NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey guys,
I remember reading a thread that Smunkeeville posted on candy and I remembered how she came to the conclusion that every action is somehow selfish, this got me thinking about Buddhism and how they are so selfless it untrue. The further thought occurred that normal people have a part of them that wants to do good even if it means giving up everything, like veterans who sacrificed their life so the others can live or bodhisattva that refuse enlightenment to help others. So here's the question, does every action really have a selfish motive behind it?

(poll coming)

Who's to say satisfying that voice that tells us to do good isn't selfish in itself?

Who's to say satisfying that voice that tells us to do good isn't selfish in itself?

How could it be?

How could it be?

Self interest is subjective, and plenty of intangibles are part of one's own self interest.

How could it be?

Because that voice is a desire. Even if good comes from it it's still a desire, and working to fulfill one's own desires is selfish is it not?

Weren't the Bodsittava selfless like that because of their religious teachings? Buddhists are knownfor going against and even manipulating their own nature, they could actually stop their own heart if they wanted.

What about Buddhism? They seperate themselves from all desires to reach enlightenment, I think this means they are completely incapable of commiting selfish acts.

Weren't the Bodsittava selfless like that because of their religious teachings? Buddhists are knownfor going against and even manipulating their own nature, they could actually stop their own heart if they wanted.

1. Who are the Bodsittava? Wiki ain't got squat.

2. It doesn't matter if they manipulate their own nature, if they no longer desire to do so, they'll stop. Simple.

3. Source for the heart thing.

Weren't the Bodsittava selfless like that because of their religious teachings? Buddhists are knownfor going against and even manipulating their own nature, they could actually stop their own heart if they wanted.

What about Buddhism? They seperate themselves from all desires to reach enlightenment, I think this means they are completely incapable of commiting selfish acts.

GRRR! You edited. Is not reaching enlightenment a desire?

When I do selfless things I feel good about myself. In fact, if I didn't feel good about myself for doing them, I wouldn't do them. Thus, my selfless actions are selfish. I'm okay with that.

1. Who are the Bodsittava? Wiki ain't got squat.

2. It doesn't matter if they manipulate their own nature, if they no longer desire to do so, they'll stop. Simple.

3. Source for the heart thing.

1. They manipulate it constantly

2.I saw this cool documentary on how buddhists can consciously control involuntary functions in the body. http://purifymind.com/BS.htm

When I do selfless things I feel good about myself. In fact, if I didn't feel good about myself for doing them, I wouldn't do them. Thus, my selfless actions are selfish.

No, they aren't. The fact that selfless things make you feel good is itself an indicator of selflessness.

When I do selfless things I feel good about myself. In fact, if I didn't feel good about myself for doing them, I wouldn't do them. Thus, my selfless actions are selfish. I'm okay with that.

I remember Jesus saying the spirit desires good things while the body desires bad things. ;)

GRRR! You edited. Is not reaching enlightenment a desire?

Not really, reaching enlightenment is freeing oneself of all desires, meaning once they reach it the desire to be enlightened is gone and now they're just keeping themselves alive having no desires whatsoever.

No, they aren't. The fact that selfless things make you feel good is itself an indicator of selflessness.
But the fact that I'm only doing it because it makes me feel good is an indicator of selfishness.

No, they aren't. The fact that selfless things make you feel good is itself an indicator of selflessness.

But he's only selfless because he's selfish.

I remember Jesus saying the spirit desires good things while the body desires bad things. ;)



Not really, reaching enlightenment is freeing oneself of all desires, meaning once they reach it the desire to be enlightened is gone and now they're just keeping themselves alive having no desires whatsoever.

Except apparently the desire to live. Otherwise they'd stop eating or breathing or being enlightened.

Except apparently the desire to live. Otherwise they'd stop eating or breathing or being enlightened.

Well I know they don't care if they die.

You're also assuming a yet unproven point. That enlightenment exists/ the buhhdism isn't just the placebo effect^2

Well I know they don't care if they die.
Then why don't they?

But the fact that I'm only doing it because it makes me feel good is an indicator of selfishness.

It feels good because it's selfless. Thus, you do it because it's selfless.

"Feel[ing] good" is just a communication of your own moral character.

Then why don't they?

They would but the desire to die is a desire.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506373
There's the read which inspired this one.

It feels good because it's selfless. Thus, you do it because it's selfless.

"Feel[ing] good" is just a communication of your own moral character.
I really hate to splice pronouns at you, but you've said both times that the action itself is selfless, which I suppose makes sense, but my motivation for doing it is selfish.

Would it be to categorize myself as selfish and my actions as selfless?

They would but the desire to die is a desire.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506373
There's the read which inspired this one.

Who says they need a desire to die? Inaction (I.E. the loss of desire for oxygen) is all that's required for death.

self-ish (selfish)adj. 1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: "Selfish men were ... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights" (Maria Weston Chapman). 2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.--self'ish-ly adv. --self'ish-ness n.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The definition of selfish above is being concerned for oneself, only for oneself disregaurding others. So most human actions could be self sustaining and out of curiousity but when it gets to the point where you disregaurd others then its selfish.

Hey guys,
I remember reading a thread that Smunkeeville posted on candy and I remembered how she came to the conclusion that every action is somehow selfish, this got me thinking about Buddhism and how they are so selfless it untrue. The further thought occurred that normal people have a part of them that wants to do good even if it means giving up everything, like veterans who sacrificed their life so the others can live or bodhisattva that refuse enlightenment to help others. So here's the question, does every action really have a selfish motive behind it?

