The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

He would know, and I'd take his word for it.

Well, you can go look up psychological egoism and learn something. PE is nonfalsifiable, which means the theory has no scientific credence.

You mean you don't think that the evidence that Navy Seal was not doing something selfish or self-interested is not overwhelming? Perhaps only he would be certain of it. But why can't we know it is true? People often know what is going on in the minds of others by inferring it from their behavior and the situation. Why should the Seal be any different?

PE, as I understand it, is the theory that everyone acts only from self-interested motives. And the Navy Seal story refutes it. The fact that someone can explain away the evidence against it does not show it it cannot be refuted. It may just show that some people will not accept the evidence against it. And, clearly, if the Navy Seal anecdote refutes it, it is false, and so, it can be falsified.

@kennethamy,

Yeah well I think that the navy seal went through a traumatic experience that he wouldn't want to talk about anyways.

We can't know what a person feels therefore know whether the person is acting selfishly or selflessly, the truth. Yet it is still fun to examine the situation to find the most plausible nature of the action in terms of identifying someone else's perspective. If we never found meaning in that, the courts would have an interesting time figuring out who is guilty and who is innocent.
Holiday20310401 signing out of this thread of 45 PAGES!!!:dots: I can't believe I read this.:beat-up:

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 signing out of this thread of 45 PAGES!!!

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/../images/smilies/dots.gif

I can't believe I read this.

Neither can I.

@kennethamy,

Quote:

You mean you don't think that the evidence that Navy Seal was not doing something selfish or self-interested is not overwhelming?

What evidence? There isn't any. Instead, we only have circumstances that create an emotional reaction.

Quote:

Perhaps only he would be certain of it.

Unless you can read minds, there is no perhaps here.

Quote:

But why can't we know it is true? People often know what is going on in the minds of others by inferring it from their behavior and the situation.Why should the Seal be any different?

They do not know, they make assumptions. The Seal isn't any different. We look at the circumstances, we do not notice anything that strikes us as selfish.

Mostly, I just wouldn't be the sort of ******* to contradict the idea that the seal was being selfless. I have no reason to do so.

Quote:

PE, as I understand it, is the theory that everyone acts only from self-interested motives. And the Navy Seal story refutes it. The fact that someone can explain away the evidence against it does not show it it cannot be refuted. It may just show that some people will not accept the evidence against it. And, clearly, if the Navy Seal anecdote refutes it, it is false, and so, it can be falsified.

The Seal story doesn't refute PE. PE is nonfalsifiable.

@Didymos Thomas,

Karl Popper's 1934 Bombshell

In 1934 Popper published what many regard as his Magnum Opus The Logic of Scientific Discovery. The famous chemist Wachtershauser said that this is a "gem" and that it liberated him from a sterile accounting view of science. Wachtershauser subsequently went on to develop one of the main theories of the origin of life. Frank Tipler, the famous cosmologist, regards this as the most important book of the 20th century. In one majestic and systematic attack, psychologism, naturalism, inductionism, and logical positivism are swept away and replaced by a set of methodological rules called Falsificationism. Falsificationism is the idea that science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses followed by unstinting criticism. Only hypotheses capable of clashing with observation reports are allowed to count as scientific. "Gold is soluble in hydrochloric acid" is scientific (though false); "Some homeopathic medicine does work" is, taken on its own, unscientific (though possibly true). The first is scientific because we can eliminate it if it is false; the second is unscientific because even if it were false we could not get rid of it by confronting it with an observation report that contradicted it. Unfalsifiable theories are like the computer programs with no uninstall option that just clog up the computer's precious storage space. Falsifiable theories, on the other hand, enhance our control over error while expanding the richness of what we can say about the world.
Any "positive support" for theories is both unobtainable and superfluous; all we can and need do is create theories and eliminate error - and even this is hypothetical, though often successful. Many superficial commentaries are keen to point out that other people stressed the importance of seeking refutations before Popper. They overlook the fact that Popper was the first to argue that this is sufficient.
This idea of conjecture and refutation is elaborated with an orchestration suggestive of someone who loves great music. (Popper loved Mozart and Bach, and took great pleasure in composing his own music.) The common idea that Popper neglected to consider whether Falsificationism itself is falsifiable is already scotched here. You can falsify a description, but not a rule of method as such (though obviously a rule can be criticized in other ways). The notion that science offers proof is now only advanced by popular treatments of science on TV and in (many) newspapers - most journalists (with a few important exceptions) are sadly completely devoid of theoretical knowledge: a side-effect of overspecializing on the immediate moment. But then, anyone can improve!
Most people who think they have a ready rebuff to Popper's position have never read his work. If they only read the original works, in most cases they would see that their supposed "Point that Popper neglected" had already been considered and exploded. A good example of this is Lewis Wolpert's remarks on Popper's works in his otherwise excellent book The Unnatural Nature of Science. He seems to think that Popper's falsifiability criterion ignores hypotheses about probabilities - overlooking the blatant fact that The Logic of Scientific Discovery devotes more than a third of its pages to the two fundamental problems of probability in an effort to find a solution that will also allow hypotheses about the probability of events to be capable of clashing with the evidence! Popper was in fact fascinated by probability and even produced his own axiomatisation of the probability calculus.

