so it can find another mate.
Example;
I get hit by a car and I'm crippled.
I could take money from my brother's bank account since we look alike and all I need to do is steal his card.
If I do this and my mate finds out, I will look "Bad" and be rejected.
If I do nothing, I would just wither away and die.
So I want to be as much of a resource to my brother as I can since he is my kin. And it makes me look good, helping me find a mate, a core instinct.
I believe this is how some wolf packs work.
A bee stings to protect the hive, and dies.
Ants build a bridge across a stream with their bodies, the ones on the bottom drown.
A soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his fire team.
People die trying to help others every day. Some people do it for a living, but some just risk their lives for complete strangers.
Quote from: Jmpty on December 12, 2014, 11:22:03 PM
A bee stings to protect the hive, and dies.
Ants build a bridge across a stream with their bodies, the ones on the bottom drown.
A soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his fire team.
People die trying to help others every day. Some people do it for a living, but some just risk their lives for complete strangers.
The first two examples are a result of instinct.
The last two are a result of satisfying our own moral judgment.
I thought you almost had me there though. Good job bro :p
Quote from: Jmpty on December 12, 2014, 11:22:03 PM
A bee stings to protect the hive, and dies.
Ants build a bridge across a stream with their bodies, the ones on the bottom drown.
A soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his fire team.
People die trying to help others every day. Some people do it for a living, but some just risk their lives for complete strangers.
Bees and ants are all daughters of the queen, so they die to ensure the reproductive success of the queen who also happens to carry similar genes. It is selfish on a genetic level.
A solider saves his team because human beings have an instinct to protect the clan, which when those instincts were instilled way back in our prehistory, clans typically comprised of family members who shared similar genes. Since a soldier reaches a level of bonding that is similar to the same bonding a person normally has with family, the soldier's instincts are kicked in. In short, it is for genetic reasons, which have been fooled.
As for people dying while helping complete strangers, most likely this behavior will be derived from similar instincts as in the case of the solider. People are more likely to help strangers who remind them of someone they know. Once again, selfish reasons on a genetic level, but much like before, instincts have been fooled.
Altruism often serves selfish reasons, but that selfishness isn't always on the individual level - often times it will be from the perspective of the genes.
Ahem, "sweeping generalization".
Aw, shit. Not another one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 13, 2014, 07:07:41 AM
Ahem, "sweeping generalization".
Could you please explain your position? My whole argument is "All of our choices are selfish," and thus my entire argument is a generalization.
yeah, I kind of agree but then again when you take most parents for example who would risk their lives for their children , how is that selfish?. I mean sure you can use the "right thing to do" example but still I wouldn't call that selfish.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 11, 2014, 10:36:34 PM
I don't fart because I enjoy it or want to fart. It just sort of happens. Sometimes I fart without even knowing it.
How is farting without knowing it selfish?
Pickles, it isn't selfish. It is simply something you cannot control. If you cannot control something, it is neither selfish or unselfish--it just is.
Quote from: Atheon on December 12, 2014, 07:47:22 AM
Damn it... I should have kept that 500 note that the merchant accidentally gave me instead of 100 for my change...
I have wrestled with that concept--not that amount, but when a store clerk gives me too much in change, do I chortle and keep it? The clerk would never know it was a mistake that I benefited from, so why worry about it, even though the clerk would have to pay it to the store? After much thought and discussion with my wife, I now always give it back. Why? Because I have to live with myself and my sense of fairness tells me that that is the right thing to do. So, because I am one selfish son-of-a bitch, I give it back so my brain won't hurt.
I always give it back too, it's an automatism for me. When people ask me why I'm so honest, I just tell them that I'd want them to be honest if the tables were turned.
Quote from: agnostic on December 14, 2014, 06:46:27 AM
yeah, I kind of agree but then again when you take most parents for example who would risk their lives for their children , how is that selfish?. I mean sure you can use the "right thing to do" example but still I wouldn't call that selfish.
I think part of the issue is with the word 'selfish' itself. It is almost always given a negative spin, so when one is accused of being selfish it is never in a good light. If selfish=your own best interest, it is easier to deal with and understand. So, my willingness to die to protect my children stems from my own best interest. I want my gene's to go forward. And if my child were to die and I could have saved her, but I did nothing---then I may as well be dead for I'd never, never forgive myself. And life after that would be hell.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 14, 2014, 08:59:28 AM
Pickles, it isn't selfish. It is simply something you cannot control. If you cannot control something, it is neither selfish or unselfish--it just is.
