I think there is a misunderstanding within this thread, and I'd like to attempt to clarify.

Firstly, I don't think "selfish" was the best word to use in distinguishing the actions that are being discussed here. Selfish implies concern of oneself, a conscious disregard of others. This is not what was intended. I believe Selfish should have been clarified from the beginning, and the thread appropriately named "The Self-Intent Of All Actions", or something less abrasive.

I'm not sure if you've read a lot of what boagie has written, but I believe he's tried to clarify: Self-Intent ≠ Selfishness. Even if we deduce that every single action involves Self-Intent on some cognitive level, it doesn't mean that every action is Selfish. The reason being that Selfish and Selfless are part of a dichotomy. If, ultimately, every action is Selfish, then it really isn't Selfish after all. Why? Because the dichotomy then doesn't exist anymore. The actions would just be.

When we say that every action is guided by Self-Intent, this is not a "Bad" thing. Why? Because if every action is guided by Self-Intent, no dichotomy exists - there is no "Good" to compare! "Good" can only exist with "Bad", "Bad" can only exist with "Good". The food given to a starving child is still food given to a starving child. Likewise, if the man is shot dead, he's shot dead. We can apply any meaning we like to either of the instances, but what is, is. These actions should be evaluated subjectively, in their own context, by whatever consciousness that wishes to judge. But, we should not accept or dismiss the actions accountability based on a truth that exists for all actions. That is a grave error.

The hooker, as boagie notes, is that we apply profound emotion when we discuss this because we feel almost as if we have to defend our species; To say no one is truly altruist scares some people, it brings a profound sorrow when one is faced with the notion that us humans may be way over here on the "evil" side of the spectrum we've constructed. No one likes to consider this, as it brings negative emotion. Thus, it's natural to see a human try to justify its "good" actions in every way possible, discrediting even the most foundational logic, clouded by emotion in the highest regard. But, really, there's nothing to defend at all.

Let's recap one more time:

1.) Self-Intent ≠ Selfishness
2.) The Self-Intent of all actions should not overshadow any perceived "good" or "bad" action.
3.) Don't worry humans, if you donate me a new computer, I'll subjectively evaluate the situation and label you as a "good" man (if only for a short while :a-ok:)

If you think that every action is selfish, then I bid you turn your attention to the Cross:


Surely God, being entirely Good, to Whose Goodness nothing can be added, Who lacks nothing...surely He had nothing to gain in offering Himself on the Cross for our salvation. Yet, He freely did.

What does "self-intent" mean? I have never heard of that word. I don't believe it is in the dictionary either, so you'll have to say what it is supposed to mean since you made the word up.

If you think that every action is selfish, then I bid you turn your attention to the Cross:

Surely God, being entirely Good, to Whose Goodness nothing can be added, Who lacks nothing...surely He had nothing to gain in offering Himself on the Cross for our salvation. Yet, He freely did.

Of course, Bonaventurian, he did so to create a reward for only those who serve him.

Considering the eternal nature of God, spending a day on the cross to enforce an eternity of servitude out of all people hardly sounds like a sacrifice.

Sorry, I thought I explained what I meant by it. It's a placeholder word. Self-Intent implies the intent of any action a human makes is self inclined at least at some cognitive level. This means we act to benefit ourselves at least on some level, to please a desire, through every action (but not always so). Not always through reason, as Boagie shows (in this case we wouldn't have constructed any reasonable desire)

The point is to differentiate Self-Intent (A word that encompasses all actions) from Selfish (A word that doesn't encompass all actions, but is subjectively judged). In other words, it doesn't make any sense to say every action is Selfish, as no dichotomy would exist in this case.

I suggest you also read a majority of Boagie's posts.

It is simply false that we always act so as to benefit ourselves. A person who sacrifices his life for others is, as far as I can tell, not acting to benefit himself. What makes you think he is? I think you just mean that all voluntary actions are voluntary. I certainly agree with that.

I suggest you also read a majority of Boagie's posts

Spare me.

You're absolutely correct, not every action is selfish or benefits oneself.

The Self-Intent I've been speaking can be equated to voluntary action, yes. A will guiding every action, relating to the self on some level, not necessarily benefiting the physical or mental being. It may seem like a tautology, but I found this worth clarifying because of posts I saw in this thread. The purpose of my posting, again, was to differentiate Self-Intent (A word that encompasses all actions) from Selfish (A word that doesn't encompass all actions, but is subjectively judged).

And I would never spare you, you'll have to do that on your own.

Every action is a voluntary action is an empty tautology, since if it is not voluntary, it is not an action. But I can be voluntarily selfish, altruistic, or neither. So, I don't have to read Boagie: thank the Lord.

There are involuntary actions, however, I see what you're saying.

I'm still not wholly convinced that one can be altruistic, but I have not thought all of this through. I will post if I come to any new understanding.

Thanks for sharing your insight and probing critical thought,

Zeth

The eye blink reaction, and the knee jerk reaction, are not voluntary. What involuntary "actions" have you in mind?

Involuntary action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An involuntary action is one which occurs without the conscious choice of an organism

As for the rest of what you say, as I said, I will post after critically considering the matter.

Be well,

Zeth

Zetherin,

To try to put it in the simplest terms we might try this, can everyone agree that the formation of an intent is personal, meaning it is a wish on the part of that particular subject/individual--yes? Then we proceed. An action is the fulfillment of said intent, so, by the defination we have already agreed to, the the intent is personal--are we agreed so far? All actions arise from intent, in other words arise from a personal wish, thus the action/s must be in ones own self-interest. the self interest is the intent, and we have already agreed that intent is personal---sorry to beat this dead dog. Actually I have tried before to put it into the simplest terms, but, perhaps this will be more productive. I know you get it Zetherin but for those who do not.

I may be so distracted, that I am unconscious (unaware) that I chose to have vanilla ice-cream when I was asked by the waiter. I just nodded my head. When the ice-cream arrived, I liked it, because vanilla happens to be my favorite flavor. Was my choice of vanilla involuntary?

Involuntary actions are part of our biological system. Coughing, sneezing, hick-ups, even the contraction of the muscle in the leg when the doctor taps your knee is involuntary. Your heart beat is involuntary, your eyes blinking is involuntary, your breathing is involuntary. You can be aware of many of these things, but they are still considered involuntary actions.

Unconscious does not mean unaware; You can be conscious and still unaware -- at the restaurant you weren't unconscious, for if you had been unconscious you wouldn't have even been able to nod your head. Nodding your head could have indeed been an involuntary action to a question the waiter asked (If someone makes a loud noise in a room and you quickly look over to their general direction, this is an involuntary action). The fact that the involuntary nod of your head happened to bring your favorite ice-cream was coincidence.

Of course, since the word. "selfish" ordinarily means attempting to deprive others of something to which they are entitled at their expense, no one really believes that all actions are selfish, since that is just not true. But, if the sentence that all actions are selfish simply means that all voluntary actions are voluntary, then of course that's true. So the sentence that all actions are selfish seems to have two meanings. Its ordinary meaning, and something that Boagie thinks it means. And that's fine. Only, it is a fallacy to think that because the sentence in Boagie's sense is true (trivially true) that it is true in the ordinary sense. Since in the ordinary sense, it is false. So, "All actions are selfish" is either trivially true, or non-trivially false.

'Selfish' could have an intermediate meaning: it could cover not only cases of attempted deprivation, but also cases where a person benefits others merely to make himself/herself feel good. Whether all actions are selfish in that sense is arguable.

Besides, there is a difference between trying to benefit someone, and feeling good about it, and trying to benefit another in order to feel good about it. The first seems to be morally laudable, the second merely self-interested.