NationStates Jolt Archive

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
This includes actions supposedly done soley for the benefit of others.

For example, charitable donations are done for the feeling that one gets from helping others.
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of a loved one is motivated by the sense that one has helped someone close to them, and/or a sense of self-righteousness.
Suicide is usually done to end personal suffering.


What do you think?

Disclaimer: I do not believe it is possible to prove or disprove this psychology.

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
This includes actions supposedly done soley for the benefit of others.

For example, charitable donations are done for the feeling that one gets from helping others.
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of a loved one is motivated by the sense that one has helped someone close to them, and/or a sense of self-righteousness.
Suicide is usually done to end personal suffering.


What do you think?

Any action can be construed as selfish by an outside observer. "Oh, he only saved that puppy from getting runover so he could feel better about himself." That doesn't mean that true altruism doesn't exist, merely that a cynical mind can twist anything into no longer being altruistic.

If one intends to do good merely for the sake of doing good, regardless of any tangible or intangible benefit that person derives from the act, he has not made an action motivated by his self interest.

As a fully paid-up cynic It'd be hypocritical to say "everybody else is motivated purely by self-interest, but I'm not", wouldn't it?

If one intends to do good merely for the sake of doing good, regardless of any tangible or intangible benefit that person derives from the act, he has not made an action motivated by his self interest.

How does one do good for the sake of doing good? Utilitarianism?

It is in the person's self-interest to do good for the community. The idea of altruism isn't altruistic in the eyes of a cynic like you said, but rather it takes belief in altruism in order to commit yourself to act in such away. So to perform an altruistic act, such as saving a puppy, can be percieved as the person's self-interest because of the compassion for dogs that resides in said person.

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
This includes actions supposedly done soley for the benefit of others.

For example, charitable donations are done for the feeling that one gets from helping others.
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of a loved one is motivated by the sense that one has helped someone close to them, and/or a sense of self-righteousness.
Suicide is usually done to end personal suffering.


What do you think?

Humans are, of course, motivated to do whatever feels best - that's how motivation works - when you do the right thing, you are rewarded, when you do the wrong thing, you are punished.

Species that are effective survivors are so because their minds have evolved to reward them for things that aid survival of the species and punish them for the opposite. Relying on physical pleasure and pain to motivate an animal's actions would not have as effective results.

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
This includes actions supposedly done soley for the benefit of others.

For example, charitable donations are done for the feeling that one gets from helping others.
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of a loved one is motivated by the sense that one has helped someone close to them, and/or a sense of self-righteousness.
Suicide is usually done to end personal suffering.


What do you think?
Of course. All behaviour is necessarily selfish.

You left off "Woohoo!" as a poll option :(

How does one do good for the sake of doing good? Utilitarianism?

No. If I see a puppy on the road, with a car coming towards it, there are literally an infinite number of reasons for why I might save the puppy. One of those reasons is merely because saving the puppy is the right thing to do, in my own subjective moral framework. You might then ask, "But then aren't you doing good for the sake of your own moral framework?" But no, in fact I am not. Not unless I am only doing it to preserve my moral framework, rather than doing it because I feel it is the right thing to do.

It is in the person's self-interest to do good for the community. The idea of altruism isn't altruistic in the eyes of a cynic like you said, but rather it takes belief in altruism in order to commit yourself to act in such away. So to perform an altruistic act, such as saving a puppy, can be percieved as the person's self-interest because of the compassion for dogs that resides in said person.

That's not the same thing. External perception isn't the issue here, it's internal reasoning. My actions can be perceived as altrustic or selfish, it doesn't matter, as long as my reasons are altrustic.

Sounds about right. Course, that doesn't do us much good.

rather than doing it because I feel it is the right thing to do.

*shrug* How would you feel if you didn't do it?

External perception isn't the issue here, it's internal reasoning. My actions can be perceived as altrustic or selfish, it doesn't matter, as long as my reasons are altrustic.

Are you denying the subconscious?

No. If I see a puppy on the road, with a car coming towards it, there are literally an infinite number of reasons for why I might save the puppy. One of those reasons is merely because saving the puppy is the right thing to do, in my own subjective moral framework. You might then ask, "But then aren't you doing good for the sake of your own moral framework?" But no, in fact I am not. Not unless I am only doing it to preserve my moral framework, rather than doing it because I feel it is the right thing to do.