Exactly my point.
There are plenty of things that involuntarily happen. They just are.
On a related note, since dtq is telling me now that it's about "choices" I will expand on Jmpty's point. Plenty of animals sacrifice their life for the greater good of the species and for their young, we are no different. Humans sacrifice themselves for their children, their loved ones. And while the promise of a nicer afterlife would be considered selfish, there are plenty of people that would sacrifice themselves and die for their children, die for their loved ones, and even die for a complete stranger that do not believe in the afterlife.
None of that would be considered selfish. It is the definition of selfless-ness
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 14, 2014, 10:32:24 AM
Exactly my point.
There are plenty of things that involuntarily happen. They just are.
On a related note, since dtq is telling me now that it's about "choices" I will expand on Jmpty's point. Plenty of animals sacrifice their life for the greater good of the species and for their young, we are no different. Humans sacrifice themselves for their children, their loved ones. And while the promise of a nicer afterlife would be considered selfish, there are plenty of people that would sacrifice themselves and die for their children, die for their loved ones, and even die for a complete stranger that do not believe in the afterlife.
None of that would be considered selfish. It is the definition of selfless-ness
I don't believe in an afterlife, so the willingness I have of dying for my child has nothing to do with that concept. What it has to do with, is the universe as I've constructed it in my head. Would I die for a complete stranger? Depends upon the situation. What would be the 'right' thing for me to do would come into play. If I died for this person, how would it affect those I love? If I did not die for this person, how would it effect me? Could I live with myself--or not? If there was no precised benefit of dying then I would not do so. It all depends upon what my moral universe looks like.
I believe I have said the following before:
Quote from: dtq123 on December 11, 2014, 06:46:35 PM
It is the "Right" thing to do (Stop a fight, Give to homeless, etc.)
Our satisfaction from doing such actions comes from our own moral judgment, and we do what we can to satisfy it. It had nothing to do with the afterlife
Quote from: agnostic on December 14, 2014, 06:46:27 AM
yeah, I kind of agree but then again when you take most parents for example who would risk their lives for their children , how is that selfish?. I mean sure you can use the "right thing to do" example but still I wouldn't call that selfish.
Many of the behaviors of animals, humans included, stem from protecting creatures with similar genes- most notably offspring. It's selfish from the perspective of the genes.
A person may rationalize why they choose to risk their lives for the offspring, but some things are hard-wired instincts passed along due to successful inheritance of the trait.
Much of our "morality" stems from selfishness from the perspective of the genes and eons of trial and error in shaping the most efficient group dynamics.
For example, we hold the door for other people because we have an instinct to reduce the necessary work of the next person. This is tempered by how much work we are willing to expend. If the person is too far away, we normally won't bother. This instinct to be helpful to a point originates in group dynamics and cooperation. If everyone in the group does a little extra work to help the next person, then the entire group benefits from more efficient movement. Basically, nominal expenditure of energy in order to achieve more fluidity of movement of the group which makes everything easier for everyone.
This is true for why society as a whole considers indiscriminate murderers to be bad. Everyone in society wants to live, so in order to achieve a common goal, they work together to remove indiscriminate murderers. When everyone selfishly wants the same thing, then it is much easier to get everyone to chip in. Whether or not murder is evil is irrelevant - removing the murderer appeals to everyone's innately selfish desire to live.
Most of our seemingly selfless behaviors can be traced back to very selfish origins.
On the weekends I like to watch Book Notes TV on Cspan. I remember an author talking about his book dealing with group dynamics--why did I not write down this guy's name??? Anyway, he indicated that within the group, the most successful tend to be the most selfish. However, the most successful groups, as measured against competing groups, were those that were the most selfless. That does create some interesting tension within any group. So, how much do I want to become the kingpin of the my country and how much do I want my country to become the kingpin of the world? I know how the Koch brothers come down on this issue.
Did anybody else see this presentation? If so, does anybody know this guy's name?
