The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

@boagie,

"Actions are a fulfillment of the will".

If we have a conscience then we have the will, (even though I'm sure the will does not require a conscience).

'Will' always has self interest.

Therefore, a conscience requires a distinguishing of the self from the outside (regardless of how illusive it is), otherwise how could we have a self interest.
Therefore, with a conscience we have a 'self will'. But which is a product of which? conscience produces the self, and the will allows for a consciousness.?

The will requires a mind, or processor right?, We must recognize and interpret the premises before we can act upon the best formulated basis of a conclusion to fulfill the will.

Therefore, a computer is selfless? and perhaps the best way to make a computer conscious is to give it self interest, benefits or priorities. However, does such a concept only exist within a mind that coexists with emotion, or is emotion a very technical concept.
Such priorities and interests would be like moving a computer from digital to analog, from my perspective.

I was wondering if since we could talk about the nature of the self and the nature of actions in general now that there's a consensus with the certainty of how "Actions are a fulfillment of the will" therefore concluding how we are always of self interest. Smile

@boagie,

You have taken the time to explain that your use of selfish in this context has a radically different definition than selfish in common usage. Having explained your use of the word, I see no reason to carry on the debate. However, I do think it is reasonable to object to the use - I mean, I can't imagine writing an essay and using selfish in this way. Using selfish in the way you do here only causes confusion and problems; we should try to make our language as clear as possible. Philosophy isn't always easy, and odd language only makes philosophy more difficult to approach.

But, like I said, you've explained yourself, and if someone really wants they can read through the thread and understand what you mean, so there's no point debating the matter any further. At least not that I can see.

Holiday - " 'Will' always has self interest." This is the problem. If we do as boagie does, and redefine 'self-interest/selfish' as 'being motivated', then this premise is tantamount to 'Will is motivated'. However, if selfish/self-interest means what it means in every other case, then the premise is obviously false.

Quote:

If we have a conscience then we have the will, (even though I'm sure the will does not require a conscience).

'Will' always has self interest.

[/LIST]
You're right when you say will does not require a conscience. Some people do not have a conscience.

However, the argument you present here does not follow. Let's look up these terms:
conscience - a: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b: a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c: the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego

The ability to feel bad about something would, if anything, seem to limit one's self interest, not insight the self interest.

@Didymos Thomas,

Where'd I go wrong? What way did I use selfish, I didn't even use the word selfish, lol, I mess up already, after just reading the whole dang thread.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It is not, for instance, in a Navy Seal's self-interest to give up his life to save his comrades. Why would you say it is?

Excellent example! I served 20 years myself so the military lifestyle and bond is something I hold dear. Let's say I did this, now at the time it happens the person just *acts*, they don't necessarily think it out (so lucky survivors say). But what are some reasons why they might? Let's say I'm a hero and this is what I've just done. What are some possible reasons?

I want to protect my friends and comrades: I love them and don't want them to endure pain and death. It is for my love of them - my knowing they might live on that I do this. The motivation (in this case) might be that *I* want to do this because *I* want them to live and thrive. This is *my* desire; ergo, motivated self interest.

I want the mission to succeed: I took an oath and I am going to live up to it. This is MY word and I will not fail if it can be helped. In wanting to maintain my word I am protecting, sticking up for and emboldening *me*. Thus, motivated self interest.

I believe in my mission. I hold deeply close and personal the reasons my unit must do this. I will not let it fail and will give my life for its success. In this case its the adherence to the mission, that *I* have, for which I do this. These are MY beliefs, MY principles - Motivated self interest.

I don't serve the government, I serve the people who've placed their trust and freedoms in my hands (through those they've elected). I WILL keep true to this and give my life where millions have before me. I believe this deeply and have a deeply-entrenched commitment to it. It is MY commitment that I adhere to. Thus, Self interest.

I'm sitting here trying to think of any motivation that can NOT be drawn back to - at least some basis - of self interest. I just can't. It's almost like a trick question (I am an element, I am the 'actor', my reasons motivate my behavior, therefore...). So I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over this. Surprised

One more aspect to this I'd like to sound off: I think the word "Selfish" has touched off a firestorm in the way people perceive it. It was right and good to bring up the definition which specifically states the 'without regard for others'-sentiment. But I believe the discussion, and the admission that no matter how kind, compassionate, giving, loving, sacrificing, altruistic-looking or generous *any* action is, its actor is doing so for their own reasons. And I must emphasize: This does not devalue the 'goodness' of the positive action, it only sheds new light on our motivations.

@Khethil,

Quote:

Where'd I go wrong? What way did I use selfish, I didn't even use the word selfish, lol, I mess up already, after just reading the whole dang thread.