Then where is this feeling that it is the right thing to do coming from, if not your subjective morality?

No. If I see a puppy on the road, with a car coming towards it, there are literally an infinite number of reasons for why I might save the puppy. One of those reasons is merely because saving the puppy is the right thing to do, in my own subjective moral framework. You might then ask, "But then aren't you doing good for the sake of your own moral framework?" But no, in fact I am not. Not unless I am only doing it to preserve my moral framework, rather than doing it because I feel it is the right thing to do.
But WHY are you acting in accordance with your own moral framework? That's where the selfishness comes in.

Are you denying the subconscious?

No, but if we suppose that the subconscious is inherently selfish, why can we not suppose that the subconscious is inherently selfless? I was discussing this from the perspective of conscious decision-making and reasoning.

But WHY are you acting in accordance with your own moral framework? That's where the selfishness comes in.

How is acting in a way I feel is right selfish?

How is acting in a way I feel is right selfish?

Because if you don't you'll feel guilty. Feeling guilty is bad. Therefore...

No, but if we suppose that the subconscious is inherently selfish, why can we not suppose that the subconscious is inherently selfless? I was discussing this from the perspective of conscious decision-making and reasoning.

Man is a rationalising animal, not a rational one. We decide, then make up the reasons for our decisions ;)

Man is a rationalising animal, not a rational one. We decide, then make up the reasons for our decisions ;)

I've heard that before... Wasn't there a study that came to that conclusion?

Because if you don't you'll feel guilty. Feeling guilty is bad. Therefore...

But that only works if you do it to avoid feeling guilty. If the guilt you would feel for not doing it doesn't occur to you until afterwards, how is it selfish?

Also, on my way out. Will come back to this hopefully later tonight.

Well, you can argue that all actions are motivated by self-interest if your definition of "self-interest" is sufficiently broad. But that's just semantics. And I'd argue that the definition of "self-interest" used by the OP is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. One can hypothesize any kind of "indirect benefit" or "good feeling" as being the basis for self-interest, but it's another thing to prove it.

So let's get a bit stricter with the definitions. First, let's restrict "self-interest" purely to actions that directly benefit the individual. It's still self-interest by this definition for the act to benefit others also, as long as it directly benefits the individual. But if an individual intentionally acts in a way that does not benefit him- or herself, but which benefits others, then that is acting in a selfless manner.

And, just to avoid a rathole, let's restrict it to the intent of the acts rather than the actual results. People intend one thing but accomplish another all the time, for all kinds of reasons. So let's stick to acts where the actor's motivation is to help another, even at cost to the actor, and not worry about whether the actor's intent is successfully accomplished.

Given the above restrictions, then it's possible to list numbers of acts where individuals have acted selflessly in order to benefit another. They may do so out of a sense of moral obligation or other kind of duty. It may be a carefully thought-out act, or it may be a spur-of-the-moment impulse. It may be to benefit a relative, a friend, a co-worker, a fellow soldier, or a complete stranger. But it does happen.

But that only works if you do it to avoid feeling guilty. If the guilt you would feel for not doing it doesn't occur to you until afterwards, how is it selfish?

Also, on my way out. Will come back to this hopefully later tonight.
Because you fear the guilt. Or, you'll feel all warm and fuzzy if you save the puppy, so you seek that out.

You have to care about your moral framework in order for it to influence your behaviour.

Man is a rationalising animal, not a rational one. We decide, then make up the reasons for our decisions ;)
I dispute that.

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
This includes actions supposedly done soley for the benefit of others.

For example, charitable donations are done for the feeling that one gets from helping others.
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of a loved one is motivated by the sense that one has helped someone close to them, and/or a sense of self-righteousness.
Suicide is usually done to end personal suffering.


What do you think?

what about those who are brainwashed?

also what about the fact that the mind is driven by many drives based on values one is taught or one comes to independently which may tell him to take a course of action that may cause him great pain in order that he can save countless hundreds? What about acts of altruism where the individual cares more about others than himself due to the vies he came to independently?

There is free will! What I can't stand is lefties trying to make us believe we are all animals that base our actions off instinct and innate reflexes. We can control our own responses and actions unlike animals who have to go by instinct.

