Isn't this a discussion of ethics and not of epistemology?

You are right in saying that most people act selfishly even when they do a 'selfless' act.

However, I would say that not everyone does this. Some serious-minded altruistic utilitarians would say that they only hydrate, feed, and clothe themselves for the good of others. By hydrating, feeding, and clothing themselves, they are effectively making themselves more able to help others, which brings about more happiness to others. They do not do this because they're selfish, but because they know it is the morally right thing to do.

Thank you, Kennethamy.

What I would also like to see is someone prove that they can know one way or the other what your motivation, be it selfish or otherwise. If such a thing cannot be done, the claim all actions are X, X being the motivation, is nonfalisfiable.

Well, If a person points a gun at someone, and he demands his wallet, that's pretty good evidence that he is being selfish. Don't you think?

I did'nt read this gargantuan thread, only parts of it, so I'm jumping in, please forgive me.

In your example you presume to know the persons motives, but you can not. It seems obvious, but supose the person is trying to get money so he can help someone else. Your judgment of a persons motives are just that, judgments. Furthermore, you can not know someones internal reward or motive for helping (altruism).

Behavioral scientist have shown that chimpanzees will help another chimp even when there is no physical reward for doing so (eight out of ten times). Why do they do that? No one knows! Does it make them feel good? Do they presume they might gain an ally? Are they operating on some concept of resiprocity (probably not). Perhaps it is an inherant quality (genetic) that has passed on through evolution that has come about because helping others is usefull to your own condition. Is that selfish (yea-sort of)?

From being (consciousness) emerges self, and from self; other, from other; sameness, from sameness; group/society, and from this; ethics, and from ethics; the concept of selfish nature of actions.


Motivations for actions can not be proven, they must be examined with rational subjectivity.

I don't know what "examination with rational subjectivity" means. But if you mean by "proven" something like "proven with certainty", then motivations cannot be proven, but then, little outside of mathematics and formal logic can be proven. Of course, it is always possible that my judgment about what is going on in another's head, is mistaken. (In fact, apparently, it is always possible that my judgment about what is going on in my own head, is mistaken). But, I am not talking about the impossibility of error, since all of us are fallible human beings. So, although I may be mistaken when I believe that the robber's motive is greed, I doubt that I am mistaken. It is an overwhelming probability that when someone points a gun at my head, and tells me to hand over my wallet, that his motive is to acquire my money, to which he is not entitled, at my expense. And I would call that being selfish. Wouldn't you? After all, the fact that I may be wrong, is not evidence that I am wrong, all the evidence in this case supports my belief that the motivation is greed. Naturally, if the evidence were different, it might support another explanation. But, after all, that's my example, not yours.

Well, sometimes we can know what a person's motivation is. If a person points a gun at someone, and he demands his wallet, that's pretty good evidence that he is being selfish. Don't you think?

Of course, if someone insists on defining voluntary action as selfish action, then it is not falsifiable that all voluntary actions are selfish actions. But why should anyone accept such a definition?

ogden;7921I don't know what "examination with rational subjectivity" means.[/quote wrote:

Yes, I guess I should clarify that statement.

The object of examination is an act, presumably a selfish act. Examin means to look at, observe, test, and otherwise scrutinize.

Then the circumstances, conditions, surounding and defining the object, in this case an act, are put through the process of rational thought, to reason, to determin the guiding principal or rationale.

Subjectively means other than objective, the case has been made that what you observe is affected by what you bring along as the observer, i.e. preconceptions about motive, or anticipated results, or intepretation of results (to name a few).

I'm surely not condoning any crime! But any legal process would deal with all of these aspects prior to any determination would'nt they? then the Judge would pronounce judgment. While the gavel is binding it is in no means emperical proof.

I think sometimes we can make educated quesses, but let us continue with your example. I think we can imagine someone mugging another to feed his children; such a thing does not seem selfish. My point being, even when we can make educated quesses, we cannot be sure, we cannot prove another persons motivation was this or that.



Psychological egoism defines voluntary action as selfish, and is nonfalisfiable. You are right to ask why we should accept this definition; my argument is there is no reason to accept such a definition because no one can prove that all actions are self interested.

Our judgments of the motives of others might be wrong, but they also might be right, and we may have a great deal of evidence that they are right, and, if they are right, then we know their motive is selfish, although it is impossible to be certain.

As I have pointed out, the motive of self-interest is different from that of selfishness. Being self-interested is not immoral. But being selfish is. I am acting from a self-interested motive when I go to bed at night because I am tired. But there is no reason to say that I am being selfish when I do that. Is there?

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, I guess I should clarify that statement.

The object of examination is an act, presumably a selfish act. Examin means to look at, observe, test, and otherwise scrutinize.

Then the circumstances, conditions, surounding and defining the object, in this case an act, are put through the process of rational thought, to reason, to determin the guiding principal or rationale.

Subjectively means other than objective, the case has been made that what you observe is affected by what you bring along as the observer, i.e. preconceptions about motive, or anticipated results, or intepretation of results (to name a few).

I'm surely not condoning any crime! But any legal process would deal with all of these aspects prior to any determination would'nt they? then the Judge would pronounce judgment. While the gavel is binding it is in no means emperical proof.

But it is (we expect) based on empirical proof. Sometimes we cannot, but sometimes we can know enough about a person and his circumstances, to know what his motives are. It is often possible to know what is going on in the minds of others as well as it is possible to know what is going on in our own minds. We can, of course, make mistakes about both. But that doesn't mean that we cannot be right about both. I need have no doubt that someone is in pain if I see he had had his arm torn off in an industrial accident, and is screaming. I might be mistaken, but, of course, in such a case, I am not mistaken. If the mugger has a long rap sheet of crimes, and if we know he has not children or family, then we know that he did not do the crime for the sake of the children or the family he does not have.

Kennethamy, yes I agree with you, we can know motives (to apoint in some cases), apon examining the cercumstances. After all that is how we prosacute criminals. Your example indicates that the person is guilty of a crime and a selfish action.

Let us then go to the other end and instead of determining selfish actions, can we determine unselfish actions? Can we determins a selfless act, when there are internal motives and rewards for doing good?

Certainly you could come up with an example where someone was being lesfless. When the evidence/cercumstances are not so obvious, it is imposible to know for sure. That is all I was trying to say.

I think we agree:p. /and if we do, then there is no way to ever know if all actions are of a selfish nature.

Altruistic action must be free action.

Free action must be internally motivated within the person.

No one can be internally motivated against his own will.

One's will is driven by one's ends and values.

Altruistic action thereby is driven by the actors ends and values.

Every person is an egoist.

You seem to think that just because an action is voluntary it is selfish. But that is not true, since I can voluntarily help other people at my own expense. That Navy Seal I talked about voluntarily gave up his life to save his fellow Seals.

And lots of people may do things they don't want to do. A person may give up his wallet to a mugger because he does not want to be hurt. Or, the Navy Seal may force himself to give his life up for others.