Selfish and self-interest are the same in this context. At least as far as I can tell; if I'm wrong about that, please explain.

Khetil - It's not a matter of trying to explain away these examples. It's a matter of being able to prove the claim. Unless you can know the motivation of every person to have ever lived, for every single one of their motivated actions, there is no way you can claim that all actions are selfish. The claim is nonfalsifiable.

Unless we redefine selfish, to say 'all action is selfish' is nonfalsifiable. Simply cannot be proven. Further, if someone claims to have acted in a way that was not selfish, there is no way to dispute the claim. We can bring up other possibilities, but no evidence.

@Holiday20310401,

Hi everybody,

Actually the use of the term is from Mark Twains essay on "What Is Man".

This was the recomended reading that inspired the thread and people were asked to read it fully before or during discussion on the topic-----which did not obviously happen.

It is somewhat unsual not to be able to straighten out a misunderstanding in semantics as simple as this one.

All words are qualification and/or limitations.
I was repeatedly told that the concrete meaning was to be found in my dictionary. If one has a fondness for words and meanings, one should realize that the same word used in a different context, often has a different meaning.

@boagie,

Quote:

Actually the use of the term is from Mark Twains essay on "What Is Man".

I don't see how. Twain does not redefine 'selfish' as 'motivated'. He suggests that 'selfish' in the usual sense characterizes all motivated action. His arguments are not new, and have been addressed in this thread.

Quote:

I was repeatedly told that the concrete meaning was to be found in my dictionary. If one has a fondness for words and meanings, one should realize that the same word used in a different context, often has a different meaning.

And if you use a dictionary, you realize that dictionaries give the word's meaning in a variety of contexts.

To say 'all action is selfish' is nonfalsifiable. If we arbitrarily redefine 'selfish' as 'motivated', then we can say 'all actions are selfish' and not raise too many objections because we can say 'selfish' means 'motivated' so the statement is equivalent to 'all actions are motivated'.

Now, I do not think all actions are motivated, but that's another matter apart from the semantics.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Now, I do not think all actions are motivated, but that's another matter apart from the semantics.

What does it matter about the motivation of an action, its about continuing the action that counts, which therefore implies reasoning and therefore motivation. The action's outcome is created when the action is completed, not when it is started. And the outcome of the action is where the purpose of the action lies. I think we are only trying to address the meaning of actions ,whatever point in the process of acting it may be in is irrelevant, the fact is that semantics exists somewhere in 'acting'.

@Holiday20310401,

Quote:

What does it matter about the motivation of an action, its about continuing the action that counts, which therefore implies reasoning and therefore motivation.

I think you answered your own question, in a way: 'and therefore motivation'. If everything we do is motivated, don't we have to have some motivation to continue the action?

In any case, I do not think all actions are motivated. You know the term 'knee jerk reaction'?

Quote:

The action's outcome is created when the action is completed, not when it is started. And the outcome of the action is where the purpose of the action lies.

But the outcome we seek is not always the actual outcome. Usually, if we purposefully act, we do so with some intended outcome in mind, but it might be that we misjudge our action and wind up with an unintended outcome.

Quote:

I think we are only trying to address the meaning of actions ,whatever point in the process of acting it may be in is irrelevant, the fact is that semantics exists somewhere in 'acting'.

What meaning of actions? Do you mean their moral meaning, or intent (motivation)?

Semantics exist in explaining the acting, not in the acting - unless we are talking about verbal/written communication.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

In any case, I do not think all actions are motivated. You know the term 'knee jerk reaction'?
B

Give an an example. I am guessing that you see motivation as something that must be intended by the mind. But there is always a cause to an action, which motivates it to happen.

@Holiday20310401,

Quote:

Give an an example. I am guessing that you see motivation as something that must be intended by the mind. But there is always a cause to an action, which motivates it to happen.

A motivation can be a cause, but a cause is not necessarily a motivation. My motivation for jumping up and down is what causes me to jump up and down. The tides are caused by the moon, but the moon has no motivation.

'knee jerk reactions'? Well, the source of the phrase, reflexes. The general point is that there are things we do for which we have no conscious motivation.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Unless you can know the motivation of every person to have ever lived, for every single one of their motivated actions, there is no way you can claim that all actions are selfish.

I didn't say every action was selfish; my claim is that at the bottom of every action are motivations that have moved the person to take those actions - that this is self-interest. That's all.

And my examples are not to explain away, but to support this.

@Khethil,

Quote:

I didn't say every action was selfish; my claim is that at the bottom of every action are motivations that have moved the person to take those actions - that this is self-interest.

What's the difference?

Quote:

And my examples are not to explain away, but to support this.