There is free will! What I can't stand is lefties trying to make us believe we are all animals that base our actions off instinct and innate reflexes. We can control our own responses and actions unlike animals who have to go by instinct.

um, what?

Oh hell, not this topic.

Someone's gonna mention Ayn Rand, and it's all downhill from there.

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
<..>
What do you think?I'd posit all action is motivated by the genetic imperative. "Promote my damn genes to the next generation."
Take dying to protect your children. How selfish can that be? You're too dead to enjoy it. However it makes some biological sense, since your genes survive into the next generation.

There is free will! What I can't stand is lefties trying to make us believe we are all animals that base our actions off instinct and innate reflexes. We can control our own responses and actions unlike animals who have to go by instinct.

...

Are...are you talking about this topic?

um, what?

Not EVERY action is hedonistic, the fact that we are sentient beings ,not animals as Arthais suggests, proves that not every action is hedonistic. In fact there was a thread on this before only the wording was different.

Smunkeeville made it a while ago.

...

Are...are you talking about this topic?

If we have free will every action can't be hedonistic or else we'd be like animals who base our actions on good impulses rather than valuies? GET IT?!

Oh hell, not this topic.

Someone's gonna mention Ayn Rand, and it's all downhill from there.
She's not the only person out there to have advocated it - Nietzsche was in favour of a somewhat cruder version of it if I'm not mistaken, and Hobbes also had his own theory on the matter.

Not EVERY action is hedonistic, the fact that we are sentient beings ,not animals as Arthais suggests, proves that not every action is hedonistic. In fact there was a thread on this before only the wording was different.

You realize that basing our actions "off instinct and innate reflexes" is not at all what hedonism means, right? Likewise animals generally can not be considered "hedonistic" because of that very fact.

So as you continue to relate hedonism to "acting like animals" I will repeat again....what?

Not EVERY action is hedonistic, the fact that we are sentient beings ,not animals as Arthais suggests, proves that not every action is hedonistic. In fact there was a thread on this before only the wording was different.

Smunkeeville made it a while ago.

Nothing of the sort was suggested...And I don't quite understand how sentience would disprove an inherent hedonism...See, the idea here is that we act in a manner conducive to our self-interests, even where we help others, that's still something for us.

If we have free will every action can't be hedonistic or else we'd be like animals who base our actions on good impulses rather than valuies? GET IT?!

That's silly. You're silly. Of course they could be.

There is free will! What I can't stand is lefties trying to make us believe we are all animals that base our actions off instinct and innate reflexes. We can control our own responses and actions unlike animals who have to go by instinct.

I think what we're trying to say is: What do "lefties" have to do with it? Left-handed people are no more or less hedonistic than right-handed people, in my experience. :p

I think what we're trying to say is: What do "lefties" have to do with it? Left-handed people are no more or less hedonistic than right-handed people, in my experience. :p

I dunno. I'm pretty hedonistic, and I'm left handed. :eek:

I think what we're trying to say is: What do "lefties" have to do with it? Left-handed people are no more or less hedonistic than right-handed people, in my experience. :p

Ah, you'd think that, wouldn't you?

Etymology

From Latin sinister "left hand".

Adjective

sinister (comparative more sinister, superlative most sinister)

1. inauspicious, ominous, unlucky
2. evil, seeming to be evil.
3. of the left side.

I dunno. I'm pretty hedonistic, and I'm left handed. :eek:

I stand corrected. Death to all sinister hedonists! They're plotting to destroy your way of life, take away your freedoms, and force your children to write left-handed! They must be stopped! :mp5:
:p

Nothing of the sort was suggested...And I don't quite understand how sentience would disprove an inherent hedonism...See, the idea here is that we act in a manner conducive to our self-interests, even where we help others, that's still something for us.
I don't get why SL is trying to link this to the left though. Almost all the philosophers who have advocated such a thing have been on the right. Even if this were a matter of free will vs. determinism, neither Schopenhauer nor Nietzsche believed in the former, and one would be hard pressed to brand either a leftie. :)

Nothing of the sort was suggested...And I don't quite understand how sentience would disprove an inherent hedonism...See, the idea here is that we act in a manner conducive to our self-interests, even where we help others, that's still something for us.

well then how come we are a social species then? We have a natural brotherhood, a natural need for the welfare of other humans, thats why if someone started having a heart attack you'd help him, or if the earth was about to get blown up and only you can stop that from happening you'd probably do it. What did all the great scientists of early times do? They dedicated their works to the future of mankind. How can we be 100% self centered when the genes of species care more about the survival of a species than of an individual. Yes the genes make us act for whats good for us but when the need arises since it inherently cares about the continuation of the species it belongs to it would probably influence individuals to sacrifice themselves for the rest of the species or group. That being said humans are willing to sacrifice themselves so that the rest of the group (town, city, tribe, nation, world ect) could survive because DNA inherently wants the survival of the organism's kind more than the individual itself.

