One's conscious actions are determined by one's decisions, and one's decisions are determined by one's reason. Selflessness, in its traditional sense, is simply impossible. Everything we do is self-interested. If it so happens that our self-interests benefit others, that's merely a side-effect, not selflessness.
Consider the following scenario:
Mother: "John, turn off the TV. You have to clean your room."
John: "But I don't want to!"
Mother: "If you don't clean your room right now, you'll be grounded for a week."
*Johns cleans his room.*
Did John do something that he didn't want to do? Let's analyze his options. He is told to clean his room. As of then, his options are to either clean his room or continue watching TV. He wants to watch TV, so he continues to watch TV. Shortly after, his mother threatens to ground him if he does not clean his room, so he chooses to clean his room. What changed? His options changed. He could either continue watching TV and get grounded, or clean his room. After reasoning that he does not want to be grounded, even if it means he gets to keep watching TV, he cleans his room. He ultimately wanted to clean his room, so as to avoid the consequences of not cleaning his room.
This is transferrable to every conscious action. We act solely out of self-interest. Sometimes our self-interest is correlated with others' wants and needs. This is when actions are seen to be motivated by "selflessness" (but not really). Why does a man donate to charity? His options are to either keep his money and let the poor stay as poor, or give his money and help the poor. He chooses the least-worst option because he would rather sacrifice his money than let the poor stay poor. He ultimately wants to donate his money, thus he acts in his self-interest by acting as he wanted to. Does this make him selfish? Yes. Does this make him a bad person? No. Selfishness is all we know. We act as we wish.
selfless (as defined by Merriam-Webster):
* having or showing great concern for other people and little or no concern for yourself
As reasoned previously, it is not possible to consciously act differently than how we want to. Our want determines our action. I'll try to redefine this so it is possible for us to be "selfless."
selfless (as defined by me):
* wanting to help or benefit others
The connotation of selflessness is correct, but not the denotation. Furthermore, while the denotation of selfishness is is correct, the connotation is not (necessarily). We often associate selfishness with people who act only or primarily in their own favor (i.e. those whose wants do not benefit others' wants), but we actually only ever act selfishly (which is not a bad thing necessarily).
"On 1 July 1916 at the Battle of Thiepval Ridge in World War I, British army private William McFadzean of the 14th Battalion, the Royal Irish Rifles threw himself on top of a box of Mills bombs after the pin came loose on two of them whilst he was attempting to load the bombs into a bandolier. As a result of his action only one other man in the trench was injured in the resulting explosion. Private McFadzean was posthumously awarded the Victoria cross."
"On 1 July 1916 at the Battle of Thiepval Ridge in World War I, British army private William McFadzean of the 14th Battalion, the Royal Irish Rifles threw himself on top of a box of Mills bombs after the pin came loose on two of them whilst he was attempting to load the bombs into a bandolier. As a result of his action only one other man in the trench was injured in the resulting explosion. Private McFadzean was posthumously awarded the Victoria cross."
That would certainly take a lot of bravery, but it is still not a selfless act (in its literal sense).
I am sensing that this is a counter-argument.
Private McFadzean wanted, or more specifically, preferred that he die rather than have his friends die. This is the epitome of what we consider selfless but is not literally selfless. It was a selfish act, but luckily for those whom he saved, he wanted the others to survive. His options were to either let everyone die (or maybe everyone but himself, if he had enough time to escape), or let just himself die. He wanted only himself to die and the others to survive.
You introduce a needless juxtaposition by defining selflessness as acting outside of self-interest.
Shortly put you try to say, whatever man decides, becomes in their self-interest, so whatever altruism they commit is their utmost egoism.
Altruism is an action that benefits others with little or no consideration for the benefit of the self as viewed materially or otherwise.
So in your modified definition any person bettering others or in extreme cases even at the cost of harming themselves is an egoist, while this exactly can be considered altruist.
I think this needless contradiction conflates individual agency with self-interest and ignores the ethical or external/societal perspectives on individual actions and their worth.
People who want to help are called helpers by others, people who disproportionately want to help themselves are called egoists (by others). Their "want" is not what makes them egoist or not. Everyone has agency, their own "want" or "will".
People can (and very often do) operate by viewing others as less than a whole person. When there is a conflict of wants between 2 people, the mindset is something like: 'What I want for myself vs what you want'.
When you get to a place where you view others as whole persons whose desires and wants are on par with your own, you shift in paradigm to 'What I want for myself vs what I want for you'.
We want what we want and when we come in conflict with others' wants, the two perspectives are wildly different. When you place others on par with yourself, the inner battle isn't just about what I want but it's a deliberate struggle to include the legitimate wants of another. This becomes an internal struggle with yourself rather than a fight between two people. I would say it's a selfish/selfless neutral position or a higher order position.
It's the definition of a selfless act. As Blarraun already said, you're playing a silly word game.
People can want things that are not in their self interest. Heroin addicts can want a dose of heroin that kills them. Did they want to die? No. They wanted to do a ton of heroin. Dying prevents them from doing more heroin in the future.
The edifice you've constructed on these rather ridiculous foundations is so patently at odds with reality it's honestly a waste of time to spend any more effort explaining why this is the case.
Yeah, that was where I was going to go with this...
It's the definitions that are causing the conflict, because any form of altruism can be redefined as self-interest in some way; the definition used for self-interest is so broad as to be useless in understanding the nature of the choices being made and who someone is. By the definition that was given, would anyone ever choose something they didn't want? You're not really distinguishing between behaviors and preferences at all to say something useful.
Merriam-Webster, and how we generally think about selflessness, defines selflessness as acting outside of self-interest. My stance is that our conscious actions are solely motivated by self-interest. I don't understand how this is a needless juxtaposition.