(poll coming)

my 2 cents.
i think most people are inherently kind,will help their fellow ...that said,we all have an inate instinct to survive...and people(humans) will always...always do waht is best for them given the chance.

that is not to say i have not lost deerly doing the right thing...but then again..if things are in my best interest...i sometimes take advantage...not to an extreme,and the other party feels like they got helped,just not as much as me.

we do come from animals and personal survival is inherently a nature of ours...just like breathing.

to sum up...i like to think of myself as altruistic and kind...and i do and have taken a hit/loss to help others...but when push comes to shove..survival always takes over..unless you miswired and suicidal.

my 2 cents.
i think most people are inherently kind,will help their fellow ...that said,we all have an inate instinct to survive...and people(humans) will always...always do waht is best for them given the chance.

We have an inate instinct to protect our DNA. Survival is often a requirement for that.
self-ish (selfish)adj. 1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: "Selfish men were ... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights" (Maria Weston Chapman). 2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.--self'ish-ly adv. --self'ish-ness n.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The definition of selfish above is being concerned for oneself, only for oneself disregaurding others. So most human actions could be self sustaining and out of curiousity but when it gets to the point where you disregaurd others then its selfish.
The point is, that you have regard for others due to a loop in the pleasure center of your brain. Others are only the trigger, you aren't regarding them, you're regarding the chemical responce you get from helping them.

My point is a selfish act would be like a guy going "meheheh all for ME and none for YOU" while reguard for others means you not going to screw someone over to your advantage even if you can and effectively get away with it. Following the desires to sustain oneself wouldn't be selfish until you completely treat or reguard others as just toolsfor your own advantage, or disregaurd them completey and go ahead whether it hurts them or not. Selfishness is basically caring only for yourself. And its hard to say you don't care for others because people who are friends,family, loved ones are the kind of people we'd jump in front of a bullet to save.

My point is a selfish act would be like a guy going "meheheh all for ME and none for YOU" while reguard for others means you not going to screw someone over to your advantage even if you can and effectively get away with it. Following the desires to sustain oneself wouldn't be selfish until you completely treat or reguard others as just toolsfor your own advantage, or disregaurd them completey and go ahead whether it hurts them or not. Selfishness is basically caring only for yourself. And its hard to say you don't care for others because people who are friends,family, loved ones are the kind of people we'd jump in front of a bullet to save.

We'd only jump in front of a bullet to save them to serve our own selfish needs. (I.E., they have a good deal of the same genome as us) And I'm saying, that since all actions are simply attempts to obtain pleasure, all acts are selfish.

We'd only jump in front of a bullet to save them to serve our own selfish needs. (I.E., they have a good deal of the same genome as us) And I'm saying, that since all actions are simply attempts to obtain pleasure, all acts are selfish.

No they're not, naturally speaking the only reason our anscestors sought pleasure was because back then pleasure signified something that would help their survival. And jumping in front of a bullet does the exact opposite of keeping one alive. And how would jumping in front of a bullet serve our selfish needs, so far all I can think of at the moment under selfish needs is: desire for sustainance (food water, right temperature, air, ect) desire to reproduce, greed, vanity, desire for power, desire for control.

Yes. No matter what, every action is at least in the most basic esscence selfish. However most actions are selfish on many more levels than the deepest essential one.

In a nutshell, everything you do is selfish because you want to do it. If you did not want to do what you are doing on the most basic level of subconcious decision making, you would not do it. When you do something, you are making a decision to do it based on a set of goals or motives (sometimes simple, sometimes elaborate), taking the said action is merely a step in fulfilling your motives (even if your motives are indeed selfless, fulfilling them is selfish).

It is not a bad thing, it is inescapable, and it is truly a matter of logical semantics. That being said, most seemingly selfless acts are selfish in much more superficial aspects than the above. Usually self-gratification. Only the rarest of acts is selfless to the point of only being selfish in the most basic sense of performaing an action (and most of them are asscociated with dying people).

This thread needs a poll, and I say yes.

Acting out of self-interest is not necessarily bad for other people, there is a very interesting book called the Wisdom of crowds which looks at how groups of people acting out of self interest actually benefits all of the group. However there are acts of self-interest which are detrimental to other people.

Acting out of self-interest is not necessarily bad for other people, there is a very interesting book called the Wisdom of crowds which looks at how groups of people acting out of self interest actually benefits all of the group. However there are acts of self-interest which are detrimental to other people.

So...what if it's in my self interest to beat up people weaker than me and take their money? I'm glad you agree. :) ;)

So...what if it's in my self interest to beat up people weaker than me and take their money? I'm glad you agree. :) ;)

That would be detrimental to other people and so selfish. Though of course with your new found wealth it would be in the interests of someone else to beat you up for the money.

That would be detrimental to other people and so selfish.

Exactly - but that benefits society...right?

Though of course with your new found wealth it would be in the interests of someone else to beat you up for the money.

Not if I can bribe enough people to beat them up first. Hell, I could make a monopoly out of the beating up and extorting things out of people thing and call it...government. Yeah, that's got a nice ring to it. ;)

Self-interest is fun!

Exactly - but that benefits society...right?



Not if I can bribe enough people to beat them up first. Hell, I could make a monopoly out of the beating up and extorting things out of people thing and call it...government. Yeah, that's got a nice ring to it. ;)

Self-interest is fun!

No I don't think that selfish acts benefit society, but then I don't think that trying to do things for other people that they don't necessarily want benefits society either. I am more for enlightened self-interest that does as little harm as possible to other people (i.e no beating them up)

No I don't think that selfish acts benefit society, but then I don't think that trying to do things for other people that they don't necessarily want benefits society either. I am more for enlightened self-interest that does as little harm as possible to other people (i.e no beating them up)

Fair enough.

In regard to the original question...I don't think that every action is selfish, no. I don't for a moment think everything I do is a matter of self-interest, at least not consciously.

Hell, I can look back on my life and see a lot of situations where I know my life would have been "easier" if i'd made another decision, but I stubbornly went against what my common-sense told me and stuck to convictions; and ended up the worse for it - isn't everyone the same? To cite but one example; why on earth would I express myself politically when it is much easier to sit down and keep my mouth shut?

