Yes, I read some of it. And Twain also seems to think he can determine what goes on in the minds of people who do good things for others, and who sacrifice themselves for others, in the absence of any evidence, but on the basis of some vague analogy between human beings and machines, which he has not bothered to substantiate either. Just what makes you think that this analogy (and that is all it is) is correct?

kennethamy,

You most definitely seem to have your mind made up that there is no need for further discussion.It did not sound like you even finished the piece,the material is in line with the topic as listed.If you find it to disturbing that hero worship might be more complex than surface observations then I guess there is no discussion.Do you have a statement you would like to make about the nature of self-sarifice,something more developed than you admire those who make the sarifice?

Irishcop,kennethamy

Actually the conclusions we draw it would seem depends upon what we bring to the problem,Mark Twain was an atheist,but if in your conclusion about the maker of the machine,the term god can mean simply the source, all is kosher.

Irish,I think the point is here that there is no pure ultralistic motive,and if the source of this goodness is not to be found in the individual then Christianity's concept of freewill is history.I agree the relation Twain is talking about is not looking after number one at the expense of other/s,just that there are criteria of self-interest which must be met if one is to act.


I would like to get into Schopenhaurs perspective on this and what that amounts to is still self-interest,however the self embraces other.The illusion of the separateness created by time and space is broken through and you are the other, rather, other ceases to be other.This sense of identifing with other, as one self, is also the source I believe of compassion.As Schopenhaur stated you can see it in smaller ways in your daily life,with people doing kind things for one another,indeed if there were no ability to identify with, there would be no compassion, thus no heroic actions.

sorry you feel that way.

Actually Twains work here follows a logical progression,you are the first one I know to read it not to have found it so.Perhaps you could point out when you finish the article,where Mark Twains logic fails,that might be a considerable contribution.

I am not sure what a "logical progression" is. But, in any case, Twain simply assumes an analogy between Man and machine, but giving no evidence for such an analogy. So the "logical progression", as you call it, is based on an analogy for which Twain provides no evidence. Does that bother you?

kennethamy,

The analogy at first seems to propose a very unaltruistic few of humanity, and I was in agreement with you. However, if you read on, the analogy suggests that all things ultimately come from The Maker of the machine.
In simplicity, all things come from God.

Selfish in this context, is not the selfish that we look upon as a negative attribute. Rather, here selfish is everything in us as an individual, as a self, that programs how we perceive, process, and feel: and compels us act.

So then, even self-less acts of kindness, and sacrifice, do not find their source in us, it is a resource in us that comes from our Maker. Thus, we are compelled, by the programing in us to throw ourselves on a grenade for our buddies, because that goodness was put into us from the beginning.

But it was the right person, at the right moment who saved those men with his own sacrifice. And, no greater love hath a man than to give his life for his friends. This Petty Officer had that love, but the source of love is his Maker, not the Petty Officer.

That takes nothing away from his heroism, it was a virtue he possessed that saved his squad. Rightfully, he should be honored, he did a very self-less act, that saved those men. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, had that been somebody else they might have pushed somebody on the grenade, or ran screaming, or froze.

To be selfish is, to attempt to act as the expense of others so as to get things one is not entitled to. Wherever that motive comes from, it makes no difference. But it is false that just because I do what I desire to do, I am , therefore, acting selfishly. For I may desire to do things which are not at the expense of others, nor to get something to which I am not entitled. For instance, I may simply go to sleep because I am tired. That is not a selfish action in any sense of that term. Although it is a self-interested action. Or, if I buy a piece of cheese and eat it, that is not a selfish action. And even if I give charity to a beggar, if I do that at no one's expense, or take something to which I am not entitled, that is not a selfish action. It is not a selfish action even if it makes me feel good to give alms to a beggar. For I may not give alms to the beggar in order to feel good about it. And even if I do give alms to the beggar in order to feel good about it, why is that selfish? I have affected no one adversely, or taken anything I am not entitled to.

The view depends on the assumption that whenever a person does something because he wants to do it, such an action is selfish. But there is nothing, so far as I can tell, to be said for that assumption. And what any of this has to do with the view that man is a "machine" (whatever that means) is more than I can see either. Twain is writing literature, not philosophy, and his argument (or rather, poetic analogy) such as it is, cannot stand up to any critical scrutiny.

And calling an act of heroism "selfish" takes everything away from that act, and denigrates it. Words have meanings, and "selfish" has a negative force. It makes no sense to say that X's was acting selfishly, but that doesn't mean he was not acting properly.

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.

I tend to agree that there is a selfish component in all human action, but I wonder if it is always to root cause. With charity, people may give $5 or $10, which is likely very little expense to themselves, and in return they get to feel good, and I would say that this is a fairly shallow, selfish act.

This might help clear some confusion, although Twains little story is very good.Actually this fellow is not the most articulate but the link on psychological egoism should straighten out any problems of understanding,if not, Elvis has done left the building!


This is a continuation of an atheistic ethic that I'm arguing for.:eek:

I think there is an element of self-interest in almost every act we do, which is the position of modified psychological egoism, and might be better called "predominant egotism." I view altruistic acts and self-interested acts on a continuum,with one side representing acts that are almost completely self-interested ones, and the other side representing those acts we would call altruistic but which nearly all contain some self-interest in them. Let me present my case.