Quote from: Aletheia on December 15, 2014, 05:50:21 AM
Most of our seemingly selfless behaviors can be traced back to very selfish origins.
The primary problem I have with explaining all human behavior as selfish is it's overly simplistic, circular and not very useful. Psychological egoism answers it's own question: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment." Why do people have children?-- for personal satisfaction. Why do people create art?-- for personal satisfaction. Why do people want to send humans to Mars?-- for personal satisfaction. Why are some people willing to go to Mars knowing they will die within six months of arrival?-- for personal satisfaction. This perspective has little to offer other than discouraging further inquiry.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 15, 2014, 07:40:21 PM
The primary problem I have with explaining all human behavior as selfish is it's overly simplistic, circular and not very useful. Psychological egoism answers it's own question...This perspective has little to offer other than discouraging further inquiry.
That's my point to an extent.
We should value the illusion of altruism because of the fact that it can't exist, similar to how a perfect moral code can't exist, but reaching for it enhances the lives of everyone?.
Selfishness is not the only trait that belongs to us, and isn't the only trait about us either. We just need that this is core to all sentience as we know it now, and might help us understand certain actions based on benefits.
while history has plenty of examples of people who will only sacrifice for the sake of their ulterior motive, those examples are overrun by the stories of those willing to die at the "drop of the hat" for people they don't even know.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 08:14:44 PM
while history has plenty of examples of people who will only sacrifice for the sake of their ulterior motive, those examples are overrun by the stories of those willing to die at the "drop of the hat" for people they don't even know.
Our own moral compass makes it appear to be altruistic, but it just satisfies our desire to do good.
Being "good" makes us feel better in what we do, kind of like a justification for actions.
We all want different things, and those willing to die knew of the consequences, but were out-weighed by their own moral desires.
This is perhaps the most "Altruistic selfishness"
Quote from: dtq123 on December 11, 2014, 06:46:35 PM
Let us consider this;
We do things because:
a. It benefits us physically (Food, Sleep, etc.)
b. It makes us feel good (Listen to music, Fighting, etc.)
c. It is the "Right" thing to do (Stop a fight, Give to homeless, etc.)
Most fights occur when reasoning for "b" and "c" conflict.
Since all of our actions are selfish, there is no true altruism.
Thus, it would be in our best interest to show religion that no true altruism exists and that we should be nice because altruism is scarce and we need to make up for that
(This is my first post outside of intros, so yeah, hit me hard :eyes:)
A) you will never really know someone else's motives. All you can do is guess.
B) it makes no difference what someone's internal motives are. It's the results that count.
The discussion appears to me to be as fruitless as discussions on Freewill. It's a philosophical question to which you can insert whatever answer you want.
Quote from: dtq123 on December 13, 2014, 01:11:14 PM
Could you please explain your position? My whole argument is "All of our choices are selfish," and thus my entire argument is a generalization.
And you think sweeping generalizations aren't inherently fallacious?
Quote from: Berati on December 16, 2014, 12:04:00 AM
A) you will never really know someone else's motives. All you can do is guess.
B) it makes no difference what someone's internal motives are. It's the results that count.
The discussion appears to me to be as fruitless as discussions on Freewill. It's a philosophical question to which you can insert whatever answer you want.
Fruitless in that each of us creates our own universe and it is from this internal universal lens that we view the 'real' world. We are each unique. With that in mind, I would say that selfless acts would be one's concerted effort to figure out what another person's view is and then to try and meet and satisfy that view--as best one can. Doing what one considers selfless acts is worthy to strive for, even if one is kidding one's self and one knows it. It is like smiling. It has been shown that even when one feels terrible, forcing a smile will make you feel better. Pay-it-forward is a good thing to do--even if it is done for 'selfish' reasons. Makes the 'group' stronger.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 16, 2014, 09:09:02 AM
Fruitless in that each of us creates our own universe and it is from this internal universal lens that we view the 'real' world. We are each unique. With that in mind, I would say that selfless acts would be one's concerted effort to figure out what another person's view is and then to try and meet and satisfy that view--as best one can. Doing what one considers selfless acts is worthy to strive for, even if one is kidding one's self and one knows it. It is like smiling. It has been shown that even when one feels terrible, forcing a smile will make you feel better. Pay-it-forward is a good thing to do--even if it is done for 'selfish' reasons. Makes the 'group' stronger.