Not to say that i'm a selfless person, because i'm not - I don't think anyone truly is; but I hardly think it applies in every instance.

In a nutshell, everything you do is selfish because you want to do it. If you did not want to do what you are doing on the most basic level of subconcious decision making, you would not do it.
What about eating - is that basic need "selfish" as well? I think there's a line that needs to be drawn somewhere, and I define selfishness as placing my self-interest above those of others. While the act of eating a meal is in my self-interest, I really don't think that doing so is placing my self-interest above the interests of others.

I guess it comes down to semantics and what people think of as selfishness.

So here's the question, does every action really have a selfish motive behind it?

No. Many actions lack motives all together.

As for motivated actions, a great many are not consciously motivated by selfishness. Because we are all locked within our own selves, you might be able to say that we all opperate from an inherently "selfish" point of view. We are only able to evaluate (and, therefore, act) based on our own experience of the world around us. Personally, I think it wouldn't be useful to refer to this as automatically "selfish," because that would stretch the word so far that it would become almost meaningless.

No. Many actions lack motives all together.

As for motivated actions, a great many are not consciously motivated by selfishness. Because we are all locked within our own selves, you might be able to say that we all opperate from an inherently "selfish" point of view. We are only able to evaluate (and, therefore, act) based on our own experience of the world around us. Personally, I think it wouldn't be useful to refer to this as automatically "selfish," because that would stretch the word so far that it would become almost meaningless.

Yep. :)

i find the whole psychological egoism discussion to be a bit weird because it winds up having to claim that people throw themselves on grenades to save their comrades because it feels good. i mean, when the feeling you get from being blown up counts as a 'good feeling', and then that 'good feeling' is taken to be your motivation for getting blown up, it seems to me that we've gone completely 'round the bend.

So here's the question, does every action really have a selfish motive behind it?
By definition, it must.

Assuming we have free will, we do that which we choose to do.

But why do we choose to do anything? Whatever the intervening motives, we choose to do things because we want to choose to do those things. By making any decision, you are choosing that which you want to choose. You're doing this because you want to.

If you didn't want to do it, you wouldn't do it. To deny that denies the existence of free will.

But if we always do what we want simply because we want it, then that's selfishness. Always.

By definition, it must.

Assuming we have free will, we do that which we choose to do.

But why do we choose to do anything? Whatever the intervening motives, we choose to do things because we want to choose to do those things. By making any decision, you are choosing that which you want to choose. You're doing this because you want to.

If you didn't want to do it, you wouldn't do it. To deny that denies the existence of free will.

But if we always do what we want simply because we want it, then that's selfishness. Always.

wanting to do something ≠ selfishness. selfishness is about doing things because they benefit you - performing actions only when they promote your own welfare (usually to the exclusion of others). if you want to do things for other reasons, then those actions are definitionally unselfish.

and on a related note, even assuming hard free will does not allow you to say that you only do those actions that you want to do. we have any number of involuntary actions, as well as a whole host of actions that we do despite being conflicted on them or knowing that we should do otherwise.

So here's the question, does every action really have a selfish motive behind it?


Only if you define it as such. By the standard (and most often used) definition of the word, all actions are not selfish, even if there is some amount of self-interest involved. In fact, an action can be entirely motivated by self-interest, and still not be selfish. This is because the definition either requires an excessive amount of self-interest (which, admittedly, is subjective) and there are many actions motivated entirely by self-interest that we would not find excessive. If someone tries to stay healthy, for instance, by eating a balanced meal and exercising, we won't generally call that selfish.

The other thing included in nearly every definition of the word is a disregard for others. It isn't enough for an action to simply be motivated by self-interest, it must also involve a disregard for the interests/welfare of others. Thus, eating your dinner isn't selfish, but refusing your leftovers to a homeless person because they are *yours* is. In the former action, you are acting out of self-interest, but you are not disregarding the welfare of others. In the latter, you are disregarding others for your own self-interest.

selfish
One entry found for selfish.
Main Entry: self·ish
Pronunciation: 'sel-fish
Function: adjective
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
3 : being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>
- self·ish·ly adverb
- self·ish·ness noun

So, if you leave out half of the standard definition and just have "concerned with oneself" or "arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage," you might come to the conclusion that all actions are selfish. But you have to twist the word itself to get there.

wanting to do something ≠ selfishness. selfishness is about doing things because they benefit you - performing actions only when they promote your own welfare (usually to the exclusion of others). if you want to do things for other reasons, then those actions are definitionally unselfish.
But they do benefit you. Otherwise you wouldn't want to do them.

But they do benefit you. Otherwise you wouldn't want to do them.

throwing yourself on a grenade. running into a burning building. committing seppuku. i could go on.

the claim is false. but even if it were true, it still would not follow that every action was selfish. in order to qualify as selfish it must be the case that you are doing some action because it benefits you, and not for any other reasons.

Results are what count. If a selfish act leads to good results, is it wrong? If a selfless act leads to bad results, is it still good? The results of what you do are more important than the reasons for doing it.

The results of what you do are more important than the reasons for doing it.

so you'd hold that someone who intends to commit mass murder but is just bad at it or terrifically unlucky is morally equivalent to someone who does not so intend?

throwing yourself on a grenade. running into a burning building. committing seppuku. i could go on.

the claim is false. but even if it were true, it still would not follow that every action was selfish. in order to qualify as selfish it must be the case that you are doing some action because it benefits you, and not for any other reasons.
You're trying to cram this deranged and inconsistent definition into the word because you want it to be perjorative.

Selfish is a value-neutral term.

And again, people who throw themselves onto a grenade do so because they want to do so. The distinction you're trying to draw is between people who want to do things like that and people who don't. You're trying to talk about motives, but this is a discussion about actions.

