The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

You truely are a thread killer--------stay away from me --clear enough?:mad:

But, tell me why you think that a selfish person who is not successful becomes suddenly not selfish. And why you think that a person who happens to be made happy by doing good things for others, but doesn't do those good things just in order to be made happy, is selfish. And you might also mention why you think that someone may be selfish but not affect anyone adversely.

Incidentally, why do you think that objections to what you pontificate about are "thread killers"? Don't you know that philosophy is dialectic or, as Socrates said, "a conversation". If you would prefer that no one object to your views, you ought to mention that at the beginning. Of course, once you start a thread you don't own it. All you have done is start it. You have very peculiar ideas about what philosophy is all about.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But, tell me why you think that a selfish person who is not successful becomes suddenly not selfish. And why you think that a person who happens to be made happy by doing good things for others, but doesn't do those good things just in order to be made happy, is selfish. And you might also mention why you think that someone may be selfish but not affect anyone adversely.

Kennethamy,:mad:

You are such a confused ball of contradiction that you have been playing both sides of the argument,you have me disagreeing with you when it has not occured.You do not need anyone else in the dialogue with you,this is your form of philosophy-------I tried being respectful, but you will not have that will you.:mad:

You still have not read the material the thread was based on and recommended.You either do not read the posts of others or you simply skim them and fail to understand them,perhaps that is at the root of your aversion to reading.Seeing as you are so capable of individual dialogue why don't you just enjoy yourself,just don't get it on the sheets.By the way this is the last communication between us-------you do understand? Silence IS the correct answer!!:mad:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
But, tell me why you think that a selfish person who is not successful becomes suddenly not selfish. And why you think that a person who happens to be made happy by doing good things for others, but doesn't do those good things just in order to be made happy, is selfish. And you might also mention why you think that someone may be selfish but not affect anyone adversely.

Kennethamy,:mad:

You are such a confused ball of contradiction that you have been playing both sides of the argument,you have me disagreeing with you when it has not occured.You do not need anyone else in the dialogue with you,this is your form of philosophy-------I tried being respectful, but you will not have that will you.:mad:

You still have not read the material the thread was based on and recommended.You either do not read the posts of others or you simply skim them and fail to understand them,perhaps that is at the root of your aversion to reading.Seeing as you are so capable of individual dialogue why don't you just enjoy yourself,just don't get it on the sheets.By the way this is the last communication between us-------you do understand? Silence IS the correct answer!!:mad:

Have you any answers to my three questions? Or indeed why you believe that any objections a "thead killers", or why you believe you own this thread? Look at all the time you are wasting. If you could provide answers to my questions your agitation would be at an end.

As someone has pointed out, abuse is no argument. No place have I abused you. And your abuse is so vulgar, you should be embarrassed. I simply asked you to defend your beliefs. Why don't you try doing that? That is what this, or any philosophy thread, is all about. Now, calm down, and think about my objections.

@kennethamy,

Not the right answer,the instructions cannot be made simplier---good by:p

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Not the right answer,the instructions cannot be made simplier---good by:p

And you have no answers.

@boagie,

Looks like this thread is getting a little out of hand. Let's not forget that while we may be in a philosophy forum, that we all do come from different backgrounds and were raised with different beliefs and so on. Once again it's important that we start where people are, not where we expect them to be.

So, moving forward... let's build upon the positives of each person in the forum rather than the alternative.

As for the selfish nature of all actions... In order to find yourself, you must give yourself away. With this, I'd like to once again publish something I've found to be profound and it has much to do with this thread. This was written by the deceased Lao Russell:[INDENT]

To bring blessings upon yourself, bless your neighbor.
To enrich yourself, enrich your neighbor.
Honor your neighbor and your neighbor will honor you.
To sorely hurt yourself, hurt your neighbor.
He who seeks love will find it by giving it.
The measure of a mans wealth, is the measure of the wealth he has given.
To enrich yourself with many friends, enrich your friends with yourself.
That which you take away from any man, the world will take away from you.
Peace and happiness do not come to you from the horizon. The spread from you out into infinity beyond your horizon.
The whole Universe is a mirror which reflects back to you, that which you reflect into it.
Love is like the ascent of a high mountain peak. It comes ever nearer to you as you go ever nearer to it.

[/INDENT]The above code of ethics could be considered selfish in many ways yet it rings of truth. It's all about human relations in the end that will directly effect each and every one of us and we can either witness the unfolding and uplifting of mankind or the fall of humanity. How we speak to each other and how we communicate with each other is going be the ultimate factor.

As far as Twain... He was a brilliant man. Not only that, he surrounded himself with some of the most brilliant men of that time and era. Twain was close to Edward Markham, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Alexis Carroll, Walter Russell, Andrew Carnegie and many other great minds of that time. Twain also played a part in creating the Public Libraries, the Rotary Club, Boy Scouts of America and so on.

Let's build upon the positives and provide an environment for understanding, change and the evolution of mankind.

OK, I'm done rambling...

@boagie,

Quote:

Looks like this thread is getting a little out of hand on the personal attacks.