I stand corrected. Death to all sinister hedonists! They're plotting to destroy your way of life, take away your freedoms, and force your children to write left-handed! They must be stopped! :mp5:
:p

I'll get the pitchforks and torches! :D

well then how come we are a social species then?
Why not?

We help other people because it makes us feel good to help them. We want to feel good, so we help. That this happens to benefit people other than us is a sidenote.

Perhaps you don't get a kick from helping people, then you probably wouldn't. But maybe someone guilts you into it, then you help people so that you, yourself, feel better about it. This isn't really about genetics.

Why not?

We help other people because it makes us feel good to help them. We want to feel good, so we help. That this happens to benefit people other than us is a sidenote.

Perhaps you don't get a kick from helping people, then you probably wouldn't. But maybe someone guilts you into it, then you help people so that you, yourself, feel better about it. This isn't really about genetics.

it actually is, the DNA controls how we're made on a molecular level and it also creates the neurons and structures in the brain which make us act certain ways.

it actually is, the DNA controls how we're made on a molecular level and it also creates the neurons and structures in the brain which make us act certain ways.

...Yes, okay, in that sense anything any organism living or dead (edit: or undead) has ever done, ever, is about genetics.

Repost:Why not?

We help other people because it makes us feel good to help them. We want to feel good, so we help. That this happens to benefit people other than us is a sidenote.

Perhaps you don't get a kick from helping people, then you probably wouldn't. But maybe someone guilts you into it, then you help people so that you, yourself, feel better about it.

Perhaps you don't get a kick from helping people, then you probably wouldn't. But maybe someone guilts you into it, then you help people so that you, yourself, feel better about it. This isn't really about genetics.
Richard Dawkins would argue otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Evolutionary_biology). ;) But not in a way that would corroborate SL's naive statement.

Richard Dawkins would argue otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Evolutionary_biology). ;) But not in a way that would corroborate SL's naive statement.

Ah, phooey to Dick Dawkins. :p

it actually is, the DNA controls how we're made on a molecular level and it also creates the neurons and structures in the brain which make us act certain ways.

Except that the extremely complex emergent behavior of the human mind cannot be simply reduced to hard-wired circuits in the human brain. There's more going on there than just neurons and brain structures can account for. There are all sorts of learned behaviors, habits, personality traits - the "software" for the "hardware", to use a crude analogy. Just as the design of a computer doesn't immediately determine that it can be, and therefore must be, used for an Internet discussion board, the design of a brain doesn't necessarily determine the personality or thoughts of the mind it generates. It allows them, and restricts them to a certain extend, but does not absolutely determine them.

Ah, phooey to Dick Dawkins. :p
As I said though, the conclusion Dawkins came to is markedly different to what SL is advocating.

Absolutely completely and totally guilty.

Am I the only person's whose general reaction to just seeing this thread's title was "What the fuck?"

Am I the only person's whose general reaction to just seeing this thread's title was "What the fuck?"

mine was.

what about those who are brainwashed?

also what about the fact that the mind is driven by many drives based on values one is taught or one comes to independently which may tell him to take a course of action that may cause him great pain in order that he can save countless hundreds? What about acts of altruism where the individual cares more about others than himself due to the vies he came to independently?

There is free will! What I can't stand is lefties trying to make us believe we are all animals that base our actions off instinct and innate reflexes. We can control our own responses and actions unlike animals who have to go by instinct.

Values are a result of conditioning, and are not innate. Animals can be conditioned to respond in different ways as well. I personally am driven by curiousity. I like the feeling of "Aha!" when I figure something out. I'm a hedonist /shrug

Not EVERY action is hedonistic, the fact that we are sentient beings ,not animals as Arthais suggests, proves that not every action is hedonistic. In fact there was a thread on this before only the wording was different.

