The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

@justinupitt,

justinupitt wrote:

I think this interpretation is a misguided one. I do not think that selfishness as people would act selfishly (stealing the last gobstopper) applies any of its meaning to the inherent selfishness of action.

To better illustrate my point, I think of how action itself (not motivation) can be selfless (so as to not be inherently selfish).

For something to be selfless, one would think it would need to be done without knowledge of any positive reprecussions that could come from it, and with probable knowledge that in fact, negative reprecussions will come from it. If I pick up the phone and call my girlfriend, that is an action. I do not see it possible that the action is selfless. This does not mean my motivation for action was selfish, or selfless, in fact I think in this case it is neither. But the action itself accomplishes one main thing, it translates my wish to call my girlfriend (for no reason other than to talk to her) into a self fulfilling action.

This may be a better way to understand "selfish action" as it applies to all action, not that action is selfish, but that it is inherently self fulfilling, because if it weren't then the action would not have occured(unless I was forced or compulsed to, but that is a matter of free will)

I would just say, instead of "self-fulfilling action", just, an action that tries to do accomplish what you want to do, as for example, lie down and go to bed when you are very tired. Why anyone would call that a "selfish action" is beyond me. That is not how the term, "selfish" is used in English. We say an action is selfish when it deprives someone of something to which he is entitled, and "selfish" is a deservedly morally negative term because it designates a morally negative action. It is a philosophical mystery why simply doing what you want to do became doing what is selfish.

@kennethamy,

Quote:

We were unaware of Gravity for a large portion of our history, did it not motivate everything to fall when dropped both when we knew of it and not?

That's all fine, but, if you wanted to apply it to my argument, this is a false analogy. We are asking about motivation - we CAN act selfishly, I do not dispute this, in fact I think we generally do, whether we know it or not. None the less, if one's motivation is selfless, even if the action benefits the agent, the motivation remains selfless.

Can you, with any certainty, determine my motivations for an action?

I've read the Twain, and concluced long ago he is no philosopher. Smart? No, he's brilliant. A brilliant writer. I do not read Thoreau as a philosophical treatise, nor should I. The same holds for Twain.

Quote:

I do not think that selfishness as people would act selfishly (stealing the last gobstopper) applies any of its meaning to the inherent selfishness of action.

It doesn't have to. The argument does not rely on such a thin view of selfishness.

Quote:

For something to be selfless, one would think it would need to be done without knowledge of any positive reprecussions that could come from it, and with probable knowledge that in fact, negative reprecussions will come from it.

And here is, what seems to be, the primary misunderstanding. This claim is simply not the case. Even if some positive reprecussions are known, if the motivation for the action is not selfish, the action is not selfish.

@Didymos Thomas,

The answers surprizingly enough still lay in familarity of the material in question, both the reading of, and understand of, Mark Twain's "What Is Man." and Arthur Schopenhauer's "The Foundations Of Morality." Very Happy

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That's all fine, but, if you wanted to apply it to my argument, this is a false analogy. We are asking about motivation - we CAN act selfishly, I do not dispute this, in fact I think we generally do, whether we know it or not. None the less, if one's motivation is selfless, even if the action benefits the agent, the motivation remains selfless.

Can you, with any certainty, determine my motivations for an action?

I've read the Twain, and concluced long ago he is no philosopher. Smart? No, he's brilliant. A brilliant writer. I do not read Thoreau as a philosophical treatise, nor should I. The same holds for Twain.

It doesn't have to. The argument does not rely on such a thin view of selfishness.

And here is, what seems to be, the primary misunderstanding. This claim is simply not the case. Even if some positive reprecussions are known, if the motivation for the action is not selfish, the action is not selfish.

It doesn't have to. The argument does not rely on such a thin view of selfishness.

What is a thick view of selfishness? A selfish motive is wanting something to which one is not entitled at the expense of someone else. A selfish action is an attempt to get something to which one is not entitled at the expense of someone else. Why is that view thin?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Dexter,

There is another possible root cause which in its metaphysics comes back to the same thing,just a broader concept.You were useing someone who risks their life to save another as an example.The late Joseph Campbell use to tell a story about some canyon where he was living being used both for a lovers lane and as a place where people went to committed sucided.Apparently some young man was about ready to jump when a police officer grabed a hold of him and just about went over with him but for a second cop who hauled them both back.Afterward,the policemen was asked why didn't you let go,you were going over with him? His reply was,if I had let that young man go I would not have been able to live another day of my life-----big stuff!