That's fine, but either way, the problem of falsifiability still exists here. You are making a claim about the motivation of all actions. Unless you can divine the motivation of all people and of all of their actions, you cannot prove that all actions are selfish, self-interested, or anything else.

Further, your examples do not support the claim. They are possible explanations, but not necessarily true. They only show that we can find some benefit to the self in the actions, we can theorize that all actions may have had some self-interested motivation. That's very different than showing that the action was indeed self-interested.

For example, let's say I save a drowning kid. It's possible that I saved the kid only to be called a hero. But you cannot prove such a thing. If I claim to have saved the kid for the kid's own sake and not mine, you have no way to dispute that claim. All you can do is postulate about other possible motivations.

The claim that 'most actions are self-interested' is far less extreme, and probably true.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

What's the difference?

Self-Interest
Selfish

Note that the "Selfish" shows, in 2 of the 3 meanings listed, "... without regard for others" and "... in disregard of others". Self-interest does not. Clearly different. The third is kinda 'out there' :p

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You are making a claim about the motivation of all actions. Unless you can divine the motivation of all people and of all of their actions, you cannot prove that all actions are selfish, self-interested, or anything else.

Point conceded. Without knowing all things in all places and everyone's motivations in every action throughout the past, present and future (and be able to prove it all!); agreed, no way to prove it. Not trying to, just talkin here Smile

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Further, your examples do not support the claim.

Actually, they do. They're examples (at someone else's suggestion) of how the motivations for a very selfless act very likely have, at their base, interests for the self. Once again, this does not delude their value or compassion! It only describes a way of viewing the issue. Hehe, and in examples (hypothetical, at that!) don't prove anything is *true*, they only serve to illustrate reasonable support for the notion. This is meant to get the reader thinking about his or her own; therein is the potential for insight.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

For example, let's say I save a drowning kid. It's possible that I saved the kid only to be called a hero. But you cannot prove such a thing.

Not trying to prove. But I am hoping that discussing and postulating examples of the thought might help bring some insight.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The claim that 'most actions are self-interested' is far less extreme, and probably true.

Sure! But at the basis of *all* actions, there are (I believe) a myriad of reasons and motivations. Some are explicit, some aren't. Some sit at the forefront of consciousness while others are completely subconscious. Would you agree that in all cases, these serve the self? Even in an indirect way?

Thanks for engaging, good discussion.

@Khethil,

Quote:

Note that the "Selfish" shows, in 2 of the 3 meanings listed, "... without regard for others" and "... in disregard of others". Self-interest does not. Clearly different. The third is kinda 'out there'

And so 'self-interest' does not have regard for others, only regard for one's self; self-interest, it seems, does not have disregard for others, a conscious 'I don't care about others' aspect - that difference I can see. Selfish carries more negative connotations, but with respect to a motivation they are the same, the motivation being one's own interests.

Quote:

Actually, they do. They're examples (at someone else's suggestion) of how the motivations for a very selfless act very likely have, at their base, interests for the self. Once again, this does not delude their value or compassion! It only describes a way of viewing the issue. Hehe, and in examples (hypothetical, at that!) don't prove anything is *true*, they only serve to illustrate reasonable support for the notion. This is meant to get the reader thinking about his or her own; therein is the potential for insight.

That's the problem, though. They are possibilities, yes, but they are not necessarily true.

If I act in an apparently selfless way, we can bring up the possibility that the apparent selflessness was self-interested, but these possibilities do not in any way provide evidence that the selfless action was self-interested.

Quote:

Not trying to prove. But I am hoping that discussing and postulating examples of the thought might help bring some insight.

And that's fine. But the examples you provided do not support the claim that all actions are ultimately self-interested. They only point out that all actions might be self-interested.

Quote:

Sure! But at the basis of *all* actions, there are (I believe) a myriad of reasons and motivations. Some are explicit, some aren't. Some sit at the forefront of consciousness while others are completely subconscious.

Without conscious motivation an action cannot be selfless, selfish, or self-interested. As you say, some actions occur without conscious motivation, and therefore, not all actions are self-interested/selfish/selfless.

Quote:

Would you agree that in all cases, these serve the self? Even in an indirect way?

No. All actions do not serve the self.

@Didymos Thomas,

Well, I tried Smile

This is one of those insights where one would agree or not based on their own introspection. As such, there will be no proof to pluck from the tree. Historically, its always easier to refute than to support. In fact, there exists no concept that can't (through the absurd or otherwise) be refuted.

Of course, I can only speak for myself in that I know for everything I do, there is a personal motivation. This is my self-interest. It's neither good nor bad - and in this there is no value judgment, it simply is.