I was just about to kill it...thanks Justin.

There's no debating Twain's brilliance as a writer or storyteller, but when it comes to his philosophies on life, he did have a few opinions that were quite ahead of his time and therefore was more than likely misquoted on several occasions due to the political nature of some of his topics.
He may have been on course with the selfless acts idea though.

There have been many stories of people doing great heroic deeds of selfless nature, and many of them are truly selfless...but I wonder how many of them were done by people who were simply trying to martyr themselves, thereby making a selfish act out of a selfless one?

@Aristoddler,

The intent of the thread was to point out the truth of what Mark Twain stated about our modiviation toward action.The intent was to examine the logic of "What Is Man" and then balance it againt Schopenhaur's theory of what happens when someone sacrifices himself for that of another.Which sheds some light upon the understanding not only of self-sacrifice but of the concept of morality in general.The problem of semantics was acknowledge and mutually understood by most people involved including myself,when the said problem is understood,it is nolonger a problem.I simply wished to get on with the topic-----past tense.It did have the potential of being a most interest thread.I nolonger have any taste for further dialogue on the topic.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"
Albert Einstein:eek:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

...I nolonger have any taste for further dialogue on the topic.

I do, it's a good topic...I'd like to hear what people have to say about it, now that it's been clarified what the intent was in the beginning of it all.

@Bii,

Bii wrote:

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.

http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

/ˈsɛl

fɪʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sel-fish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective 1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. 2.characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
I think that if one cares for oneself...regardless of others, or manifests concern or care only for oneself, that is called "selfishness" in English, and would deserve, I think, to be considered negatively by most people, even including you.* Now, of course, if you would like to use another word for it, and define "selfishness" differently, so that it is considered a positive trait, you are, I suppose, free to do so, at the cost, of course, of miscommunication. But remember, you will probably have to invent another word for what used to be called "selfishness" before you decided to redefine selfishness. So that would seem to me a waste of motion and effort. But, it is a free country. I think that someone who is concerned only for his own welfare, and disregards the welfare of others is someone I would certainly regard negatively, and most others would too. But maybe you are far more tolerant of others than I (and, I wager) most people are.

* Perhaps an example is called for. Suppose you were a child, and so was your brother. And suppose that your mother left the two of you a piece of cake each, and a glass of milk, to have after you both returned from school. And suppose your brother ate not only his own cake and milk, but ate yours before you arrived. Would you not look upon his actions negatively? And, I suppose, so would your mother. She might even say to him that he had been selfish.

The trouble with so much philosophy is that it is done in abstraction. An example or two is always helpful for bringing us down to reality, and remind us of how we really think about the matter.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

I was just about to kill it...thanks Justin.

There's no debating Twain's brilliance as a writer or storyteller, but when it comes to his philosophies on life, he did have a few opinions that were quite ahead of his time and therefore was more than likely misquoted on several occasions due to the political nature of some of his topics.
He may have been on course with the selfless acts idea though.

There have been many stories of people doing great heroic deeds of selfless nature, and many of them are truly selfless...but I wonder how many of them were done by people who were simply trying to martyr themselves, thereby making a selfish act out of a selfless one?

Unless one had some real knowledge of why these people acted as they did, such speculation would be exactly that, mere speculation. I might very well equally wonder how many people who believed that they were acting selfishly were really, unconsciously, acting selflessly. But I wonder how realistic it would be to suppose that the Navy Seal who fell on the grenade, and thereby was killed, but saved the lives of his companions was thinking something like, "Well, let's see. If I blow myself up, I will be a martyr, and (do what?) go to heaven"? Suppose you found out he was not religious. Would that change your mind? Wouldn't it really depend on the facts of the case whether it was reasonable to think that such a person was "making a selfish act out of a selfless act" and if the only facts were that a person who was not particularly religious acted like that Navy Seal, then on the basis of the evidence, we would have to judge that a selfless act. I would suspect someone who, contrary to the evidence, did not do so of having a theory which he would wind around the facts.

@boagie,

Finding out someone was religious or atheist would make no difference to me personally.
Your example of the SEAL on the grenade is good, and I understand what you're saying. I wasn't stating that all acts are selfish, I was merely stating that many selfish acts are misperceived as being selfless for various reasons.

Personally, I find acts based on religion to be more selfish than others in many occurrences.
Doing the will of your god(s) to gain favour with that deity is
selfish in many cases, is it not?

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Finding out someone was religious or atheist would make no difference to me personally.
Your example of the SEAL on the grenade is good, and I understand what you're saying. I wasn't stating that all acts are selfish, I was merely stating that many selfish acts are misperceived as being selfless for various reasons.

Personally, I find acts based on religion to be more selfish than others in many occurrences.
Doing the will of your god(s) to gain favour with that deity is
selfish in many cases, is it not?

Well, as Kant said, moral actions may very well mask self-interest. But he believed that a test (but, by no means an infallible test) for whether someone is acting morally ("for the sake of duty") is whether he acts contrary to his self-interest. And the Navy Seal certainly did that. So his action is prima facie moral. I suppose that means that the presumption has to be that the Seal acted morally. In other words, that presumption can, of course, be defeated, but it stands until it is defeated by other evidence. (Just as the legal presumption of innocence can be defeated, and sometimes, of course, is defeated) but it stands until it is defeated.