Selfish is a value-neutral term.

no, it isn't. not in normal ethical discourse anyways.

And again, people who throw themselves onto a grenade do so because they want to do so.

but before you just said that a person wouldn't want to do something if it didn't benefit them. thus you must be claiming that throwing yourself on a grenade benefits you. the argument is its own reductio.

Results are what count. If a selfish act leads to good results, is it wrong? If a selfless act leads to bad results, is it still good? The results of what you do are more important than the reasons for doing it.

If we are trying to determine whether or not an action is selfish, it is the motivation that matters, not the results. =)


You're trying to cram this deranged and inconsistent definition into the word because you want it to be perjorative.

Actually, FS is using the standard definition of the word, as it is generally used. You are the one who are trying to change the definition to suit your conclusion.

Selfish is a value-neutral term.

Indeed. There is nothing in the definition that says, "Concern solely for oneself" or "Disregard for the welfare of others" is a bad thing. Many of us believe these two things to be bad things, but there are those (see the writings of Ayn Rand) who see them to be a virtue.

The definition is value-neutral, but it still includes the stipulation that the concern must be solely for oneself, with disregard for or ignoring the welfare of others. If this is not the case, then selfish is not an appropriate description.

And again, people who throw themselves onto a grenade do so because they want to do so. The distinction you're trying to draw is between people who want to do things like that and people who don't. You're trying to talk about motives, but this is a discussion about actions.

You cannot discuss the word "selfish" without discussing motives. The word is inherently dependent upon motivation.

no, it isn't. not in normal ethical discourse anyways.
If something is bad it has to be bad for a reason. I'll accept selfish isn't a value neutral term if you can demonstrate what's wrong with selfishness.

All terms are value-neutral until otherwise shown.

(and I'm not even ambushing you with my blanket denial of the existence of connotation)
but before you just said that a person wouldn't want to do something if it didn't benefit them. thus you must be claiming that throwing yourself on a grenade benefits you. the argument is its own reductio.
But that might be true.

If the alternative is living with the consequences of not throwing myself on the grenade, and those consequences appear sufficiently unattractive, then I would want to do that. And thus I would do it.

Selfish is a value-neutral term. Only if its "value" is not assigned by people.

But that might be true.

If the alternative is living with the consequences of not throwing myself on the grenade, and those consequences appear sufficiently unattractive, then I would want to do that. And thus I would do it.

two problems. firstly, that doesn't show any benefit to getting your organs painfully splattered. secondly, in order for you to find the consequences of not getting blown up unattractive you must value things other than your own welfare - you must already be unselfish.

I'll accept selfish isn't a value neutral term if you can demonstrate what's wrong with selfishness.

That's a questionable standard.

What about a term like "evil"? Is that value-neutral as well?

That's a questionable standard.

What about a term like "evil"? Is that value-neutral as well?
Evil is like bad. It's a description of the value of a thing.

Hey guys,
I remember reading a thread that Smunkeeville posted on candy and I remembered how she came to the conclusion that every action is somehow selfish, this got me thinking about Buddhism and how they are so selfless it untrue. The further thought occurred that normal people have a part of them that wants to do good even if it means giving up everything, like veterans who sacrificed their life so the others can live or bodhisattva that refuse enlightenment to help others. So here's the question, does every action really have a selfish motive behind it?

Well, if you feel bad about harming others, then you're working toward your own happiness by helping them. I think it's obvious that every action a human makes is selfish, but I don't think it's a bad thing.

Evil is like bad. It's a description of the value of a thing.

Indeed. And a good argument could be made that "selfish" is the same way, at least in part.

What's the difference between a selfish action and a self-interested one?

two problems. firstly, that doesn't show any benefit to getting your organs painfully splattered.
It shows a relative benefit.
secondly, in order for you to find the consequences of not getting blown up unattractive you must value things other than your own welfare - you must already be unselfish.
Where did this "welfare" thing come from?

That you value something else above your own welfare doesn't preclude you being selfish. It just changes the shape of the selfish act such that it benefits others (but it also benefits you, possibly by protect you from future anguish).

Ayn Rand actually had an example like this. She insisted she would throw herself in front of a bullet to save her husband because she would not want to live in a world where her husband had been killed. And that would be selfish behaviour.

Indeed. And a good argument could be made that "selfish" is the same way, at least in part.

What's the difference between a selfish action and a self-interested one?
Is there one?

The definition quoted above describes selfishness as an excessive amount of self-interest. But I think it's a binary operator that controls all behaviour. You are wholly self-interested, and you cannot help it.

If it's a binary operator, then either all actions are selfish or selfishness is impossible.

By definition, it must.

Assuming we have free will, we do that which we choose to do.

But why do we choose to do anything? Whatever the intervening motives, we choose to do things because we want to choose to do those things. By making any decision, you are choosing that which you want to choose. You're doing this because you want to.

If you didn't want to do it, you wouldn't do it. To deny that denies the existence of free will.

But if we always do what we want simply because we want it, then that's selfishness. Always.


How come we can freely choose to do things we don't want to do? Like the grenade example, you did't want to do it.

How come we can freely choose to do things we don't want to do?
We can't.
Like the grenade example, you did't want to do it.
Then why did you do it? If you didn't want to do it, then you wouldn't have done it. That you did requires that you had a motive for doing so. Did you do it to save other people? Why? Did you want to save other people? Then you wanted to throw yourself on the grenade.

Is there one?

Yes.

"Self-interested" is a fairly value neutral term. "Selfish" is not. "Selfish" is generally includes the notion of "bad."

The same distinction could be made, on the other side of the equation, between "risky" and "courageous" (though the definitions are not quite as close in that case.)

The definition quoted above describes selfishness as an excessive amount of self-interest. But I think it's a binary operator that controls all behaviour. You are wholly self-interested, and you cannot help it.