Well I agree, but I wasn't saying that selfless acts are fruitless, I was saying that discussions about whether the acts are really selfless or not are fruitless.
Quote from: dtq123 on December 11, 2014, 06:46:35 PM
We do things because:
a. It benefits us physically (Food, Sleep, etc.)
b. It makes us feel good (Listen to music, Fighting, etc.)
c. It is the "Right" thing to do (Stop a fight, Give to homeless, etc.)
This list is incomplete.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 16, 2014, 06:58:10 AM
And you think sweeping generalizations aren't inherently fallacious?
This is a generalization we are discussing. Not all generalizations are wrong. I.e. Apples are edible. Some aren't, but it's safe to assume it is.
Quote from: Berati on December 16, 2014, 12:49:21 PM
Well I agree, but I wasn't saying that selfless acts are fruitless, I was saying that discussions about whether the acts are really selfless or not are fruitless.
Once we accept that our actions are selfish, we begin to understand ourselves better by thinking of how this benefits ourselves, and thus points to "Selfish Altruism" I was mentioning. It helps us see the world as it is, and makes us less prone to delusions of undying love or a perfect being.
Quote from: Jason78 on December 16, 2014, 02:11:24 PM
This list is incomplete.
I know. I just really couldn't make up anything else at the time. I attempted to summerize what was in my head into a couple of quick sentences, my bad.
You are literally comparing apples to selfishness.
They are two completely different things.
Sent from your mom.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 16, 2014, 10:31:16 PM
You are literally comparing apples to selfishness.
They are two completely different things.
I am using that comparison because both are real, but I can see why you would say that.
Here's a better one; Murder is not good. There may be times that murder must be achieved to save others, but then others will try to avenge the fallen and causes an infinite regression of murder to avenge the fallen.
Selfishness is a core trait to us. There my be times that things seem altruistic, but often times our own moral codes and self satisfaction for doing an action is selfishness on it's own. If we try to find a specific example of true altruism, it would most likely lead to another infinite regression of one situation after another.
Quote from: dtq123 on December 17, 2014, 01:25:01 PM
I am using that comparison because both are real, but I can see why you would say that.
Here's a better one; Murder is not good. There may be times that murder must be achieved to save others, but then others will try to avenge the fallen and causes an infinite regression of murder to avenge the fallen.
Selfishness is a core trait to us. There my be times that things seem altruistic, but often times our own moral codes and self satisfaction for doing an action is selfishness on it's own. If we try to find a specific example of true altruism, it would most likely lead to another infinite regression of one situation after another.
I guess I just fail to see the connection between the sets of things you are comparing... or rather you are failing to see the disconnection.
Can you explain for me why my examples don't work? :think:
Quote from: dtq123 on December 16, 2014, 06:57:03 PM
Once we accept that our actions are selfish, we begin to understand ourselves better by thinking of how this benefits ourselves, and thus points to "Selfish Altruism" I was mentioning. It helps us see the world as it is, and makes us less prone to delusions of undying love or a perfect being.
You didn't address my point that you cannot know the internal motivations of anyone else.
Your declaration that all our actions are selfish is a bald assertion so I simply do not accept what you believe we should all accept.
I was saying that whether acts are considered selfless or not doesn't affect the outcome. That's why this discussion, like discussions concerning determinism/freewill are fruitless. Your bald assertion that all actions are selfish is not falsifiable just like freewill/determinism is not falsifiable.
Even those who are positive we lack freewill continue to live their lives as though we do.
Even someone who is positive all our acts are selfish will still gain benefit from someone who does them a kindness and says it was selfless.
So, I see the discussion as fruitless even though you may be right, because you may be wrong.
Apples are edible for a relatively short period of time in their life.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 20, 2014, 06:07:07 PM
Apples are edible for a relatively short period of time in their life.
We often don't recognize rotten apples as normal apples
Quote from: Berati on December 20, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
You didn't address my point that you cannot know the internal motivations of anyone else.
Your declaration that all our actions are selfish is a bald assertion so I simply do not accept what you believe we should all accept.
I was saying that whether acts are considered selfless or not doesn't affect the outcome. That's why this discussion, like discussions concerning determinism/freewill are fruitless. Your bald assertion that all actions are selfish is not falsifiable just like freewill/determinism is not falsifiable.
