every action is selfish...

@failures art,

I can go along with that.
It seems a sound method of categorizing actions.
As long as the guy who fails to commit an altruistic action, isn't committing a selfish act by default.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Are you actually asking why asserting what compels people in general act the way they act is or can be of importance ???

I'm not asking anything. I'm telling you that intent is not a required component of the definitions of "selfish" or "altruistic." While I'm sure, you can find much correlation, you can't measure it, or even observe motive. For that matter, the pairing of an absolutely self-less motive with inaction (and thus harm) would then be more altruistic than someone's action that helped, but was selfishly motivated. Motive is unnecessary in evaluating this topic.

A discussion on motive takes us further away from the original topic and trivializes the product of a given action.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

because the deep nature of their actions and how we see them changes when we can assert motive fa...and we can assert general motivations or otherwise you would n´t have a law system in place...motive can change a verdict....

Motive can change a verdict, but it cannot change an outcome. You can be found innocent of murder, but that does not change the fact that someone is dead.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You're trying to tie down a concept that is impossible to do so. Motive is not measurable, because it depends on outside influences that cannot be predetermined. You cannot predict the future by taking samples from people who may or may not have any interest in the subject matter under evaluation, and doesn't know what they will be judging in the future.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

I can go along with that.
It seems a sound method of categorizing actions.
As long as the guy who fails to commit an altruistic action, isn't committing a selfish act by default.

I think that's exactly the dilemma, and it's exactly why motive should be excluded from evaluating the selfishness/altruism of a specific act. To add that in, would only further muddy the topic with not only intent, but also add "knowledge" into the equation. In short, how to define negligence in selfish/altruistic language. Since knowledge is varied, and since we are incapable of knowing outcomes in advance, it is very difficult to make any meaningful evaluation.

A
R
T

1 Reply

Could you elaborate on your concept of "selfish"?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

self serving.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

O.K., I do agree that the vast majority of our actions are self-serving. The problem is whether they are they enlightened or unenlightened in their goals? And do they unnecessarily sacrifice the interests of others in the process?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

no. not on a conscience level. the first reply was asking about throwing yourself in front of a gun. this action is, in small way, beneficial to you. it increases your social standing with the person who's life you just saved. they now see you as brave, altruistic. also, if you just stood there, then you are actually hurt in the way that you cant forgive yourself for standing by and letting another human being die.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

every action you take is in some way beneficial to you.

YES, and/or someone upon whom my favor has rested.

David

0 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

The words "selfish" and "beneficial" represent a very wide spectrum.
At the very end of the "selfish" spectrum you can say that even the
most unselfish act in some way validates the doer's sense of right.
And thus -- at one end of the "beneficial" spectrum -- it is beneficial
to the doer, and thus selfish.

But, as others here have pointed out, what is the relevance of the
argument to the world of common sense? This is the sort of argument
that has always given philosophy a bad name.

SELFISH = GOOD!!!

0 Replies

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

no. not on a conscience level. the first reply was asking about throwing yourself in front of a gun. this action is, in small way, beneficial to you. it increases your social standing with the person who's life you just saved. they now see you as brave, altruistic. also, if you just stood there, then you are actually hurt in the way that you cant forgive yourself for standing by and letting another human being die.

U "can't"????
Something like that happened to me, a few years ago.
I agreed to exist near the food n drink of a hospitality room
of a Convention from 12m - 2AM, after which, I'd awaken the guy
whose main responsibility was the food n drink.
( I 'd be his temporary assistant, at his request. )
I was intermittently reading n falling asleep.
He laid down on the rug n fashioned a pillow.
That was the last that I saw him alive.

FOR SURE, it never occurred to me
to "forgive myself" nor to feel any guilt.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

one word!
one word!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

...nonsense in general terms of course I can...for instance normally people eat because they are hungry which in turn does n´t mean that every one eating needs necessarily to be hungry...

...motives, concerning human behaviour, to an extent, I grant that much, can be and should be investigated...actually they are in social and behavioural sciences, sometimes with more or less success...but nevertheless history often proves the necessity of such knowledge...
(what else actually are we obsessed about ?)
what you mean and I never opposed that is that in a particular non general approach it is actually extremely hard to investigate what motivates a specific given behaviour...

There´s no such thing as an altruistic act from the standing point of the person who does it...an "altruistic act" is a social moral evaluation on someone else´s behaviour from an outside perspective...but the one who is acting in milliseconds has measured the convenience or inconvenience of such choice...behaviours have causes...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

FIRST RULE OF SURVIVAL: Eat.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So ???
Don´t tell me that you only eat when you are hungry...although of course when you actually are hungry you must eat...besides are you agreeing or disagreeing that motives are of importance not to change or to judge but to fully evaluate the nature of an outcome for what it really is ?...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You're missing the whole point about motivation.

0 Replies

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

one word!
one word!

WHAT does that mean ????????

0 Replies

@failures art,

That's what I was thinking too.
We categorize actions, such as homicide, in this way all the time.
Motive plays a part, but I think it only comes into play when we reduce homicide into sub-categories.
Since we are not reducing altruistic action into sub-categories, we shouldn't need motive.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

That's what I was thinking too.
We categorize actions, such as homicide, in this way all the time.
Motive plays a part, but I think it only comes into play when we reduce homicide into sub-categories.
Since we are not reducing altruistic action into sub-categories, we shouldn't need motive.

What r the CATEGORIES from which the sub-categories are reduced ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I would say that Homicide is a general category from which several sub-categories have been reduced.

0 Replies

every action is selfish...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know