Not according to the ordinary meaning of "selfishness." But Free Soviets already said everything I would say in reply to this notion.

Evil is like bad. It's a description of the value of a thing. Selfish can be such a descriptor, too. It can have negative ethical connotations.

A truly neutral value would be like the number that accompanies the measure in inches or cm of an object using a ruler. That value is assigned by nature, by virtue of being a characteristic of the thing.

There is no value that humans can assign that can be neutral. Selfish, in this context, is one of our slings and arrows.

It seems to me that to say "if a person does something for the betterment of others, but this action makes them feel good, then the action was at its very root a selfish one," is a distortion of the idea of "selfish". To me, selfish, by definition, means that the action was done primarily with the concern of the self in mind. Therefore, if I do something for the benefit of others, even if it makes me feel good, as long as the primary purpose of said action was to help those around me rather than myself, this act cannot be said to selfish. I think to refer to that as "selfish" is to stretch and distort the meaning of the word beyond reason, until it applies to almost literally every human behavior possible.

Then why did you do it? If you didn't want to do it, then you wouldn't have done it.
It could have been done from a sense of duty. Some things just have to be done.

What about people who live for a creed or a cause? In their minds the only reason they sustain themselves is for the cause. Note that many who took creed's like this, once broken they killed themselves. Everytime they breathed, took medicine or ate they would think they're only doing it so they can live for the cause. Thus it is possible to live unselfishly because they are not self-intersted, they only want to live by the creed or complete their mission. And I right now am living for the family and God that love me and for the crusade which I've elaboarated so many times I do not need to repeat it.

And here's a list of the people who would live in such a way: Samurai, some soldiers, Muslims, Christians, Knights and apprentices.

Ayn Rand actually had an example like this. She insisted she would throw herself in front of a bullet to save her husband because she would not want to live in a world where her husband had been killed. And that would be selfish behaviour.

No, it wouldn't be. The fact that she would feel such anguish is simply a manifestation of the fact that she cared about him - definitionally unselfish behavior.

Perhaps if she coldly calculated in her mind what would bring her the least anguish, and decided that saving her husband qualified, she would indeed be acting selfishly - but that is not how we actually make such decisions.

That you value something else above your own welfare doesn't preclude you being selfish. It just changes the shape of the selfish act such that it benefits others

your definition of 'selfishness' is incoherent

But Free Soviets already said everything I would say in reply to this notion.

i really am always surprised that this argument is still twitching - it's been dead since pretty much the day after it was first proposed.

That you value something else above your own welfare doesn't preclude you being selfish. It just changes the shape of the selfish act such that it benefits others (but it also benefits you, possibly by protect you from future anguish).

To be selfish, you would have to be doing it solely for your own benefit, without any regard to the welfare of others. Otherwise, it doesn't meet the definition.

Ayn Rand actually had an example like this. She insisted she would throw herself in front of a bullet to save her husband because she would not want to live in a world where her husband had been killed. And that would be selfish behaviour.

Ayn Rand is a bad example to use. She had little to no understanding of normal human emotion and interaction, and made up her own, nonstandard definition of selfish to come to the conclusions she used.

It seems to me that to say "if a person does something for the betterment of others, but this action makes them feel good, then the action was at its very root a selfish one," is a distortion of the idea of "selfish". To me, selfish, by definition, means that the action was done primarily with the concern of the self in mind. Therefore, if I do something for the benefit of others, even if it makes me feel good, as long as the primary purpose of said action was to help those around me rather than myself, this act cannot be said to selfish. I think to refer to that as "selfish" is to stretch and distort the meaning of the word beyond reason, until it applies to almost literally every human behavior possible.

Precisely.


No, it wouldn't be. The fact that she would feel such anguish is simply a manifestation of the fact that she cared about him - definitionally unselfish behavior.

Perhaps if she coldly calculated in her mind what would bring her the least anguish, and decided that saving her husband qualified, she would indeed be acting selfishly - but that is not how we actually make such decisions.

LOL, have you read anything by Ayn Rand? We're talking about a woman who defined love as buying your partner and them buying you in turn. Cold calculation is all there was to her.

I can actually believe that every action of Rand's was probably selfish, because she seemed incapable of anything else. It was when she then tried to use herself to determine the traits of most human beings that she failed.

No, I don't think so. I can say from personal experience that there are times when I have made a decision in which my personal benefit was utterly meaningless and wasn't even taken in to consideration. Even if I got a sense of personal satisfaction from it later, that was not my motivation for doing it. There's a huge difference between selfishness and the happiness people feel when they've done something right for another person.

And, of course, dying for someone is inherently unselfish.

And, of course, dying for someone is inherently unselfish.

unless it is accidental or forced upon you (though it wouldn't be actively selfish in those cases either)

unless it is accidental or forced upon you (though it wouldn't be actively selfish in those cases either)

Of course. In those cases, I don't think it would be selfish or unselfish...it just would be.

Llewdor, a question:

assuming for the moment that we are incapable of unselfish action, it must be possible that there could be actions that other sorts of beings could perform that would count, yeah? what sort of action would be an unselfish action according to your preferred definition?

Well, I have a lot to address...
Yes.

"Self-interested" is a fairly value neutral term. "Selfish" is not. "Selfish" is generally includes the notion of "bad."
I'm not even sure that's possible.
The same distinction could be made, on the other side of the equation, between "risky" and "courageous" (though the definitions are not quite as close in that case.)
I would also assert that courageous is a value-neutral term. Describing behaviour, both terms refer to a low level of risk-aversion.
Not according to the ordinary meaning of "selfishness." But Free Soviets already said everything I would say in reply to this notion.
The ordinary meaning of selfishness would therefore be nonsensical.
Selfish can be such a descriptor, too. It can have negative ethical connotations.
I might need to bring out my denial of the existence of connation after all.
A truly neutral value would be like the number that accompanies the measure in inches or cm of an object using a ruler. That value is assigned by nature, by virtue of being a characteristic of the thing.