Thanks for the input

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

kennethamy - I wouldn't give this thread much more consideration. The issue comes down to this - boagie wants to use the word selfish in a broader sense than the definition of the word. Boagie's 'selfish' is tantamount to ' being motivated'. The use is odd, and causes an unnecessary amount of confusion, but he's rather set on the matter.

Personally, I don't see the point in using selfish this way - the use obviously causes confusion and seems to be a poor choice of language. However, if boagie is willing to expand the word's meaning, and he has shown this willingness by responding so often to this thread, I say let him have it.

So, is all action selfish (selfish according to the meaning of the word in English)? No. Is all action selfish (selfish according to boadie's expanded use of the term)? Yes, if the action is motivated.

Your proposal is often called the "Humpty-Dumpty" theory of language. "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want to mean by it". The meanings of words are not what some individual wants them to mean. They are what the community of speakers means by them.

In any case, a according to B. all actions are selfish because all actions are motivated. Well, of course they are. It would not be an action unless it was motivated. It a amounts to a tautology. If someone tells me that all actions are selfish, I would suppose that he thinks he is telling me something I did not know. Something of significance. It turns out that all B means by that is that all actions are motivated. News from Nowhere.

And the view seems to be no better when you insist that all actions are self-interested. That view has exactly the same demerits that all actions are selfish have. Both are clearly false.

Philosophy is supposed to clarify issues, not obscure them.

So, is all action selfish (selfish according to the meaning of the word in English)

Well, if "selfish" is a word in English, then what other meaning has it?

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Your proposal is often called the "Humpty-Dumpty" theory of language. "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want to mean by it". The meanings of words are not what some individual wants them to mean. They are what the community of speakers means by them.

Call it what you like, we can use a word and clarify our meaning. How do you think words are invented in the first place?

Words are both what we mean and what others mean when they use the word. If we are going to make strange use of the word, we should either use the word in a context that leave the intended meaning perfectly clear or we should go out of our way to clarify the use.

Quote:

In any case, a according to B. all actions are selfish because all actions are motivated. Well, of course they are. It would not be an action unless it was motivated. It a amounts to a tautology. If someone tells me that all actions are selfish, I would suppose that he thinks he is telling me something I did not know. Something of significance. It turns out that all B means by that is that all actions are motivated. News from Nowhere.

You're absolutely right on this matter. Which is why I, too, criticized the use.

Quote:

And the view seems to be no better when you insist that all actions are self-interested. That view has exactly the same demerits that all actions are selfish have. Both are clearly false.

Yep, again, I agree entirely. Both are entirely nonfalsifiable.

Quote:

Philosophy is supposed to clarify issues, not obscure them.

Again, perfect agreement. Which is why we should be careful with our words and not use selfish in the way boagie has. No need for doing this, especially when other words would be far better... like 'motivated'.

@boagie,

I don't have time to scan through over 400 post to see if it has been said, but selfishness is a function of the ego. According to Alan Watts there is no such thing as an ego only the appearance of such. Therefore, there is no such thing as selfishness--only the appearance of it. On the surface, actions may seem to be selfish or selfless but when one investigates the motivations of all actions, one will see that everything is motivated by the self. The self is an an extension of the universe so, therefore, the ideas of selfishness and selflessness do not exist because they are based upon the idea that there is a self isolated from everything else that exists.

Well anyway, that probably isn't totally clear, but it would take a paper to better explain what I am getting at.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Call it what you like, we can use a word and clarify our meaning. How do you think words are invented in the first place?

Words are both what we mean and what others mean when they use the word. If we are going to make strange use of the word, we should either use the word in a context that leave the intended meaning perfectly clear or we should go out of our way to clarify the use.

You're absolutely right on this matter. Which is why I, too, criticized th

Yep, again, I agree entirely. Both are entirely nonfalsifiable.

Again, perfect agreement. Which is why we should be careful with our words and not use selfish in the way boagie has. No need for doing this, especially when other words would be far better... like 'motivated'.

One cynic (Montesque?) wrote, "Words were invented by Man to conceal his thoughts". I don't suppose you agree with that, so why would you sanction the use of "selfish" or "self-interested" rather than "motivated"? Certainly B. would not agree that he should have used "motivated" rather than "selfish" because he must have believed that by using the term " selfish" he was informing us of something we did not realize was true, and that we were naively denying was true. But you do not believe it is true that all actions are selfish (or self-interested). Do you? Of course, B. would never say he meant that all actions are motivated, since that is a trite truism, and a yawn. So, either "all actions are selfish (self-interested)" is a trite truism which is not worth saying, or "all actions are selfish (self-interested)" is false. In which case it should not be said by anyone.

"All actions are selfish (self-interested)" is clearly falsifiable. Isn't that how we know it is false?

Philosophy Forum

The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know