I don't think you understand. It was the person who ran out of gas who was distressed. Wouldn't you be? The person who helped, was inconvenienced, but that is just what was nice about him.
Look, it isn't such a big deal to go out of your way to drive someone to a gas station, and then drive him back to his car. Why would someone have to be a psychopath to do that? Maybe he is just being nice. Has the motive of just being nice been overlooked by the psychological community? Why do you think so. But, suppose it has been, so much the worse for the psychological community.

"Our consciences take no notice of pain inflicted upon others until it reaches a point where it gives pain to us."

"Well, that's very easy... because... It makes us feel good!"

"It's reciprocal. Most people do things out of the kindness of their heart because it makes themselves feel good. If it made you feel bad, you wouldn't do it."

"Look at everything in life and everything you do. You do what you do because it makes you feel good! "

"Again, cause not effect. Sure, it's an entirely different way of looking at it but it makes perfect sense. Couple it with the teachings of Jesus and many enlightened individuals throughout history, it really makes sense."

a quote from Twain's book:[INDENT]Quote:[/INDENT][INDENT]"Our consciences take no notice of pain inflicted upon others until it reaches a point where it gives pain to us."[/INDENT]

This is a great topic. The difficulty is that some people live of the world and for the world without recognizing the greater I AM. They have little or no awareness of their own essence.

Well, that's very easy... because... It makes us feel good!

It's reciprocal. Most people do things out of the kindness of their heart because it makes themselves feel good. If it made you feel bad, you wouldn't do it.

I don't think that is true. People have a variety of motives for doing what they do. And some of the things people do make them feel bad. For example, when I was much younger, my aunt went to the hospital. I went to visit her, but I simply hated, and still hate going to a hospital. I makes me feel ill to do so. Furthermore, to tell you the truth, I didn't even like my aunt. She was quite mean, and nasty. So, why did I go to visit her. Well, I believed that it was the right thing to do. That it was an obligation. So I did not visit my aunt because it made me feel good. On the contrary, I felt terrible. I did not (in the worst way) want to visit her. But I just believed it was my duty to visit her. I visited her out of a sense of duty. So you must be wrong. I did it although it made me feel bad to do it. Nowadays I sometimes have to go to funerals. They make me feel awful. But sometimes I have to do it, because I am a member of the family. and I really have no choice. I can tell you that I don't attend funerals because it makes me feel good. It makes me feel just awful.

Have you gone to funerals? Does it make you feel good to go to funerals? I doubt it. But you go anyway, don't you? So how can you say that you go to funerals because it makes you feel good?

I believe you are mistaken here, feeling good is a product of your actions,feeling good is not cause,it is effect,it might be said to be the goal of the actions of the individual.What motivates is a value,a personal belief,the terms of ones self image.

Justin, this is quite a statement,would you like to expand on what you believe is your essence,a rational explanation.What is this I AM that most people do not grasp?

I don't think that is true. People have a variety of motives for doing what they do. And some of the things people do make them feel bad. For example, when I was much younger, my aunt went to the hospital. I went to visit her, but I simply hated, and still hate going to a hospital. I makes me feel ill to do so. Furthermore, to tell you the truth, I didn't even like my aunt. She was quite mean, and nasty. So, why did I go to visit her. Well, I believed that it was the right thing to do. That it was an obligation. So I did not visit my aunt because it made me feel good. On the contrary, I felt terrible. I did not (in the worst way) want to visit her. But I just believed it was my duty to visit her. I visited her out of a sense of duty. So you must be wrong. I did it although it made me feel bad to do it. Nowadays I sometimes have to go to funerals. They make me feel awful. But sometimes I have to do it, because I am a member of the family. and I really have no choice. I can tell you that I don't attend funerals because it makes me feel good. It makes me feel just awful.

Nowadays I sometimes have to go to funerals. They make me feel awful. But sometimes I have to do it, because I am a member of the family. and I really have no choice. I can tell you that I don't attend funerals because it makes me feel good. It makes me feel just awful.

Desire is the cause of action.

Desire cannot be anything but self-involved.

All action is selfish.

How is the desire to help someone in need, selfish? If it were selfish, it would be depriving someone of something that person was entitled to. How would, for instance, my desire to go to bed because I am tired, be selfish? Or to have a sandwich for lunch because I am hungry? To be selfish, you have to take something from someone, and treat that person adversely. If, for instance a mother leaves two pieces of cake for her sons, one for each, and one of the son's eats both his and his brother's, that's being selfish. But why would it be selfish for the boy just to eat his own piece of cake, and leave his brother's piece for his brother. Are you saying that if one son ate only his own piece of cake, and left the other one as he was supposed to, the mother would be right to call him selfish because he ate his own piece of cake? I don't think that's the way the word, "selfish" is used in English. Do you?