Smunkeeville made it a while ago.

The hairless ape: "I am not an animal!"

I think what we're trying to say is: What do "lefties" have to do with it? Left-handed people are no more or less hedonistic than right-handed people, in my experience. :p

I dunno. I'm pretty hedonistic, and I'm left handed. :eek:

I'm With Deus on this one. Very lefthanded, very hedonistic. We're the only people in our right minds ;)

What did all the great scientists of early times do? They dedicated their works to the future of mankind.

Quela chingalo? The great scientists of early times were just trying to figure stuff out. Or get a military edge on the other guys. Where did you learn your history?

I'm With Deus on this one. Very lefthanded, very hedonistic. We're the only people in our right minds ;)

:eek:

The lefties want to eat our souls!.....with ketchup:p

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Except that the extremely complex emergent behavior of the human mind cannot be simply reduced to hard-wired circuits in the human brain. There's more going on there than just neurons and brain structures can account for. There are all sorts of learned behaviors, habits, personality traits - the "software" for the "hardware", to use a crude analogy. Just as the design of a computer doesn't immediately determine that it can be, and therefore must be, used for an Internet discussion board, the design of a brain doesn't necessarily determine the personality or thoughts of the mind it generates. It allows them, and restricts them to a certain extend, but does not absolutely determine them.

I'd also like to point out that those "hard-wired circuits in the human brain" for the most part are not hard-wired, either. Pretty flexible organ ;)

:eek:

The lefties want to eat our souls!.....with ketchup:p

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Join us...South...Liz...a...saur...ia...fifty-seven...varie...ties...

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
This includes actions supposedly done soley for the benefit of others.
...
What do you think?

getting oneself blown up by a grenade can never be in your self interest. therefore there is at least one act that we know of that has been performed that cannot be motivated by self interest.

Not EVERY action is hedonistic, the fact that we are sentient beings ,not animals as Arthais suggests, proves that not every action is hedonistic. In fact there was a thread on this before only the wording was different.

Smunkeeville made it a while ago.
That humans are rational is what allows us to seek pleasure is such complicated ways as guilt avoidance. It's because we are rational that we are hedonistic. It's a necessary consequence of free will.

getting oneself blown up by a grenade can never be in your self interest.

Can't it?

getting oneself blown up by a grenade can never be in your self interest.
Why not? I've previously explained in great detail how the members of teh Heaven's Gate cult acted in their own best interests when they committed mass suicide.

Can't it?

no, by definition. it can never be in the interests of your own advantage and well-being to get blowded up and turned into a horrific bloody mess. in order to do so you'd have to make words mean the opposite of what they normally do.

Is this one still going around?

What I can't stand is lefties trying to make us believe we are all animals that base our actions off instinct and innate reflexes.

"Lefties"? Is that just a catch-all buzzword for you?

For example, charitable donations are done for the feeling that one gets from helping others.

And why do we get this feeling from charitable donations?

Because we value the welfare of others. That's the opposite of selfishness.

Is this one still going around?

its far too sophomorically "look at how deep and philosophical i am" to ever really go away

Just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean I do it because it is pleasurable. In fact, I never even consider the pleasurable feeling of doing the right thing when I do it.

And if it's a subconscious process, it doesn't really matter.

no, by definition. it can never be in the interests of your own advantage and well-being to get blowded up and turned into a horrific bloody mess. in order to do so you'd have to make words mean the opposite of what they normally do.

If you insist on a narrow enough definition of anything, you cannot be refuted in any argument. I disagree with your definition /shrug

And why do we get this feeling from charitable donations?

Because we value the welfare of others. That's the opposite of selfishness.

Values are taught, not inate. It's a conditioned response, like drooling at a bell.

Just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean I do it because it is pleasurable. In fact, I never even consider the pleasurable feeling of doing the right thing when I do it.

And if it's a subconscious process, it doesn't really matter.

Why does it not matter?

Values are taught, not inate.

Sounds like a statement in need of justification to me.

Why does it not matter?

Because I have no control over it. Hedonism is an active attempt to increase pleasure, and if the pleasure that is given is not actively sought, how can I honestly be considered "guilty" of psychological hedonism?

Sounds like a statement in need of justification to me.

