I still do not see how Mr. Fight the Power's argument is convincing. Equating "will" with selfishness does not seem to be accurate; unless someone can explain why I cannot will that I act on behalf of another, even if my own interests are compromised, I don't see the argument having much success.

If you are going to try to argue that I cannot will myself to act in a way that disregards my own interests, for the sake of another, I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this.

If, for a moment, I were to assume that all actions are selfish, it is clear to me that there are some selfish acts which help (aka by some as altruism), and some which harm, and some (probably most) which are neutral.

I provided a long proof of a tautology.

Human action is an expression of one's own ends, no other conception of human action is fathomable.

From there the definition of human action can be shown to exclude true altruism, that is acting towards another's ends. Only a weak form of altruism, where one's ends are coincidental with another's, can exist.

If your action is in serves to another, is other, when in charge of your will? No, premeditation and action is the function of ones understanding and ones own will. Who or what is it some of you imagine takes over--------divine intervention?

Again function is the priority here not content, it does not matter what the stimulus be, the process of premeditation and action belongs to the understanding and will of our hero. If this does not makes sense to you, you tell me how this then comes about, if it is not the action/s of our hero that satisfy his will, what modivates and what then acts to fulfill our hero's will.

If you make yourself act in a way that disreguards your own apparent interests, is that not your will doing the disreguarding action, is that not now your interest. You see, you cannot escape responseability for your own actions.

What needs to take over? Why is it impossible for me to act for the sake of another?



Again, I'm not sure why this gives support to the notion that all actions are selfish actions. I understand, the individual acts, acts on his own will, but what prevents his will from being selfless?



I'm not arguing against personal responsibility. I think I can will myself to act contrary to my own interests. If I can, then not all actions are selfish.

It is "I" who acts, but "I" can act in a way that is in the interests, as best "I" can tell, of another, even if this action "I" take is of no benefit, or of harm, to "me".

To say 'all action is X' where X is any motivation is a statement that cannot be demonstrated. You have no way to contest my claim if I say 'I dropped a dollar into the Salvation Army bucket out of compassion for my fellow man'. At best you can make wild suggestions about what things, other than compassion, could motivate someone to act such a way.

I still do not see how Mr. Fight the Power's argument is convincing. Equating "will" with selfishness does not seem to be accurate; unless someone can explain why I cannot will that I act on behalf of another, even if my own interests are compromised, I don't see the argument having much success.

If you are going to try to argue that I cannot will myself to act in a way that disregards my own interests, for the sake of another, I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this.

I agree. And actions whose which express one's end to help others, even at one's own expense are altruistic. And actions which express one's own end, but which do not affect others are only self-interested (such as my urinating when I feel the urge) are quite morally neutral, and neither selfish nor altruistic. But why anyone should think that if my goal is to help others, and do it even at my own expense, that my action is selfish, is what is unfathomable.

First I would recommend reading The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. It deals specifically with the questions you are asking, i.e. the roles that nature and upbringing play in determining our our dispositions, abilities, and behavior.

Another good book to read would be The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It explains how seemingly altruistic phenotypes could come from a system of evolution and genetics that is inherently competitive and selfish. It would also introduce you to the concept of memetics.

In the end, I think that it is quite plain that there are innate mental functions that guide us to "moral"/"altruistic action, although to call this "moral" or "altruistic" is kind of a misuse of the terms, and there are certainly cultural factors (although these are powerful only for other genetic predispositions) that also trigger behavior that the rest of society would consider morally acceptable.

Can you fathom a will an intention that is not generated from our own values and interests? Certainly if our will or intent rests with someone else's ends, we must admit that their ends are the same as our own.

Hello everyone,

:)All actions are FIRST selfish, that does not mean that an action cannot be altruistic in degree, it just means there is no such thing as pure altruism.

"It is true that actions can be altruistic, I admitted that. However, this altruism is weak and ultimately self-interested, and cannot be moral, and that is the real crux of the issue."quote--MFTP

Well, sometimes I want to help others at my own expense, and sometimes I don't want to to help others at my own expense, but I do it anyway, because I think it is the right thing to do.

But, in neither case am I being selfish, since I am not doing it in order to gain anything for myself.

kennethamy,

"If you are going to try to argue that I cannot will myself to act in a way that disregards my own interests, for the sake of another, I'm going to have to ask for evidence of this.quote

:)If you make yourself act in a way that disreguards your own apparent interests, is that not your will doing the disreguarding action, is that not now your interest. You see, you cannot escape responsibility for your own actions.

Of course I can decide to act in a way that disregards my own interests. That is exactly what the Navy Seal did. But what has that to do with it? That fact that he "willed" to sacrifice himself doesn't show that he was selfish. It shows just the opposite! That he was unselfish and altruistic.

Sure it is I who is doing the disregarding. But how does that make my action selfish? If I did the disregarding of my own interests unwillingly (at the point of a gun) would that make my action unselfish? It is the very fact that I am sacrificing my own interests of my own free will and voluntarily that makes my action unselfish and altruistic. It is my very willing to sacrifice my own interests to others which would make my action unselfish. That's what it is to be act unselfishly, voluntarily to do something at your own expense to help others. What did you think it meant to act unselfishly, anyway? To be forced to help others at your own expense?

"Philosophers raise the dust themselves, and then complain that they cannot see". George Berkeley

kennethamy.

I can only suggest that you ponder my last post and the posts of Mr Fight The Power. In the last post it was made clear how even an altruistic action is of neccessity first selfish, there simply is no other possiablity, it is the way humanity functions.

But look into a dictionary, and you will find that a"altruism" is necessarily not selfish. You just define it as selfish because you define all voluntary action as selfish action, and altruistic actions are voluntary. But why are all voluntary actions selfish actions? That you do not say. And neither does the other chap. Of course you think that all altruistic actions are selfish, since if they were not voluntary, they would not be actions in the first place, and you define all (voluntary) actions as selfish. It is just one interlocking system of your own (and MFTP's) own interlocking system of definitions which have nothing whatsoever with the ways we use the term "selfish". Since all actions are voluntary, all altruistic actions are voluntary. But that does not make all altruistic actions selfish (just because they are voluntary) To say so is simply to define altruism out of existence.

Why not just say that there are selfish altruistic actions (like the Navy Seal's) if that makes you feel better? I will just call those actions. "altruistic" if you don't mind. It is simpler, and more accurate that way.

kennethamy,

:)The answer is in the previous post by myself and Mr Fight The Power, just ponder it before renewing your stance.


"Can you fathom a will an intention that is not generated from our own values and interests? Certainly if our will or intent rests with someone else's ends, we must admit that their ends are the same as our own."quote MFTP

But so what? The Seal's sacrifice of his life for his fellows was "generated from his own values and interests". And his "values and interests" led him to sacrifice his life. And that was clearly an unselfish and altruistic action. To say the least? The end of the others was to live. But the Seal gave up his goal (his life) so that they could live. So how were their ends the same as his own. Answer, they were not. He was willing to die for them. They wanted to live. End of story.