Schopenhaur's explaination is,this is a realization,not a concept,suddenly this realization just grabs you,you and the other are one.The vail of maya has fallen away---or in other words the illusion of time and space which creates separateness,for that brief time is broken and you are the young man about to jump.Actually there is new evidence which would support Schopenhaurs view on this,it comes from neurology,they have discovered what they call mirror neurons,if you are poked at,these neurons fire[are activated] but if you witness another being poked at, they also fire--this is showing us the source of our own morality is humanity itself,bringing self and other together.So,my point in the brief period of which we spoke self and other are one,so in a strange kind of way,it is still selfish,the self now incompasses both.

Outside of the above I cannot think of one acception to this universal rule,all action is at first selfish.Even if you are decieved,you cannot be decieved if you did not think the action was going to serve you in some way,only then would you act.

Perhaps you would like to try your hand at defineing self,self-interest and other ect.. I have a pretty clear idea of what they mean to me,but I am easy! I think it was Voltaire who said,if you wish to debate with me,define your terms------------time for my meds!

Chad,I read that years ago,that is what inspired this thread,thanks for the link.

I confess I have not read too much of this LONG thread, but I'm jumping in nonetheless.

I read a book which said self-sacrifice is exemplified by the deontological position, and att the opposite end of the continuum is self-actualization ("selfishness"?), exemplified by the eudaemonic position.

Sure eudaimonists can reframe every charitable act as selfish--they may not be capable of actually accurately SEEING charity, because their eudaimonic worldview distorts their input. It biases every event, forcing it to be consistent with their worldview, in a self-maintaining loop.

I come to this discussion as a psychotherapist, not as a philosopher. It is difficult for most of us to imagine a Western individual therapy that aims for anything but the personal well-being, happiness, or self-actualization of the individual client. A eudaimonist therapy endorses personal happiness, and never asks a person to sacrifice apparent self-interest for a greater good. All mainstream individual therapies take this eudaemonic position.

On the other hand, the deontological position holds people have an obligation to sacrifice apparent self-interest for greater goodness. A number of collectivist therapies take the deontological position that the individual members of a couple or client family must sacrifice their pursuit of self-interest in order for the families' presenting problems to be resolved.

For what it's worth.

Billy

@boagie,

I'm just jumping in also.

Question: Can any act be 100% altruistic?

@boagie,

de Silentio's question raised this one for me in response: How could we tell? One way or the other? We have no measuring instrument for the human heart...

Of course my musing above assumes that humans have a "heart".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

We say an action is selfish when it deprives someone of something to which he is entitled, and "selfish" is a deservedly morally negative term because it designates a morally negative action. It is a philosophical mystery why simply doing what you want to do became doing what is selfish.

Wow! Depriving someone of something to which he is entitled!!

Who decides what he is entitled to? are any of my siblings entitled to any of the cookies my mom bought for the family? If I eat them all, am I selfish? What if the family has been depriving me in other ways, and this is just my way of righting the injustice? Am I still selfish?

Anne Frank (and more recently, Will Smith) said they believe people are basically good. Do you believe this? Can people be basically selfish AND basically good at the same time?

Ayn Rand would say YES, that the only good person is a selfish one. That charity is always bad, not only because it erodes the self esteem of the receiver, but because they are receiving something they are not entitled to.

Does that make me truly GOOD for eating all the cookies?

I think I need help.

Billy

@Billy phil,

Quote:

What is a thick view of selfishness? A selfish motive is wanting something to which one is not entitled at the expense of someone else. A selfish action is an attempt to get something to which one is not entitled at the expense of someone else. Why is that view thin?

I reject the notion that self-interestedness is neutral.
My argument applies to both, what you call self-interested and what you call selfish. My argument being: that claiming "all action is self-interested" or "all action is selfish" or "all action is X", X being any sort of motivation, is something that simply cannot be shown. Such claims are nonfalsifiable.

Quote:

Question: Can any act be 100% altruistic?

Good question. It seems to me the answer is yes. As altruism refers to a sort of motivation, then any action motivated by concern for another fits the bill. Is it impossible to imagine someone doing something without concern for himself?

Quote:

de Silentio's question raised this one for me in response: How could we tell? One way or the other? We have no measuring instrument for the human heart...

I agree that we cannot tell if a particular action is selfish or selfless, or anywhere in between. Which is why the claim that all action is selfish is nonfalsifiable. However, because we cannot prove beyond doubt a particular actions motivation, we also cannot rule out that people act selflessly. We have to, at least, admit that selflessness is possible.