@boagie,

the less selfish act is that of jesus christ did for us, he died tortuously for all to be saved and liberated, he surpassed the human ego which causes selfishness.

@mashiaj,

mashiaj wrote:

the less selfish act is that of jesus christ did for us, he died tortuously for all to be saved and liberated, he surpassed the human ego which causes selfishness.

mashiaj,

Glad to see you getting your feet wet so to speak, yes it is a nice analogy you have provided, yes that would be a selfless act.

@boagie,

Quote:

if the Navy Seal anecdote refutes it, it is false, and so, it can be falsified

Everything can be falsified; truth in philosophical enquiry is unavailable, we must make do without using definitive judgements as a guide in philosophy - instead surely we should discuss the uses or occurance of selfless actions; instead of discussing whether they are possible (using language, which will never accomplish truth) we might discuss the nature of charity??????

:Not-Impressed:

@Doobah47,

I was thinking that actions are not selfish at all, that we are all selfless deep down, like my minister suggrsts

@socrato,

I wonder if selfish is not the proper word?
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
-Merriam Webster's

When you disreguard others for your own well being that is selfish. When you die for others, in an attempt to trade your own well being for theirs, that is selfless. That being said, why is it that a person sacrifices him/her-self? Love of another? But why do we love? Can we truely know one another, or are the people we know simply are perceptions? They are our projections based on our interactions with them, we never totaly know a person, what we do know is what they choose to reveal mediated by what we choose to see.

To love another could be considered the same as to be willing to die for them, depending on whom you ask. If you die for another person, are you dieing for them or rather your own perception of them? Do you hold them as someone you could love no matter what they did, no matter how heinous their crimes? If so, does it really matter if you know the person in their totality, knowing you could love them no matter what? Such is the nature of selflessness, unrestricted compassion for another human. But it seems that in order to feel unrestricted compassion for another human, you must feel unrestricted compassion for all humans, for you accept this person you know no matter their actions, so this person could be any person.

If your best friend murders, and you love that person, will this change? If so, what was the nature of your love? Was it selfish? Was a need of your own fufilled by your relationship with this person? If so, did you really love them, or were they a crutch or convienience? A spare bit of company, but only in good times?

It seems to me, in order to be selfless you must acknowledge your own flaws, and the possiblity that any blood could be on your hands under the right circumstances. When you understand this and accept your fellow man, you come to love him as yourself. Any other love is selfish. Any actions not done out of unconditional love are selfish.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

It seems to me, in order to be selfless you must acknowledge your own flaws, and the possiblity that any blood could be on your hands under the right circumstances. When you understand this and accept your fellow man, you come to love him as yourself. Any other love is selfish. Any actions not done out of unconditional love are selfish.