Kennethamy,

You are still stuck with the sematic problem, to fulfill a personal need is self-serveing-thus selfish. To take advantage of another to fulfill your needs is selfish. If the action did not involve another being, but serves the needs of the subject it again is self-serveing, thus selfish, not selfish in the way of taking advantage of someonelse but selfish none the less,it is done for ones self.

I know you think that is true. The question is, why you think that is true. And, of course, whether you are correct to think it is true. Just repeating your view does not make your view true. I serve my need (I suppose) when I go to sleep when I am tired. To say that is selfish is preposterous. Therefore, it follows, that is is not true that whenever I serve my need, I am being selfish. You really have to distinguish between being self-interested and being selfish. Philosophy is largely about making important distinctions.

Kennethamy,

Yes there is a distinction to be made, when one serves ones self at the cost of another, that is said to be selfish -------agreed? When one reaches for a glass of water to quench his thirsty this too is said to be selfish, it is selfish in the sense that the subject is serveing himself, in both cases he is serveing himself. If I give into a beggar because I would feel very uncomfortable denying the poor, I am also serveing myself first, it is my discomfort which moves me to give to the said begger. I would have to have some belief both about the beggar and myself to move me give him money. If I believed he was needy I would feel most uncomfortable in denying him, I do not like to feel uncomfortable, I give. We understand what you mean, it is not quite the same, but it is remarkable similar, the commonality is, in all cases it is selfsevering,giveing satisfys your need to give before it serves the beggers need. Kennethamy, to go to bed when you are tired is selfserveing and selfish in the sense that you are serveing your own needs, no it has nothing to do with other and it is not preposterous,it is the sutle problem of semantics.The Question remains what modivates.

But there is no "sense of 'selfish'" "in the sense of serving himself". You just made it up. And to distinguish between being selfish because we are acting in a way to benefit ourselves at the expense of someone else, and just doing something for ourselves which does not affect others adversely, is exactly the distinction between "selfishness" and "self-interest" which you continue to confuse.

Look, when I say of someone that he is selfish, I am blaming that person for doing something immoral. Unless I think he is doing something wrong, I should not blame him for it. Selfishness is morally wrong because the selfish person is affecting other people adversely by taking something he is not entitled to; by, as I said, benefiting himself at the expense of someone else. But doing things like going to sleep when tired, and taking a glass of water when thirsty, is not morally wrong when it affects no one, and does not benefit you by harming others. And, so, it is an abuse of the word, "selfish" to use it in that way. And, besides, it is morally wrong to blame someone for being selfish when he is not being selfish by acting for his own benefit at another's expense. You should not imply that someone is doing something morally wrong when he is not doing something morally wrong. Don't you agree?

I agree that when a person acts self-interestedly, that is not an occasion for giving him any moral medals. He acted to benefit himself, so there is no reason to praise him. But neither is it any reason to blame him unless you believe that no one should act in any way that is not altruistic.* But you don't believe that do you? You don't believe that unless someone is being altruistic, and acting for the benefit of others, that person is being selfish, so you. But that is what you seem to be saying. You seem to be saying that either a person is altruistic or he is selfish, and there is no in between possibility. That is what is sometimes called "black or white" thinking, and is usually counted as a fallacy. It is possible to be neither selfish, nor altruistic .In fact, that is what most of us are most of the time. Most of the time, we act, self-interestedly (but neither altruistically nor selfishly).

*I think that some saints may have thought that way. But I don't suppose that you count yourself among them. Do you?

kennethamy.

Saint Boagie, it does have a ring! Kennethamy the problem is your see me disgreeing with you when I am not. I am quite able to make the distinction between a self-serveing act which benifits others, and a self-serveing act at the expense of others. What you do not seem to get is in both instances the act is first self-serveing thus selfish, the difference, the act at the expense of others is entirely selfish, the other form of act which is self-serveing is only so in the sense that that is what moves the subject to act in the first place.