Even those who are positive we lack freewill continue to live their lives as though we do.
Even someone who is positive all our acts are selfish will still gain benefit from someone who does them a kindness and says it was selfless.
So, I see the discussion as fruitless even though you may be right, because you may be wrong.
So ought I give up in this area of philosophy? And if my claims are not falsifiable after using reasoning, shouldn't that make my statements true?
Quote from: dtq123 on December 20, 2014, 06:36:38 PM
So ought I give up in this area of philosophy? And if my claims are not falsifiable after using reasoning, shouldn't that make my statements true?
I'm pretty sure Berati is alluding to the fact that such statements about selflessness cannot be falsified, i.e. there is no way to show that the statement which you can test it against which would make it false.
Google "falsifiability".
Quote from: dtq123 on December 20, 2014, 06:36:38 PM
We often don't recognize rotten apples as normal apples
Now you qualify. Shall you go on and say "all normal apples on this table in front of me"?
Quote from: dtq123 on December 20, 2014, 06:36:38 PM
So ought I give up in this area of philosophy? And if my claims are not falsifiable after using reasoning, shouldn't that make my statements true?
You're free to investigate whatever area of philosophy you choose. I simply felt it important to point out the non falsifiable nature of this assertion. No personal slight is intended.
Falsifiability separates philosophy from science so any statement that can't be falsified may be true or it may be false, there is just no way to prove it. i.e solipsism, which is a legitimate philosophical position that I find leads to fruitless discussions.
Discussions such as these are without a doubt fruitless in the eyes of science. But that makes them far from worthless! I love these discussions because they afford me a chance to look inside myself and examine my our reasons, feelings and thoughts about that particular topic--selfishness, this time. I cannot test in a scientific way (or any way this could be testable by another) if I am selfish in various situations. When I give change back to a clerk who by accident gave me too much, how does that make me feel? It feels good; that I did the moral thing (according to my own personal morals). Is that selfish--I guess it is when defined in a certain way. So, I guess I'm selfish, for that act makes me feel good. But does that make it 'bad'? No, for it depends upon how one defines selfish. I guess I tend to turn the self argument into a decision based on whether or not the action is healthy or unhealthy for me. I can see where everything (see in a philosophical way), every action I take is selfish. But are those actions healthy or unhealthy. If healthy, I try to keep doing it. Unhealthy, I try to stop. And those labels are all internal labels, and can be proven only to myself, and only by myself. But proven they can be, for I really do create the universe in which I live--and so do you. But I cannot use science to prove that in the 'real' world. And understand I'd rather have science prove something to me in any or every instance. So, I tend to use the scientific method for my internal 'proofs'--at least, as best I can.
Guess you'll love what I'll have to post on philosophy for a long time :3
Meh... such discussions like this are much akin to mental masturbation. For some, it makes them feel better, for others, it is a poor substitute for something more substantial.
I look at the behavior of people and animals from the perspective of the genes, and then from the individual preferences of the brains forged from genetic and environmental factors. Many of people's behaviors follow a trend which can be predictable to a point. There's always a transaction taking place in which they offer something for something. The person who works hard to please everyone else may do so because they feel defective and are trying to fill a void caused by some psychological damage. Or it might be even more basic, they like doing good things, because it activates the pleasure center of their brain. Then again, it could be a by-product of their evolution. Being friendly towards others causes less chance of harm to the body.
It's an illusion to think someone does something without a gain in some way. Not all transactions are fair, and not all transactions are necessarily beneficial, but there's always a transaction of some kind taking place with the anticipation of return in one form or another.
Call me cynical, if you want, but life often falls short of genuine noble actions. Altruism does not exist without some transaction prompting the action.
And it's ok for the world to be like that. Why on Earth must we be 100% selfless anyway? If the world moved more towards mutualism and commensalism, it'd still be a mostly pleasant world to live in.
Quote from: dtq123 on December 21, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
Guess you'll love what I'll have to post on philosophy for a long time :3
Get in line.
ok ok :redface:
Quote from: dtq123 on December 21, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
Guess you'll love what I'll have to post on philosophy for a long time :3
Yep==most likely. :))