My friend was having trouble changing his tire the other day, so I helped him. I did not unconditionally love him, however. But wasn't my action unselfish?

@kennethamy,

Well, why is he your friend? Because you do stuff for eachother? Do gain somthing by being his firend, do you mutually provide somthing to eachother that you otherwise wouldn't have? If you are helping your friend whom you are friends with because you gain somthing in being firends with him, yes, your action is selfish in a sense. You know that he would do the same for you, there is a conditional interdependence.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Well, why is he your friend? Because you do stuff for eachother? Do gain somthing by being his firend, do you mutually provide somthing to eachother that you otherwise wouldn't have? If you are helping your friend whom you are friends with because you gain somthing in being firends with him, yes, your action is selfish in a sense. You know that he would do the same for you, there is a conditional interdependence.

How is the fact that I know he would do the same for me (and I really do not know it) make my action selfish? I did not do it so that he would do the same for me. I did it because I wanted to help him. And, even if I did it so that he would do the same for me, why does that make it selfish? To do something selfish is to do something that will deprive others of what is rightfully their's. I did not deprive my friend of anything at all. You ought to look up the word "selfish" in the dictionary.

@kennethamy,

I believe that I started my post you initialy refered to with the definition. I think you misunderstood my point in that post, if you even read it. I was stating that boagie used selfish as meaning the opposite of selfless, which it isn't.

My point was that many things are not selfish, but few are selfless or in no way concerned with the self. I cannot see how anything but my example could be selfless, but I can see that helping your friend is not selfish.

Go back and look at my post on pg 45 and then we will talk.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

My friend was having trouble changing his tire the other day, so I helped him. I did not unconditionally love him, however. But wasn't my action unselfish?

Interesting question. Well, if you friend is having trouble and you don't help him, wouldn't that make you feel just a bit uncomfortable, knowing that he needed your help?

Likewise, that discomforting thought of not helping may even bring on a bit of guilt. So... Theoretically, couldn't you have helped to avoid discomfort to yourself? :a-thought: If so, can we consider this unselfish or even selfless? Is it possible we often do things to avoid discomfort to ourselves?... just a thought.

I'd also like to add:

On the flip side of the coin, in helping another person could we be helping ourselves? Could what we do to and for others be something we are doing for ourselves? What we do unto another, we do unto ourselves... ? Whatever we reflect will reflect back.. ? Is there really such a thing as Selfless?

After helping someone or doing something to help another, do we often feel good or get a sense of peace out of it? ... interesting topic indeed!

@Justin,

Since there is almost always self benefit in an action selflessness is an asymtote. And because of that it does not become important if an action can be defined as selfish b/c it will hold potential to either. We can find selfishness and selflessness in an action deep down even if it doesn't correspond to our intentions. Our intentions play a large role in the outcome and it would increase given more insight into the situation. That's whats important.

Couldn't resist replying, its just to summarize what some don't seem to understand

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Interesting question. Well, if you friend is having trouble and you don't help him, wouldn't that make you feel just a bit uncomfortable, knowing that he needed your help?

Likewise, that discomforting thought of not helping may even bring on a bit of guilt. So... Theoretically, couldn't you have helped to avoid discomfort to yourself? :a-thought: If so, can we consider this unselfish or even selfless? Is it possible we often do things to avoid discomfort to ourselves?... just a thought.

I'd also like to add:

On the flip side of the coin, in helping another person could we be helping ourselves? Could what we do to and for others be something we are doing for ourselves? What we do unto another, we do unto ourselves... ? Whatever we reflect will reflect back.. ? Is there really such a thing as Selfless?

After helping someone or doing something to help another, do we often feel good or get a sense of peace out of it? ... interesting topic indeed!

It might or might not make me uncomfortable if I did not help my friend. It would depend, of course, on a number of factors: how good a friend he was, etc. But that is not even the point. You are assuming that I helped my friend because if I did not do so, I would have felt guilty. But why assume that? Suppose I would have felt guilty had I not helped him. That does not mean that I helped him because I would have felt guilty had I not. You have no evidence to think I helped him in order to avoid discomfort to myself.