Doing the will of God to gain favor with Him would, of course, be self-interested, but hardly selfish unless the action affected others in some adverse way, for instance deprived them of something to which they were entitled. But self-interested action does not seem to me selfish as such. Of course, no one should get any moral medals for doing what is in his interest. But why should he get a moral demerit unless the affect was an adverse one? Maybe God will not be impressed. But let's "leave [the person] to heaven". As Bishop Joseph Butler once pointed out, it isn't that people are self-interested that makes them immoral, but that they are not self-interested enough. We can often get people to do what they ought to do just by appealing to their self-interest.

""It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Adam Smith.

@boagie,

Kant's teachings were debunked in the 40's I believe.
But good points, regardless.

@kennethamy,

In trying to develop the view of what constitutes selfishness and what constitutes sacrifice,it was intended that Mark Twains views on what modivates us to action and Schopenhaurs view on self-sacrifice and morality in general would be developed.However this seemed to rub against the grain of several people here.It has been mentioned else where that Dawkins idea of the selfish gene would prove Schopenhaur wrong,and that we are not really selfish,our genes are selfish.In fact,in realizeing that subject and object are one,that you as subject and other as object are one,self-sacrifice here is necessarily selfish,the concept now incorporates other[object]in your identification with other[object]you are saveing yourself.If the ultimate self is our genes then so be it,it is genes identifing with genes--still works for me.If indeed that is the mystical reality, that as with subject and object all are one,that would put selfishness into a totally different perspective wouldn't it.

@boagie,

It's difficult to provide an example of true selflessness when you're speaking of a creature who's most basic instinct is self-preservation.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

It's difficult to provide an example of true selflessness when you're speaking of a creature who's most basic instinct is self-preservation.

Aristoddler, Smile

Excellent point,but that is where Schopenhaurs concept of what is happening when someone sacrifices themselves for another might come in,what is it the over rides that prime directive.The act itself of sacrifice is not a rational decision,a value judgement,at this point of identifing with, you are just taken,it is not willed.Think for a moment of all the hero's interviewed after that fact and they tell you,there was not time to think,indeed if they had time to consider that prime directive,they probably would not have done it.It is an act of the heart not of the head.

@boagie,

Now we're getting somewhere! Wink

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere!

Aristoddler, Smile

The same priciple which enables self-sacrifice is the same principle in action which is labled compassion.Every religious tradition has as it corner stone compassion,you are instructed to be compassionate but seldom if ever are you told what compassion is. Only recently has it become obvious that compassion is not the soul property of humanity but is found also in the animal world.At the point of self-sacrifice Schopenhaur states it is a metaphysical breakthrough,time and space which inform us of our separateness, separateness of I and other is overcome in a heartbeat.In that heartbeat the concept of self is expanded to include other,so the concept now embraces subject and object,you and other are one,the sacrifice is to this larger self,and that is where it can be termed selfish.

An individual unable to identify itself with the self of another is devoid of compassion,and is termed I believe a psychopath.To the psychopath this quality of compassion is a mystery and a weakness,something to be taken advantage of.This process for lack of a better word,is so common we take it for granted,Schopenhaur goes on to say,you can see it everyday in the small careing things people do for each other throughout the day.I suppose it is just a matter of degree from this ordinary careing to self-sacrifice,at the point of self-sacrifice momentarily perhaps, this is the reality you and the other are one,and that is the metaphysical breakthrough.Mark Twains take on what modivates us to action is indeed self-interest,but through this process of identification with, taken to its ultimate,vanquishes our separate self-interest and makes it a common self-interest,without this in some degree I do not believe human society or societies in general would come about.Any additional thoughts out there?

@Bii,

Bii wrote:

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.

Isn't the fact that helping others makes a person feel good, significant? Maybe it shows that his motive in helping others in not to feel good, but rather it is simply to help others and in doing so, he also feels good.Why must it be that his motive is to feel good? Why isn't that possible too? After all, it isn't really fair cynically to say that Joe helped Bill only so that he would feel good, when, in fact, Joe helped Bill because he just wanted to help Bill, and just as a result, because Joe is such a good guy, Joe felt good. How, after all, do you know that account of what happened, wasn't true? And, then, too, doesn't it depend on what it was that Joe did to help Bill. Maybe he helped Bill just so he, Joe, could feel good, when Joe gave Bill a ride when Bill's car was being repaired. That didn't inconvenience Joe all that much, and, so, his feeling good as a result of helping Bill might well outbalance the negative feeling of being inconvenienced. But, suppose Joe helped Bill out by going in front of Bill when someone was shooting at Bill, and taking the bullet for Bill. Is it then plausible to say that Joe took the bullet for Bill in order to feel good about helping Bill? Isn't that different? So, although it might be plausible in some cases to say that Joe helped Bill in order for him to feel good, in other cases it becomes very implausible.

Philosophy Forum

The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know