Hardly. If inate, then values are genetically encoded. Ask a biologist.

If inate, then values are genetically encoded.

So?

And why do we get this feeling from charitable donations?

Because we value the welfare of others. That's the opposite of selfishness.

Either that, or we've been conditioned by society to think that giving to charity is a good thing to do...and we buy a warm fuzzy feeling when we give to charity.

Either that, or we've been conditioned by society to think that giving to charity is a good thing to do...

Why? Why do we consider charity good?

There are lots of pleasurable activities that we do not consider morally good, after all.

So?

No. values are not biologically encoded. This should be obvious. Otherwise, we would all have the same values.

No. values are not biologically encoded. This should be obvious. Otherwise, we would all have the same values.

"All values are biologically encoded" and "no values are biologically encoded" are not the only options. Nor are all human beings biologically identical.

Of course, there are actually certain near-universal values - altruism being one.

"All values are biologically encoded" and "no values are biologically encoded" are not the only options. Nor are all human beings biologically identical.

Of course, there are actually certain near-universal values - altruism being one.

Sorry, no. Show me the genes.

Show me the genes.

:rolleyes:

If you insist on a narrow enough definition of anything, you cannot be refuted in any argument. I disagree with your definition /shrug

is it your claim that there is a sensible way to use the term 'self interest' that includes the concept of dying in agony because of your interest in others, specifically in saving them from harm? 'cause that looks fucking retarded to me.

is it your claim that there is a sensible way to use the term 'self interest' that includes the concept of dying in agony because of your interest in others, specifically in saving them from harm? 'cause that looks fucking retarded to me.

Yeah, how can destroying the self be in its own interest? Afterlife or not, dying for someone else destroys your physical self and couldn't possibly be seen as in your self-interest, if we take it to mean improving your own position.

is it your claim that there is a sensible way to use the term 'self interest' that includes the concept of dying in agony because of your interest in others, specifically in saving them from harm? 'cause that looks fucking retarded to me.
Yeah, how can destroying the self be in its own interest? Afterlife or not, dying for someone else destroys your physical self and couldn't possibly be seen as in your self-interest, if we take it to mean improving your own position.

Then I suggest neither of you fall on any grenades. You will not find the experience satisfying ;)

Edit to add: We're once again confusing self-interest and hedonism. Not the same.

Then I suggest neither of you fall on any grenades. You will not find the experience satisfying ;)

I don't plan to. Self-preservation comes above everything for me, remember?

Edit to add: We're once again confusing self-interest and hedonism. Not the same.

The OP was confusing self-interest, hedonism, and subconscious pleasure...

I don't plan to. Self-preservation comes above everything for me, remember?

Everything? Really?

Everything? Really?

Above almost everything. My family is pretty much the only thing that comes above me; of course, since most of the time I try to do the right thing, what constitutes self-preservation for me is usually pretty altruistic as well.

Then I suggest neither of you fall on any grenades. You will not find the experience satisfying ;)

i don't think satisfaction is really what we're after with the grenade body block

i don't think satisfaction is really what we're after with the grenade body block
You jump on the grenade because you prefer the outcome (you being blown up) to the alternative (other people being blown up). By seeking the outcome you prefer, you're acting selfishly.

You jump on the grenade because you prefer the outcome (you being blown up) to the alternative (other people being blown up). By seeking the outcome you prefer, you're acting selfishly.I don't think people that do such a thing really have time to consider which outcome to prefer..
Of course, as has already been said, you can cast everything in terms of selfishness. You could also cast everything in terms of stupidity. Or evolution, or a host of other things.

I'd say that in general a lot of people do things because that is simply the way they work, and not for any other particular reason. Most actions are post-justified anyway. Act first, think later.

You jump on the grenade because you prefer the outcome (you being blown up) to the alternative (other people being blown up). By seeking the outcome you prefer, you're acting selfishly.

that is not what 'selfish' means. look it up.

Most actions are post-justified anyway. Act first, think later.
Not actions by taken by rational people.

All actions we commit are motivated by self interest.
This includes actions supposedly done soley for the benefit of others.

For example, charitable donations are done for the feeling that one gets from helping others.
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of a loved one is motivated by the sense that one has helped someone close to them, and/or a sense of self-righteousness.
Suicide is usually done to end personal suffering.


What do you think?

No.