Quote:

Ayn Rand would say YES, that the only good person is a selfish one. That charity is always bad, not only because it erodes the self esteem of the receiver, but because they are receiving something they are not entitled to.

Does that make me truly GOOD for eating all the cookies?

I think I need help.

I'll give you some help: read something other than Rand.

But seriously. I think people can be basically good and act selfishly. If, for example, you have a Randroid, the goal is still to act "good", even if they take good to mean selfish.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

But seriously. I think people can be basically good and act selfishly. If, for example, you have a Randroid, the goal is still to act "good", even if they take good to mean selfish.

I guess its' almost a threadjack to start talking about what's "good." For the Eudaimonist or Randroid, selfish IS good [Greed is good].

For the Deontologist, selfish is bad.

Some people are stuck wearing worldview lenses that prevents them from framing any action as other-than-selfish.

@Billy phil,

Billy wrote:

I guess its' almost a threadjack to start talking about what's "good." For the Eudaimonist or Randroid, selfish IS good [Greed is good].

For the Deontologist, selfish is bad.

Some people are stuck wearing worldview lenses that prevents them from framing any action as other-than-selfish.

Obviously. Since "for the Randroid" selfishness is good means only that the Randroid believes "selfishness is good". But why would that make any difference?

If the Randroid really thinks that usurping something she is not entitled to is what she likes to do, then she is wrong. Why should it matter what the Randroid believes? The question is whether she is right when she believes that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy - You are right. But, when we ask 'are people basically good', even when someone acts badly, whatever that is, if they think that that bad act was good, they can still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

kennethamy - You are right. But, when we ask 'are people basically good', even when someone acts badly, whatever that is, if they think that that bad act was good, they can still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

The actor, Will Smith, recently got into trouble for saying that he thought that even Hitler, evil as he was, did not get up in the morning with the intention of doing evil. Even he did not think of himself as an evil person. And, that's probably true. In his epic, Paradise Lost, John Milton has Satan say, "Evil, be thou my good". Of course, that Hitler did not think of himself as evil does nothing to show that he was not evil, and did not do evil things. No one is basically good because he believes he is good.

@kennethamy,

Quote:

No one is basically good because he believes he is good.

That's not my claim. I'm arguing that people can do evil things, and still be basically good, which I have equated to wanting to do good.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That's not my claim. I'm arguing that people can do evil things, and still be basically good, which I have equated to wanting to do good.

It has been said that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. And, even having good motives doesn't guarantee that what you do will have good consequences. I suppose that wanting to do good is a good start, but it cannot be all there need be. Besides, as I am sure you know, many times when people say they want to do good, it turns out that what they want is to do good for themselves.

@kennethamy,

I've never contested any of that.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Desire is the cause of action.

Desire cannot be anything but self-involved.

All action is selfish.

What if a person desires to sacrifice himself?

Or more importantly, what if a person does not desire to do an action, but nevertheless he does it, not because he wants to, but because it is his duty to do it. Suppose I do not want to visit my sick aunt in the hospital, but I do it anyway because I feel a family obligation?

@boagie,

Oh yes, cause Good is something set in stone by humanity...

Lets not go too far from the subject, lets even simplify it. Lets observe it biologically...
Why does any organism have to perform any action? Cause it is either in a bad situation currently, or would be in a better one if it performs the action (eat, move...). Thus, an action occurs only when the organism benefits from it.

I don't think just cause we have a well developed brain we can break such simple and logical laws. I also don't think that helping yourself in whatever way you think is best, whether it is achieved by doing it directly or helping others, is in any way bad. It is only natural that an organism's primary concern is itself, hell thats how evolution works. If every organism thought about the other's well being, they'd try to die easier.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

If the Randroid really thinks that usurping something she is not entitled to is what she likes to do, then she is wrong. Why should it matter what the Randroid believes? The question is whether she is right when she believes that.

First, a Randroid would never usurp anything she is not entitled to (and would believe it wrong to do so). Their Greed is Good mentality means they can have as much as they earn.

And Thomas: You are saying: If I think that the world would be better off without philosophers, and systematically rid the world of philosophers (and people who frequent this forum) I could still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

And if you believe that, you are an Intellectualist, not a Voluntarist.

Billy

@Billy phil,

Quote:

And Thomas: You are saying: If I think that the world would be better off without philosophers, and systematically rid the world of philosophers (and people who frequent this forum) I could still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

And if you believe that, you are an Intellectualist, not a Voluntarist.

If you believe that you are unnecessarily oversimplyfying the issues. More importantly, even if you are right, so what?

Philosophy Forum

The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know