There is no value that humans can assign that can be neutral. Selfish, in this context, is one of our slings and arrows.
I'll admit I don't understand what you mean here, at all.
It seems to me that to say "if a person does something for the betterment of others, but this action makes them feel good, then the action was at its very root a selfish one," is a distortion of the idea of "selfish". To me, selfish, by definition, means that the action was done primarily with the concern of the self in mind.
I'm asserting that all actions are done solely with the concern of the self in mind. But the self might value highly the welfare of others, possibly over the welfare of the self.
Therefore, if I do something for the benefit of others, even if it makes me feel good, as long as the primary purpose of said action was to help those around me rather than myself, this act cannot be said to selfish. I think to refer to that as "selfish" is to stretch and distort the meaning of the word beyond reason, until it applies to almost literally every human behavior possible.
It absolutely does apply to every human behaviour possible. Applied to behaviour, the term "selfish" is largely meaningless.
It could have been done from a sense of duty. Some things just have to be done.
Then you value duty. And because you value it, you selfishly choose to be motivated by it.
What about people who live for a creed or a cause? In their minds the only reason they sustain themselves is for the cause. Note that many who took creed's like this, once broken they killed themselves. Everytime they breathed, took medicine or ate they would think they're only doing it so they can live for the cause. Thus it is possible to live unselfishly because they are not self-intersted, they only want to live by the creed or complete their mission. And I right now am living for the family and God that love me and for the crusade which I've elaboarated so many times I do not need to repeat it.

And here's a list of the people who would live in such a way: Samurai, some soldiers, Muslims, Christians, Knights and apprentices.
You answer this one yourself. Once the creed was borken they killed themselves, because they valued nothing above the creed. Since life without the creed was unbearable, they chose the creed in all cases.

This is not unlike the behaviour of an addict, which, like your example, is selfish behaviour.
No, it wouldn't be. The fact that she would feel such anguish is simply a manifestation of the fact that she cared about him - definitionally unselfish behavior.
An unselfish motive, perhaps. Not unselfish behaviour.

Though we've previously demonstrated your difficulty separating behaviour from motivation. Recall the woman drowning in the river...
Perhaps if she coldly calculated in her mind what would bring her the least anguish, and decided that saving her husband qualified, she would indeed be acting selfishly - but that is not how we actually make such decisions.
But she did. She decided this in advance.

Ideally, all decisions would be made in such a way. We'd all make fewer rash decisions.
your definition of 'selfishness' is incoherent
Behaviour performed solely for the benefit of the self. What's incoherent about that?

In fact, I suspect your definition is remarkably similar. The difference likely occurs father back up the motivational line.
To be selfish, you would have to be doing it solely for your own benefit, without any regard to the welfare of others. Otherwise, it doesn't meet the definition.
Agreed.
Ayn Rand is a bad example to use. She had little to no understanding of normal human emotion and interaction, and made up her own, nonstandard definition of selfish to come to the conclusions she used.
I have little or no understanding of normal human emotion. Does that mean I'm not allowed to discuss behaviour?
I can actually believe that every action of Rand's was probably selfish, because she seemed incapable of anything else. It was when she then tried to use herself to determine the traits of most human beings that she failed.
We should all aspire to be as calmly rational as Ayn Rand.
No, I don't think so. I can say from personal experience that there are times when I have made a decision in which my personal benefit was utterly meaningless and wasn't even taken in to consideration.
Then why did you do it? Did you not want to? Were you temporarily deprived of free will?

If you chose to do it, you did it because you wanted to - either because it brought you immediate pleasure or satisfaction, or because the consequences of choosing otherwise would have been too significantly negative.

Most moral people feel tremendous guilt when they do immoral things; fear of that guilt is a tremendous motivator.
Even if I got a sense of personal satisfaction from it later, that was not my motivation for doing it. There's a huge difference between selfishness and the happiness people feel when they've done something right for another person.
Yes, one causes the other.
And, of course, dying for someone is inherently unselfish.
You know I disagree.
Llewdor, a question:

assuming for the moment that we are incapable of unselfish action, it must be possible that there could be actions that other sorts of beings could perform that would count, yeah? what sort of action would be an unselfish action according to your preferred definition?
I don't really see why that must be possible. It could just be an adjective that becomes meaningless when applied to behaviour...

...wait, I found one.

Robots. Robots behave unselfishly because they lack free will. They do not choose their behaviour, and thus cannot be motivated by self interest.

Llewdor, a question:

assuming for the moment that we are incapable of unselfish action, it must be possible that there could be actions that other sorts of beings could perform that would count, yeah? what sort of action would be an unselfish action according to your preferred definition?

Wouldn't ;living by a creed or cause be unselfish?

Then you value duty. And because you value it, you selfishly choose to be motivated by it.
Then you're using a different definition of "selfish" than you pointed at earlier. Earlier, you suggested that selfishness is motivated by the self, not by others or other things.

Generally selfishness is considered to be motivated by concern for or interest in the self.

EDIT: Ah! I get it. You're disguising "will" as "selfishness".

Then why did you do it? Did you not want to? Were you temporarily deprived of free will?

There are times when emotion overrides logical thought, effectively depriving you of free will. It ceases to be a rational decision; if such an act is selfish, it is something you have no control over. And if you have no control over it, it doesn't matter whether or not an act is selfish because the outcome is the same.

You don't think about it, you just do it because an irresistible emotional pull is compelling you to do it.

If you chose to do it, you did it because you wanted to - either because it brought you immediate pleasure or satisfaction, or because the consequences of choosing otherwise would have been too significantly negative.

