Altruism, morality and selfishness

@raidon04,

Good thread.

I do like the resolution come to in the opening post. We often tend to think in binary; as if anything that could be called selfish is 'bad' and that all things that could be called selfless is 'good'. As if there's some purity that places all actions on only the furthest ends of the see-saw. There's far too much variance and to perspective - too much complexity in ones' internal motivations - to put such an Always/Never evaluation to the things we do.

We've gone round and round this issue here a few times; always with a new twist.

Thanks

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;96057 wrote:

Perhaps if you had the outlook on life that Max has, your love for Chinese food would be that more satisfying! Haha.

But to the point: I think he was referring to the love a human has for another human. Or, at least, some kind of love deeper than the love one may have for Chinese food. I'm sure you inferred this.

My love of Chinese food goes very deep. Often deeper than my love for some people. I would much rather be in the presence of Chinese food than in the presence of some people I know. Much rather!

@raidon04,

True "selfishness" cannot be fully asserted within someone, but depending on what angle situation is looked at, one might see everything as selfish. The motivations and advantages the of the doer can be ambiguous, yet may only be seen internally. But whatever the reason is for virtue, even negatively, many times the results of a situation are still positive for both. If all acts of good were to be hindered for fear of selfishness, this could just as well create another string of selfishness.

@Serena phil,

Serena;96209 wrote:

True "selfishness" cannot be fully asserted within someone, but depending on what angle situation is looked at, one might see everything as selfish. The motivations and advantages the of the doer can be ambiguous, yet may only be seen internally. But whatever the reason is for virtue, even negatively, many times the results of a situation are still positive for both. If all acts of good were to be hindered for fear of selfishness, this could just as well create another string of selfishness.

I don't know how true selfishness differs from just selfishness, but if someone takes something to which he is not entitled at the expense of someone else who is entitled to that object just because he desires that object, then that is an act of selfishness, true or just ordinary.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96211 wrote:

I don't know how true selfishness differs from just selfishness, but if someone takes something to which he is not entitled at the expense of someone else who is entitled to that object just because he desires that object, then that is an act of selfishness, true or just ordinary.

What I mean is it's difficult to tell of a person is always intentionally selfish, or just occasionally committing selfish acts, maybe subconsciously. There is a difference between really being selfish, and only acting selfish, sort of like stupidity. But this is where questions of immorality are often raised. If someone commits a negative act where the other person reacts negatively towards, that is being selfish, but sometimes the results of a good deed may be positive on both ends, but with a negative drive.

@Serena phil,

Serena;96220 wrote:

What I mean is it's difficult to tell of a person is always intentionally selfish, or just occasionally committing selfish acts, maybe subconsciously. There is a difference between really being selfish, and only acting selfish, sort of like stupidity. But this is where questions of immorality are often raised. If someone commits a negative act where the other person reacts negatively towards, that is being selfish, but sometimes the results of a good deed may be positive on both ends, but with a negative drive.

That may be true, but that has to do with whether the person is blamable for (say) doing something selfish accidentally. The answer is, he isn't (unless you think he should have been more careful). But that has nothing really to do with whether or not his action was a selfish one. It was. But it was an accident.

@raidon04,

That's where 'true' selfishness might take place, when it is intentional with consciousness and a negative drive. The other person may still feel that the act was selfish without knowing it was an accident and it could still be considered selfish.

@raidon04,

I like the idea of separating the concepts of "selfish" and "self interest". I think there are important differences between the actions of eating your own piece of pie and eating your friend's piece of pie. My question is how far does the idea of self interest actually go? If your friend's house has burnt down and he has nowhere to go, is it not selfish to turn him away simply because he is not entitled to stay with you?

@Kroni,

Kroni;101859 wrote:

I like the idea of separating the concepts of "selfish" and "self interest". I think there are important differences between the actions of eating your own piece of pie and eating your friend's piece of pie. My question is how far does the idea of self interest actually go? If your friend's house has burnt down and he has nowhere to go, is it not selfish to turn him away simply because he is not entitled to stay with you?

Not selfish. Mean. Awful. But not selfish. There are lots of ways of being bad besides being selfish.

@raidon04,

I know I always bring this up, but doesn't it all hinge on a careful definition of words?

One could easily argue (and many have) that ALL actions are selfish, but this would de-claw the word for everyday use.

The things that make us happy and also make others happy are rarely described as selfish, although our goal is arguably pleasure.

We tend to use the word "selfish" for indulgences at the expense of others, or for negligence of duty (ultimately the same thing.)

The word "selfish" is perhaps a synonym for "antisocial."

2 cents for free.

@Reconstructo,

Selfish:
concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.

By using these definitions, you could argue that there are non-selfish acts. Even if you are only doing something for some kind of self-satisfaction, it is still not selfish provided that you have also given regard to others (Meaning that you have done something knowing it will be good for others). An act must fit two criterias to match the definition of selfish. You must first assume that you are acting to first and foremost benefit yourself, and second that you have failed to consider the needs of others.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;106724 wrote:

I know I always bring this up, but doesn't it all hinge on a careful definition of words?

One could easily argue (and many have) that ALL actions are selfish, but this would de-claw the word for everyday use.

The things that make us happy and also make others happy are rarely described as selfish, although our goal is arguably pleasure.

We tend to use the word "selfish" for indulgences at the expense of others, or for negligence of duty (ultimately the same thing.)

The word "selfish" is perhaps a synonym for "antisocial."

2 cents for free.