In any case, why would it be selfish even if that had been my motive? I certainly was not depriving my friend of anything he was entitled to by helping him. He did not suffer by my helping him-on the contrary. If that had been my motive (and you are merely assuming that it was) then I would have helped my friend out of self-interest, but that would not have constituted selfishness, which is an entirely different matter. I go to sleep after a long day out of self-interest, but it certainly would not be selfish of me just to go to sleep. Self-interest is one thing; selfishness is a different thing.

Again, it may very well be true that after I helped my friend, I felt better about myself (or it might not). But how does that mean that helped my friend in order to feel better about myself? In fact, if you come to think of it, if helping my friend makes me feel better about myself, that does not make be a selfish person. On the contrary, it makes me a nice person.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Since there is almost always self benefit in an action selflessness is an asymtote. And because of that it does not become important if an action can be defined as selfish b/c it will hold potential to either. We can find selfishness and selflessness in an action deep down even if it doesn't correspond to our intentions. Our intentions play a large role in the outcome and it would increase given more insight into the situation. That's whats important.

Couldn't resist replying, its just to summarize what some don't seem to understand

I may indeed benefit from an action. But I need not do that action in order to benefit from the action. And sometimes I do an action for others from which I do not expect to benefit at all. A person has been known to save others by sacrificing his own life.

Anyway, I may benefit from helping others. But what makes you think that because of that, my action is selfish? For an action to be selfish, it has to be done at the expense of others. How is my action of changing my friend's tire done at his expense? How have I affected him adversely? I haven't.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It might or might not make me uncomfortable if I did not help my friend. It would depend, of course, on a number of factors: how good a friend he was, etc. But that is not even the point. You are assuming that I helped my friend because if I did not do so, I would have felt guilty. But why assume that? Suppose I would have felt guilty had I not helped him. That does not mean that I helped him because I would have felt guilty had I not. You have no evidence to think I helped him in order to avoid discomfort to myself.

In any case, why would it be selfish even if that had been my motive? I certainly was not depriving my friend of anything he was entitled to by helping him. He did not suffer by my helping him-on the contrary. If that had been my motive (and you are merely assuming that it was) then I would have helped my friend out of self-interest, but that would not have constituted selfishness, which is an entirely different matter. I go to sleep after a long day out of self-interest, but it certainly would not be selfish of me just to go to sleep. Self-interest is one thing; selfishness is a different thing.

No assumptions were made at all just questions that would prompt some thought. This is another good example of how many of us perceive things differently.

My response wasn't meant at all to say you are selfish in any way or to say you are not nice. Maybe ponder on it a bit. :surrender:

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

No assumptions were made at all just questions that would prompt some thought. This is another good example of how many of us perceive things differently.

My response wasn't meant at all to say you are selfish in any way or to say you are not nice. Maybe ponder on it a bit. :surrender:

How can it be that when I help someone in trouble, and I do not affect him adversely, but on the contrary, help him, that I am being selfish? What do you know about the situation that I don't know? Why would you think I had ulterior motives, for example, especially since it is a fictional example? How could you possibly know what was in my mind at the time? It must be an assumption, and an unsupported one at that. Nothing much to ponder about except whether you are clear about the meaning of the term, "selfish", since you are calling an action "selfish" when it is a clear example of an unselfish action: unless, of course, you know something about what happened that I do not know. And, really, I don't see how that is possible. But if you call a person's action "selfish" that is usually taken as a condemnation of his action-at least in English. It certainly does not praise his action. That is why I wonder whether you are clear how "selfish" is used. It is only in philosophical contexts like these that people forget the meaning of the word "selfish" (or other ordinary terms in English) and would say that when they call a person's action selfish they don't mean to condemn or blame the person, or say that, at least in that respect, he is not a nice person. What do you think it means to call a person selfish?

Philosophy Forum

The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know