What if your sole concern is the wellbeing of the other person, and you don't even consider the negative or positive effects on yourself?

Yes, one causes the other..

If I don't consider that at the time, is it selfish? Building on that, is selfishness rationally calculated or is it a subconscious motivation, or both?

If it's subconscious, then we have no control over it anyways and it really becomes meaningless to discuss the purpose of something we can't control.

You know I disagree.

Well, I figured. :p

However, the problem is that dying for someone is not selfish because you don't get any benefit in return for it; you're not going to be able to feel the emotional or logical happiness that comes from it, nor will you be able to see the praise you get for that decision.

The only way it could be selfish is if you do it for reward after you die, and that's a completely different situation altogether.

An unselfish motive, perhaps. Not unselfish behaviour.

Selfish vs. unselfish refers to motive. If the motive is unselfish then, by definition, the action is unselfish.

Agreed.

This means that any action taken out of concern for others as its sole motivation is, by definition, not selfish.

I have little or no understanding of normal human emotion. Does that mean I'm not allowed to discuss behaviour?

Selfish vs. unselfish refers to motivation, not behavior. It is possible that the exact same action carried out by one person could be selfish, but by another would be unselfish, because of the motivation behind it.

We should all aspire to be as calmly rational as Ayn Rand.

You see "calmly rational." I see, "inhuman, raving, irrational bitch." If I'm ever much at all like Ayn Rand, I hope those who love me will shoot me and put me out of my (and their) misery.

You don't think about it, you just do it because an irresistible emotional pull is compelling you to do it.
That sounds awful.
However, the problem is that dying for someone is not selfish because you don't get any benefit in return for it; you're not going to be able to feel the emotional or logical happiness that comes from it, nor will you be able to see the praise you get for that decision.
The oblivion of death could seem very appealing next to the negative consequences associated with not doing it. There might be grief, or guilt, or even punishment
The only way it could be selfish is if you do it for reward after you die, and that's a completely different situation altogether.
That's a common selfish motivator.

That sounds awful.

I guess it depends on your viewpoint.

The oblivion of death could seem very appealing next to the negative consequences associated with not doing it. There might be grief, or guilt, or even punishment

In some cases, that's true; many people suffer a sense of "survivors' guilt" when they survive others who died. They feel as if they have done something very wrong by surviving.

In other cases, people don't think about it; I think most cases of laying down your life for someone else is done with only the person in question in mind. What happens afterwards is irrelevant in that case.

That's a common selfish motivator.

It is, it very well is. Of course, doing anything like that for intentional benefit is selfish, so it doesn't matter if you believe in an afterlife, oblivion, or something in between because your aim is still self-benefit regardless of what the outcome is.

Selfish vs. unselfish refers to motive. If the motive is unselfish then, by definition, the action is unselfish.
I refer you to the thread title, "Is every action really selfish?"

I'm perfectly willing to accept that some motives are unselfish. Just not actions.
You see "calmly rational." I see, "inhuman, raving, irrational bitch." If I'm ever much at all like Ayn Rand, I hope those who love me will shoot me and put me out of my (and their) misery.
Rational behaviour is often derided as inhuman.

Then you're using a different definition of "selfish" than you pointed at earlier. Earlier, you suggested that selfishness is motivated by the self, not by others or other things.

Generally selfishness is considered to be motivated by concern for or interest in the self.
I phrased that badly - it was a very long post.

I thought I was pretty open about the whole will/selfishness thing from the beginning.

What about if you lived by a creed or dedicated every aspect of your life to a cause. Then every action then on would be unselfish.

Robots. Robots behave unselfishly because they lack free will. They do not choose their behaviour, and thus cannot be motivated by self interest.

i'm unsure what roles 'free will' and 'self interest' are playing here. is it possible to imagine an entity that had free will and didn't act in its self interest (at least not all the time)? would that entity be acting selfishly?

I'm not even sure that's possible.

Not only is it possible, but the English language is full of them.

Cruelty, rudeness, barbarism, courage, cowardice, treason, and lots and lots of others.

You can assert that they are value-neutral as much as you want, but to do so would be to ignore the actual nature of their use. (Much like denying the existence of connotation.)

I would also assert that courageous is a value-neutral term. Describing behaviour, both terms refer to a low level of risk-aversion.

Do you call the person who takes dangerous drugs "courageous"? Or is she merely foolish?

I certainly recall hearing a furor over the idea that the 9/11 hijackers could be courageous; most people have the view that however low the level of risk aversion, courage requires standing up for something worthwhile, as drugs and crashing planes into skyscrapers aren't.

The ordinary meaning of selfishness would therefore be nonsensical.

No, it is yours that is nonsensical.

As soon as I want the welfare of others, I am no longer selfish.

An unselfish motive, perhaps. Not unselfish behaviour.

"Behavior" is not selfish or unselfish. Motives are.

If I sacrifice my life because I hate life and want to die, that is perfectly selfish. If I do so to save a hundred people from horrible deaths, that is very much selfless. The behavior can be identical; it is the motive that decides whether or not it is selfish.

Though we've previously demonstrated your difficulty separating behaviour from motivation. Recall the woman drowning in the river...

"Behavior" is useless for moral consideration without motivation.

But she did. She decided this in advance.

So? I can decide in advance that I value a loved one's life more than my own. The manifestation of that valuation may be anguish at the thought of her death, but I don't save her because I calculate the quantity of anguish and compare them; I save her because the emotional connection makes me feel obliged to do so.

Ideally, all decisions would be made in such a way. We'd all make fewer rash decisions.

No, rashness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it either way.

No, it is yours that is nonsensical.

As soon as I want the welfare of others, I am no longer selfish.


So valuing the welfare of other above yourself would be an action of unselfishness?

Then many good leaders, good parents, teachers and people who try to make other people's lives better do live unselfishly thus making unselfish actions common.