To show this let me take some of the toughest scenarios, then in a later post I'll deal with some objections to what I'm saying.

1) How do you deal with the obvious counterevidence against psychological egoism provided by, say, the firefighters on 9/11. What does it mean to say that their actions, which apparently resulted in their risking their lives for others, were really selfish?

In the first place I'm not saying their actions were selfish. As I argued earlier, I made a distinction between selfish acts and rational self-interested acts. Selfish acts do not gain a person happiness in the long run.

These firefighters have been trained to do a job. Their reputation is on the line. They have accepted the challenge of seeing how many people they can save. They did not think they would die in the process. Besides, people do risky behavior all of the time, most of it for fun. People enjoy taking risks and accepting challenges, especially if they can get paid for it. They also love the mutual respect from other firefighters (and policemen) for being a part of an organization that saves lifes.

Of course, some of them may have been operating from the delusion that God will reward them in heaven. But if this life is all there is, and we will die one way or another, then why not be remembered for doing great deeds? For the egoist that might be the only way for your life to count. If however, someone shirks in the face of responsibility, and saves his life while letting others die, he is known as a coward from that day onward. Sometimes in such a situation as this, it's better to die and be remembered as a great person than to live with the social shame and loss of employment in the only job said person ever wanted to do.

2) The "Freedom Rider" who went south to work for civil rights at the potential -- and actual -- risk of his life to benefit people he did not know, and in so doing expanding their own political power and rights, lessening his own or those of his family and friends.

What must be understood is that human beings enjoy a challenge. They enjoy fighting a good fight and winning, like any contest. They also have a need to belong. So they join causes to belong. Life would be boring if they didn't. Those who fought and won can say they accomplished something great in this life. Why was this considered a good fight? Because whenever the rights of some people can be denied in a democracy then the rights of all people are at risk. Many of them did so because they had friends who were black, so it was personal with them. Many of them did so because they couldn't stomach their own country. They might've thought, "If this was my country, and I am a part-owner of its policies, then I object to what I am allowing to happen, since I value freedom for all. I don't like who I am for allowing it." To deny anyone rights is to deny everyone's rights to some degree. It's about the kind of country they wanted to live in, and they valued the rights of everyone, because everyone includes themselves and their kin.

Why should they care about anyone else? Largely because they care for themselves. How many times have you heard that in order to love others you must first love yourself? Once people do care for themselves, in the rational self-interested sense I've previously argued for, they will quite naturally love others.

3) The soldier who sees the war he is fighting is lost, but who continues to fight on and even go on a 'suicide mission' out of a sense of honor or duty.

Once a soldier is in an army he gives up his rights to his own life. At that point he's already committed to the possibility he might die. He was either forced into the army (in other countries) or he volunteered. If he volunteered he didn't volunteer to die, although some volunteers are not acting rationally in that they just may want to die. He volunteered for the challenge. Some of these volunteers saw no better option, given the fact that they needed structure in their life and couldn't do well out in a free society. Some wanted the hope of an education. Some are raised in military families who highly prize their service in defense of their country, so they might not know anything different. Seeing how his family highly values military service, he will probably do so as well. As a soldier he is also trained to follow orders and it's terribly difficult to disobey such a command, since his mission may help save other soldiers in the field, and since being a deserter brings shame upon him and his family as a punishable crime. No one knows for sure it's a suicide mission, either. And no one knows for sure the war is lost, since a soldier on the field doesn't have all of the information needed to make that judgment. He's defending his homeland, his family and his friends, even if the war is in fact "lost." And since we are all going to die anyway, what better way to die than to be a hero, since being remembered well is the only thing a man has to live on after he dies.

4) The soldier who falls on a grenade to save his fox hole buddies.

Once the grenade hits the dirt this soldier is dead anyway, one way or another. If he chooses to run away, his life will never be the same, even if he does get lucky to save his own skin, and that's not sure. The guilt will be unbearable if he lives. Like Sophia in the movie "Sophia's Choice," she died the day she chose to save one of her children while letting the Nazi take the other one away. So why not do what the soldier was trained to do and save others by falling on the grenade? In the process he will be remembered as a hero, and by saving others who will continue to fight he will help protect those who will remember him back home.

5) Why should we care for pets? Because they give us pleasure. It makes us feel loved. They make us laugh. To hurt them is not acting rational. It would betray a hatred for oneself, and that's not acting out of rational self-interest.



read more...:eek:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

kennethamy,
You seem to not want to let go of this problem in semantics,it has been beaten to death,if you still don't get it, let it go! I still get the feeling you have not read what the thread was based upon.I must admit I get the same feeling about your previous responses to my posts,you do have to read a fellow associate's posts in order to understand. If you do not read and do not understand,do not respond.

kennethamy,

Let it go!! Everyone understands the semantic problem.Do you wish to make this semantic problem the topic from here on out.If so,start another thread and list it as your topic.It has been beaten sorely to death,take the time and a shovel,and bury it.If you must kick it some more,open another thread.:eek: