kennethamy,

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.

I was not trying to escape responsibility for my actions. How did that come into it? What has that to do with the question of whether all actions are selfish. Please try to stick to the subject.

If I voluntarily act to disregard my own interests, then that is indeed what I am doing. So what? That is what the Navy Seal did.

When you act in apparent disregard of your own interests, that becomes your interest, the individuals will becomes the said action and in doing so he serves first his own will in acting.

Isn't this a central fallacy of the argument? If we constantly redefine "interests" as what whatever the will seeks, we are left with absolute egoism.

The problem, I think, is the word "interests". When I approach that Salvation Army bucket, my instinct is not to drop in a dollar - I might want a Coke later! We might call this a first order interests. But I think about things for a moment and realize that my dollar is better off in that bucket - wanting to help others. We could call this a second order interest - an interest about an interest - forgoing the Coke-interest for the wanting-to-help-others-interest.
Selfish would be buying the Coke, the altruistic action would be donating the dollar.

Didymos,

:)The essence of the matter is, that one cannot act period, without it being the fulfilment of the subjects will. In your examples there is a psychological shift, a reevaluation has occured, this is modivation, and this is what is inacted through the action of the subject. If you believed yourself to be a compassionate man, had you not given that dollar you might have found the concept of compassion is not one of your qualities. The discomfort you felt in withholding your dollar was eased with the act of giveing, thus you maintain your idea that you are a compassionate man.

The essence of the matter is, that one cannot act period, without it being the fulfilment of the subjects will.

Yes, but so what? Suppose the subject wills to sacrifice himself for his fellows, as the Navy Seal did. How does that mean that he is selfish. It is not that what he did was voluntary that matters. It is what he did that matters to whether his action was selfish or not.

Didymos may very well have "eased his discomfort" by giving the dollar. But, did he give the dollar so as to ease his own discomfort? For the purpose of easing his discomfort? Doesn't it matter why it was that he gave the dollar? Did he say to himself, "I feel uncomfortable if I pass by, so I'll give the dollar to ease my discomfort". Or did he say to himself, "That poor person needs the money. I want to ease that person's discomfort". And, as a result, he may, or may not have eased his own discomfort. But easing his own discomfort was not Didymos's motive. His motive was to ease the other person's discomfort. So, doesn't it make a difference whether Didymos gave the dollar to ease his own discomfort, or whether he gave the dollar to ease the other person's discomfort? If not, then why not? How do you know that Didymos did what he did to ease his own discomfort? The answer is, of course, that you know no such thing. Isn't that right? And, if he gave the dollar to ease the discomfort of others, and not his own, is he not a compassionate man?

Would either book show that people (not genes) do not sometimes act contrary to their own interests in order to help others. How would it do that?

Why would it be a misuse of the term, "altruistic" to say of such people that they are-altruistic? That is exactly what "altruistic" means. Look it up. I simply do not understand how someone can say that a word does not mean what it means, but means something quite different, and if anyone uses the word to mean what it means, that person is misusing that word. It simply makes no sense at all.

But look into a dictionary, and you will find that "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?

Since all actions are voluntary, all altruistic actions are voluntary. But that does not make all altruistic actions selfish (just because they are voluntary)

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,

I think the dabate between the two of us is pointless. I may address others as to the nature of the topic, where I at least feel there is a possiablity of being understood. I nolonger feel that way reguarding yourself.

Perhaps the use of the term 'selfishness' is what causes people to have a problem with the premise as selfishness is something people are generally taught is a negative trait. However, I entirely agree that all action is motivated by self interest, whether it is because the action makes you feel good, or because the choice you make is a 'lesser of two evils' choice. I think the only addition I would make to this premise is that people will generally put survival first, and 'happiness' next.