It is easy to argue for anything. E.g. the Moon is made of oatmeal. It is less easy to give a good argument for the Moon being made of oatmeal. As you know, the Sophists were famous (notorious, I mean) for, as Socrates said, "making the worse seem the better".

Hinging on the careful use (not definition) of words seems to me to be a merit. Doesn't it seem so to you?

@raidon04,

Egoism has been vitiated by savage imputations. It has been equated with man trampling mangled bodies to amuse some blood lust or achieve some brutish desire. However, in a philosophical sense this effigy is spurious. More aptly, rational self interest is "characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself." It is the pursuit of one's own ends through one's own means. It is the defiance of having one's right to life the claim of another man. Philosophically, selfishness is subordinating other's interests to your own. And what is wrong with that? In fact, virtually every evil in the history of man is grounded in it's antithesis, altruism, OR...

"The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others"

1.) Communism-"a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."
2.) Fascism- "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

In neither are "selfish" individual rights possible. In each, your worth and production is the claim of another man, sanctioned by a higher authority. Self interest is abolished, and replaced by "state interests." In each, your duty is not to yourself, but to your brother. What is the standard of a statist government? Need. Another man's need is a claim on your worth.

EGOISM-"the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness."

This is a philosophy forum, to the extent of my knowledge, no accredited school of thought is named Selfishism. It is called egoism, and that is it's definition.

@raidon04,

So you're an Ayn Rand enthusiast, then?

@raidon04,

politically, yes. I do believe in individual rights

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95767 wrote:

Selfishness, and altruism, are often seen as contradictories (cannot both be true, and cannot both be false). But they are not. They are contraries, which is to say, although they cannot both be true, they can both be false. That is, there is a third possibility. Self-interest. That is what moralists of the 18th and 19th centuries like Adam Smith and Joseph Butler pointed out. If, for instance, there are two pieces of pie, one for A, and one for B, then, if A not only eats his own piece, but also eats B's, to which he is not entitled, A is being selfish. But if A takes his own piece, and leaves B's for B, he is not being selfish. He is being self-interested. If, A gives his piece to B, he is being altruistic. So, you can be self-interested, but not selfish. Mixing up selfishness with self-interestedness, is the why people keep saying that everyone is really selfish. Most people are self-interested and not altruistic, but that does not make them selfish. A selfish person takes what he is not entitled to, at the expense of other people. A self-interested person takes what he is entitled too, but not at the expense of others. If I go to bed at night, doing so is self-interested, but normally, is not selfish. I don't have to "see through myself" to act unselfishly. It is objectively true that if I just go to bed at night because I am tired, but I am entitled to do so, and not doing it at the expense of others, I am not being selfish, although I am being self-interested.

Very well said, Ken.

I am going to quote what you have said on this from now on, in every full-length essay I write -- with full attribution.

You make an important distinction between the concepts "self-interest" and "selfishness." They are often confused.

Once the world gets educated, and we have less 'flat-earthers', this distinction will be accepted as common knowledge, and the world will be a better place for it.

Similar distinctions are also made in my paper LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, to which Wade Harvey contributed some material which I used in Chapter Three. I made him a co-author for that, as an altruistic gesture. To look it over see this link: http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

Thanks again, Kenneth Anthony.

@deepthot,

deepthot;108182 wrote:

Very well said, Ken.

I am going to quote what you have said on this from now on, in every full-length essay I write -- with full attribution.

You make an important distinction between the concepts "self-interest" and "selfishness." They are often confused.

Once the world gets educated, and we have less 'flat-earthers', this distinction will be accepted as common knowledge, and the world will be a better place for it.

Similar distinctions are also made in my paper LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, to which Wade Harvey contributed some material which I used in Chapter Three. I made him a co-author for that, as an altruistic gesture. To look it over see this link: http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

Thanks again, Kenneth Anthony.

Thank you. But I cannot claim any originality for the distinction. It was a well-known one in the 18th century, and discussed by Adam Smith, and Bishop Joseph Butler who argued that a lot of what was wrong with the world was not that there was too much self-interest, but there was not enough enlightened self-interest.

@raidon04,

For those of you arguing in support of egoism, have you considered a burden of proof objection? I raise this in opposition to those claiming that all our ultimate attitudes have an object which includes the agent's self.

First off, a significant problem comes from the difficulties of having unrecognized motives. Even when we seem to be altruistic, it is always possible that deep down we have an unrecognized egoistic motive. However, the merely possibility doesn't really establish anything interesting. What matters is whether we always do have egoistic motives.After all, it's also possible that when we think we're acting egoistically, we're really being altruistic. Possibilities are easy to show; actualities much harder.

Moreover, the burden of proof is on egoists.

The reason for this is that we often do things in order to benefit other people. Even egoists agree with that (they just say that we want to benefit others in order to benefit ourselves).

Therefore, unless the egoist actually gives us evidence of a further self-interested motive, the default is simply that we have the agreed upon motive: to benefit other people.

I'm curious to see a response to this.

(Also, woo! My first post!)

@raidon04,

even though your handle sounds like a russian sub, I like your reasoning :bigsmile:

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;108614 wrote:

even though your handle sounds like a russian sub, I like your reasoning :bigsmile:

I can't take all credit, buddy, it's partially derived from Feinberg. :whoa-dude:

And if anyone can make a sound argument against it, I'll be thoroughly impressed.

Philosophy Forum

Altruism, morality and selfishness

Quick Links

My Account

able2know