The circumstance has created a need in the subject, he sees someone in distress, it makes him uncomfortable, he does not like feeling uncomfortable, and if he is a compassionate man to do nothing would mean staying with that discomfort, his behaviour is dictated by his compassion, the belief he has of himself as a compassionate individual. The circumstance is simply the trigger, the character of the man determines his actions, and the action then serves to support the said character of the man. I do not think there ever has been anyone in this dialogue who could not distinguish the totally selfish act which victumizes another, from the self serveing nature of our everyday actions, they are selfish because they are self-serveing,not because they are immoral.

But do you make a distinction between a self-interested act that may benefit the agent, but does not affect others whether by benefiting them, or by harming them? An action that affects only the agent?

What I don't get, I am afraid, is why a self-interested act need be selfish, in any sense at all. I can but repeat that to call an act "selfish" is to condemn the act. It is to say that the act is wrong. A selfish person is an immoral person. That is what the word, "selfish", means. But a person who takes a glass of water to assuage his thirst is a person who has done a self-interested act. But he surely has not, thereby, done anything immoral. And since he has not done anything immoral, and since to call him (or the act) "selfish", is to say that the person has done something immoral by taking a glass of water to assuage his thirst, which is clearly untrue, that person has not been or done anything selfish. Here, I'll lay the argument out for you:

1. If a person does something selfish, then that person has done something immoral.
2. But a self-interested act need not be immoral. (e.g. drinking a glass of water).

Therefore, 3. A self-interested act need not be selfish. Q.E.D.

If you reject the conclusion of that argument, then you must either reject its validity (that the conclusion follows from the premises) or you must reject the truth or one or more of the premises (or both). What is it you reject, and why?

P.S. I think that your insistence on using the term, "self-serving" may be what is confusing you. The term, "self-serving" has a negative connotation in the way the term, "selfish" does. In fact, they are near synonyms. But taking a glass of water is neither selfish, nor is it "self-serving" in any negative sense. That is why I prefer the term, "self-interested" since it is more neutral than is either "selfish" or "self-serving". I deny that taking a glass of water, when it affects no one but the agent, is either selfish, or that it is self-serving (in the negative sense you mean it, where it is a synonym of "selfish"). Why not drop the term, "self-serving" which begs the question, and just adopt the more neutral term, "self-interested"? I, of course, deny that an act is selfish because it is self-interested for reasons previously given. Now, what you mean by "self-serving" I really cannot tell. If you mean, "selfish" that is just wrong. For a selfish action is necessarily immoral. That is what the word, "selfish" means.

To call someone, "selfish" is to condemn that person, or to blame him
But, there is no reason to condemn or blame a person for taking a glass of water, which affects no one else.

Therefore, to take a glass of water (which affects no one else) is not selfish.

Why do you think that when I call someone a selfish person, I am not disapproving of his actions? Think what you would mean if you were not doing philosophy, or ask other people who speak English whether they would not be disapproving of a person whom they thought was selfish?

kennethamy,

The reason for not abondoning the term self-servering is that it is elemental in understanding the modivation of the actions of the individual. Semantics are said to be a problem when that problem is not understood. I believe you now understand the distinctions of the terms, therefore I fail to understand why it remains a problem for you. The semantics problem has been made the focus topic of this thread for some time,the intention of the thread was to examine what modivates the individual to action,the modivation/s are the needs of the said subject,of which a self-serveing action then fulfills---------nothing personal kennethamy!

But to be self-serving is just to be self-interested. And to be self-interested is not to be selfish. Therefore, to be self-serving is not to be selfish. Therefore, even if all our actions are self-serving (which is clearly not true) it does not follow that all our actions are selfish.

When we use words, we have to talk about words. Certainly not talk only about words, but certainly talk about words. Of course, if you believe that "self-serving" and "selfish" mean the same, and you believe that all actions are self-serving, you will believe that all actions are selfish. But why would you believe either of those two premises? Both are clearly false.

kennethamy,

, you will ever approach the real topic. So once again, I suggest that in the future that we avoid one another.:cool:

I don't know what you believe the "real topic" is. But unless you get clear about what you are talking about, you will never approach it either. What do you mean by "self-serving" except either "selfish" or "self-interested"? In either case, we are talking about whether actions are selfish, or whether they are self-interested. The introduction of the term, "self-serving" without definition, merely confuses the issue. I guess that is where what you call "semantics" is important. Let's get some clarity rather than confusion. What does, "self-serving" mean, and how is it different from, "self-interested" or from "selfish"?

kennethamy,

This is a merry-go-round and I do not believe you ever wish to ever get off.Do not follow me on the boards and I most asuredly will not fellow you.