Wouldn't ;living by a creed or cause be unselfish?

depends on the creed or cause

depends on the creed or cause

Like what if the cause was to free people of a certain oppression or to give to the poor like in the salvation army?

So valuing the welfare of other above yourself would be an action of unselfishness?

No. Valuing the welfare of others at all is unselfish.

Then many good leaders, good parents, teachers and people who try to make other people's lives better do live unselfishly thus making unselfish actions common.

Indeed.

I refer you to the thread title, "Is every action really selfish?"

I'm perfectly willing to accept that some motives are unselfish. Just not actions.

The selfishness or unselfishness of any action lies, by definition, in the motivation behind it. If the motives are unselfish, then the action taken, by definition, is unselfish.

Rational behaviour is often derided as inhuman.

No, irrational behavior that the irrational wish to call rational is derided as inhuman. It generally involves ignoring a great deal of the consequences and waiving them aside to be "rational".

i find the whole psychological egoism discussion to be a bit weird because it winds up having to claim that people throw themselves on grenades to save their comrades because it feels good. i mean, when the feeling you get from being blown up counts as a 'good feeling', and then that 'good feeling' is taken to be your motivation for getting blown up, it seems to me that we've gone completely 'round the bend.

i find the whole psychological egoism discussion to be a bit weird because it winds up having to claim that people throw themselves on grenades to save their comrades because it feels good. i mean, when the feeling you get from being blown up counts as a 'good feeling', and then that 'good feeling' is taken to be your motivation for getting blown up, it seems to me that we've gone completely 'round the bend.

i find the whole psychological egoism discussion to be a bit weird because it winds up having to claim that people throw themselves on grenades to save their comrades because it feels good. i mean, when the feeling you get from being blown up counts as a 'good feeling', and then that 'good feeling' is taken to be your motivation for getting blown up, it seems to me that we've gone completely 'round the bend.
Quoted For Truth! ^^^

The selfishness or unselfishness of any action lies, by definition, in the motivation behind it. If the motives are unselfish, then the action taken, by definition, is unselfish.
How? How is that guaranteed to be ture by the definition of anything.

I think the distinction between selfishness and its opposite is meaningless when applied to actions, which is what the thread was about.

Motives a different kettle of fish altogether.
No, irrational behavior that the irrational wish to call rational is derided as inhuman. It generally involves ignoring a great deal of the consequences and waiving them aside to be "rational".
Luckily for us rational folks, what is rational is demonstrably so.

what is rational is demonstrably so.

Demonstrate a rational motive.

Not only is it possible, but the English language is full of them.

Cruelty, rudeness, barbarism, courage, cowardice, treason, and lots and lots of others.

You can assert that they are value-neutral as much as you want, but to do so would be to ignore the actual nature of their use. (Much like denying the existence of connotation.)
That connotation thing deserves its own thread. But it basically already had one when I insisted there was no such thing as implication.

While the speakers of those words may well wish them to be dripping with value judgements, that doesn't make it so. Just because you mean that the sun is red when you say "the sun is blue" doesn't make what you said mean what you think it does. The words have meaning independent of your use of them.
Do you call the person who takes dangerous drugs "courageous"? Or is she merely foolish?
Both would apply.
I certainly recall hearing a furor over the idea that the 9/11 hijackers could be courageous; most people have the view that however low the level of risk aversion, courage requires standing up for something worthwhile, as drugs and crashing planes into skyscrapers aren't.
Those people (the majority though they were) were wrong.
No, it is yours that is nonsensical.

As soon as I want the welfare of others, I am no longer selfish.
I'll accept that. Your motives are far from selfish. But we were never discussing motives - just actions.
"Behavior" is not selfish or unselfish. Motives are.
That's basically been my point. The distinction is meaningless as applied to behaviour.
If I sacrifice my life because I hate life and want to die, that is perfectly selfish. If I do so to save a hundred people from horrible deaths, that is very much selfless. The behavior can be identical; it is the motive that decides whether or not it is selfish.
Almost. The behaviour is always selfish, but your motives aren't, necessarily.
"Behavior" is useless for moral consideration without motivation.
Let's not get into morality. We have no common ground from which to base any such discussion. You perceive morality; I do not.

How? How is that guaranteed to be ture by the definition of anything.

Look at the definition of selfish. It is completely reliant on motivation. It deals with what a person is concerned with and what they choose to disregard.

Luckily for us rational folks, what is rational is demonstrably so.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that Rand's absolute nonsense is rational.

Both would apply.

Only if you choose to ignore the way the words are actually used. But it's pointless to argue, since you can always simply deny it.

I'll accept that. Your motives are far from selfish. But we were never discussing motives - just actions.

The notion of "selfish" actions independent of motive is incoherent.

Selfishness applies to motives, not to actions.

The notion of "selfish" actions independent of motive is incoherent.

Selfishness applies to motives, not to actions.


I must agree. The ethical value of any action lies not so much in what is done, but in who the doer is in doing it.

EXAMPLE:

2 individuals each donate $1,000 to a charity. However, the first individual does so with the intent of appearing to be a genrous person, thus gaining the admiration of those around him and increasing his reputation. The second individual does so solely for the sake of the charity, with the intent of helping needy individuals.

The actions are identical; yet the motives in doing the actions are quite disparate. The only way I can see possibly arguing in favor of actions over intent is to claim that the first individual is not "donating" but instead "sucking up", but to make this distinction requires us to look to the motive of the individual at hand.

Selfishness applies to motives, not to actions.
That's what I'm saying.

I'm begining to get the feeling your getting your terms mixed up. I looked into it. Selfishness when the word was founded originally meant putting your self interest above others, and no where from then to now has the definition changed. What you guys are talking about is what fruedians call the "Id". The id is the part of you from which all desires to please and sustain originate.