It also appears that the processes that RL calls out as being self-interested aren't actually self-interested at all, they aren't interested period. They are reflexive and contain no intent whatsoever.
If an action has no intent, then it cannot be self-interested or altruistic, as there is no goal associated with the action. To call it self-interested would imply that the sun is self-interested in rising.

Doorsopen, Mr Fight,

:)Actually, I am quite taken back by how obsure something of reasonable clearity can be handled, to compare the innate objects willness to rise above the horizon, with the will of a subject, is outrageous. First the sun does not rise, the earth rotates. You and I see things similarly Dooropen, in reguards to the action/reaction problem, anything that is outside of me which I come into contact with, is a possiable trgger to my reaction, in this case presence itself might be said to be the tigger/cause of reaction. Perhaps I am trying the tolerants of my fellow associates but, I restate, there is no action which is not willed, and the action is of necessity the fulfilment of that will, thus necessarily self-serveing/selfish, in that it serves itself before doing good or bad to the subject of its concern.

It also appears that the processes that RL calls out as being self-interested aren't actually self-interested at all, they aren't interested period. They are reflexive and contain no intent whatsoever.

If an action has no intent, then it cannot be self-interested or altruistic, as there is no goal associated with the action. To call it self-interested would imply that the sun is self-interested in rising.

Does nature have intent? Selfishness, like selflessness, implies an agent that intends for something. These notions are based entirely upon human experiences; we know selfishness by experience with others just as we know (at least apparent) selflessness by experience with others. Can we describe actions outside of human psychology in human psychological terms in a literal fashion?

I was involved in the last thread of the same topic. But I think the issued raised above, though brought up in this very thread long ago, go beyond the debate. They reduce the debate to a meaningless semantic tussle. And if this is a semantic brawl, what is the point? To be honest, I disagree with Boagie's choice of words, but otherwise we are in almost complete agreement on this issue. It's strange to think that we have argued so much despite our agreement, huh man?

Didymos Thomas,

I know you understand the symantic distinction Thomas but appearantly it is a profound problem for most. If this is the case what hope is there of deserning more difficult philosophical problems. I stated early that all the term means in this case is that, the first person to be served is our hero, before any good or harm is done to whoever.

It is a basic problem, but one cannot say that they understand what compassion is, what a compassionate act is, what self-sacrifice is, if they do not understand the cognitive process leading to such action. It is also a key for understanding human action/reaction in general, true we can never know all the variables involved in the formation of intent, but we will always know that the action/reaction had the will of its author behind it, we know often through that action/reaction the subjects intent or will. This is really freakish though, that such a simple statement can find so much confusion.

Mr Fight the Power,

I am trying to get a hold on what you are saying, ok, relativity speaks of relationalism so, stimulus without a reflex response is like the sun without a horizon, ok, the significance is location is that right. Is it not mere presence, the analogy still does not work for me, the knee jerk response it is dependent upon the little rubber hammer. The best I can make of this is, there has to be something to respond to, something to react to, and your saying that in these instances the reflexes are not something willed, it is not conscious reaction. Sorry if I have just confused the matter, am still not making the connections. Perhaps someone else can best cope with this one-- not getting this at all.

Based on other posts that we have conferred, you have revealed distinct propensities for careless idealistic inferences, and this topic appears no different. The ability for Humans to access their actions comes with no qualifying scenarios differing between pure reflexive(intense decision making) responses or more mundane decision making situations. For you to propose that an individual really did not want to do something, yet the empirical wake of their actions resides in reality, and for you to interject your own self-serving idealistic interpretation of what they REALLY wanted to do or not do is a contradiction to the processes of our EMPRICALLY BASED REALITY.

How can you possibly make a claim that an action has no intent or goal? Are you a Wizard or a God? Hopefully you are slowly seeing the lunacy of your idealistic claims.

Again, the very first transaction in the sequence of self-interest pursuit happens within the cranium of the independent Human Being, which is the headwater analogy (pardon the pun), while EVERY SINGLE MOTIVE OR ACTION that transpires from this process is simply DOWNSTREAM actions

and it is these downstream actions that you seem to con volute with your own idealistic perception of their merit.

Why is it so difficult to fess up to the fact that one has to be moved within before one moves without, and that the action is in support of the sentiment of the will?