I guess this then leaves the question, 'what is altruism' and 'does altruism exist'? I think it still does but perhaps the goalposts should be moved and altruism relates to the individual's ability to gain pleasure (and therefore generate self interest) in doing good deeds for other people. Accepting that the motive is still self interest, there are people who enjoy doing good deeds for others, and those that don't (and a whole range in between!). Those who can gain pleasure from helping others are altrustic.

kennethamy,

I think the dabate between the two of us is pointless. I may address others as to the nature of the topic, where I at least feel there is a possiablity of being understood. I nolonger feel that way reguarding yourself.

"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


"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."quote MFTP

:)The above, a last ditch effort. If you say you disagree with the above there is nothing further for us to discuss.

Read Nietzsche, his attacks on morality and free will are damning, but as he points out he is also assaulting human vanity.

You are mistaken to think that I do not understand you, although I realize that it icomforting to believe that one is so clearly right that only because you are not understood is their disagreement. If you just think about it, saying you must disagree with me only because you do not understand me is a rather silly thing to say, and shows merely that you have been defeated in argument. I understand you quite well. But what you are saying is either vacuously true, or clearly false. I hope you do not disagree with this criticism, since if you do, I will be sure you do not understand it.

No one can be internally motivated against his own will.

"Internally motivated" can mean a lot of things, but in at least one sense you are clearly wrong.

For example, the Seal clearly did not want to die. Nevertheless, he was "internally motivated" to die, and his internal motivation was his belief that it was his duty to save his comrades. So, he was "internally motivated" against his will. I know it is an article of faith with you that a person can do only what he most strongly desires to do, but that is just not true. The action of the Navy Seal is a counter-example. He did not want to die. He was not committing suicide. He jumped on the grenade, but not in order to kill himself, but in order to save his companions.

Since I think that it is false that everyone is an egoist, quoting MFTP probably will not convince me of the contrary. Really, Boagie, what is the point of simply quoting someone who happens to agree with you, but who has no better credentials than you have? Anyway, philosophy is not a contest of authorities, even supposing that MFTP were an authority on anything.

Telling me to read someone or other is not arguing your point. It is simply telling me to read someone who just happens to agree with you. Not very persuasive. I have read Nietzsche. I am unimpressed. He attacks, but seldom argues to support his attacks. He is a polemicist more than he is a philosopher. I guess nice for undergraduates who like excitement.

kennethamy[/B]]For example, the Seal clearly did not want to die. Nevertheless, he was "internally motivated" to die, and his internal motivation was his belief that it was his duty to save his comrades. So, he was "internally motivated" against his will.

Telling me to read someone or other is not arguing your point. It is simply telling me to read someone who just happens to agree with you. Not very persuasive. I have read Nietzsche. I am unimpressed. He attacks, but seldom argues to support his attacks. He is a polemicist more than he is a philosopher. I guess nice for undergraduates who like excitement.

Will does not equal want. There are many conflicting wants that even the sum of would not create a will.



I was not advising you to read Nietzsche, I doubt you would find yourself in the right mindset for his writings. As for your derision of him, it is rather unfounded and would not be refuted merely by "undergraduates who like excitement", but by probably all respected professionals.

If you are looking to read someone who makes the case concerning the concept of action I would recommend the first chapter of Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. He is an economist by trade, and actually avoids most philosophical questions, but he gives an excellent treatment to just how action people must conceive of action.

But it is still not true that the Seal wanted to die.

So, why would you say that the Seal was an Egoist? Just because he did what he did voluntarily? To say that we are all Egoists because whatever we do, we do voluntarily seems to me to promise more than it delivers. That all actions are voluntary is a tautology, since if I do something which is not voluntary, it would not be counted as an action. All actions, I agree, are actions. So what? I thought you were maintaining something about human nature some of us did not believe. But all you are telling us is that when someone does an action, he does it voluntarily. Who did not know that?

And likewise that was not end that motivated his action, it was merely a cost, a consequence of achieving his actual end.



It extends quite easily from this point that all action is motivated by one's own values and ends. I already stated that all of this is a tautology included within the only conceivable concept of action. You are just stuck on a weak and meaningless definition of altruism that allows you to think what you want to think, not what is true, just like a compatibilist pondering free will.

It extends quite easily from this point that all action is motivated by one's own values and ends.