I think you've misinterpreted what I have said. A man's self-interest is not determined by his decision. Rather, a man's decision is determined by his self-interest. In addition to that, altruism is essentially the practice of "selflessness" (as defined by Merriam-Webster and people in general), and is thus impossible. We cannot consciously act selflessly. However, altruism (if it were to be defined similarly to how I defined "selfless") is, indeed, self-interested.
If you mean how altruism is defined, then, yes, I agree. But my point is that its denotation makes it impossible. It's connotation, however, is possible. Altruism should be defined as something like "an action that benefits others because the one who acts is interested in the others' wants and needs."
So in your modified definition any person bettering others or in extreme cases even at the cost of harming themselves is an egoist, while this exactly can be considered altruist.
That depends. If by "egoist" you mean one who is self-interested, then yes. If you meant one whose self-interests benefit only himself or primarily himself, then no. It cannot technically be considered altruist by its denotation, but can be by its connotation (as explained previously).
I think this needless contradiction conflates individual agency with self-interest and ignores the ethical or external/societal perspectives on individual actions and their worth.
Individual agency and self-interest are the same thing. However, this reasoning does not ignore ethical, external, societal, etc. perspectives on individual actions and their worth. Allow me to explain, seeing as it was not previously made clear.
If you haven't already noticed, I've said a lot about denotations vs. connotation. We can be ethical. More specifically, we can want to be ethical. Private sacrificed his life for his fellow soldiers because he preferred that only he die rather than his fellow soldiers. My point is that the connotation of self-interested motivation is incorrect. Self-interested action is not necessarily a bad thing (unless it is knowingly inimical to others).
People who want to help are called helpers by others, people who disproportionately want to help themselves are called egoists (by others). Their "want" is not what makes them egoist or not. Everyone has agency, their own "want" or "will".
I feel like we're actually on the same page, and it only seems like we're not because of confusion that arose with denotation vs. connotation.
At least on the same page with everything but this bolded statement. Maybe by now I have shown you what I had actually meant, but if not, please do explain how a person's want does not determine whether or not they are an egoist. If a person acts out of self-interest, whatever such self-interest happens to be does determine whether or not they are an egoist (by its connotation). If the person is interested in helping others (and thus interested in helping himself because that is what he wants), he is not an egoist. If the person is interested in helping himself, and is aware of the fact that it will be inimical to others, then he is an egoist.
Another quick note: when I say "interested in others' needs," I am essentially saying "self-interested in others' needs, and thus in one's own," hence the italicization.
Yeah, that was where I was going to go with this...
It's the definitions that are causing the conflict, because any form of altruism can be redefined as self-interest in some way; the definition used for self-interest is so broad as to be useless in understanding the nature of the choices being made and who someone is. By the definition that was given, would anyone ever choose something they didn't want? You're not really distinguishing between behaviors and preferences at all to say something useful.
We seem to be disagreeing with those whom we actually agree with, while simultaneously agreeing with those whom we actually disagree with. My point is that everything we do is self-interested. What a person is interested in is the nature of the choices being made and who someone is.
Which definition are you referring to (just to make sure we are on the same page)?
I am not trying to distinguish behavior from preference. I'm saying that preference determines conscious behaviors.
It's the definition of a selfless act. As Blarraun already said, you're playing a silly word game.
People can want things that are not in their self interest. Heroin addicts can want a dose of heroin that kills them. Did they want to die? No. They wanted to do a ton of heroin. Dying prevents them from doing more heroin in the future.
The edifice you've constructed on these rather ridiculous foundations is so patently at odds with reality it's honestly a waste of time to spend any more effort explaining why this is the case.
Please read or reread some of the posts. I completely understand the confusion.
I disagree that people can want things outside of their self-interest. Please look back at the TV vs. clean room argument I gave. You have to consider the whole picture. The addicts options are to either restrain themselves and not die, or give in and possibly die. Do they want to die? As you said, no. But heroin is such a powerfully addictive drug that withdrawal can seem worse than the risk of death. It isn't choosing death over life. It's choosing giving in and the possibility of death over withdrawal and life.
It might be more in your self-interest to put up a picture here to point out where self-interest lies and where the other posters' perspective on where self-interest lies.
For now, all I see is that you're doing a silly word game so that it's quite easy for you to backtrack whenever your main premise is challenged. Put your thoughts in something concrete so that it's easier to work with and so that you have a position that you'll actually defend.
It might be more in your self-interest to put up a picture here to point out where self-interest lies and where the other posters' perspective on where self-interest lies.
For now, all I see is that you're doing a silly word game so that it's quite easy for you to backtrack whenever your main premise is challenged. Put your thoughts in something concrete so that it's easier to work with and so that you have a position that you'll actually defend.
It is more than a word game. I don't know how I could be more clear. I've continually explained how all conscious actions are motivated by self-interest. That is my main premise. I only mention connotations and denotations to ensure that people don't take it the wrong way when I say that a seemingly selfless act is in fact selfish. I have used several concrete examples – three I believe.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, many of you seem to be missing the point. My reasoning is not contingent upon this "word game" that keeps being brought up. It is merely there so people don't take it the wrong way. Obviously it's had the opposite effect though.
It's a word game because you are not using the term "self-interest" correctly and are conflating it with mere want. From there your reasoning just runs in circles.
It's a word game because you are not using the term "self-interest" correctly and are conflating it with mere want. From there your reasoning just runs in circles.
One's conscious actions are determined by one's decisions, and one's decisions are determined by one's reason. Selflessness, in its traditional sense, is simply impossible. Everything we do is self-interested. If it so happens that our self-interests benefit others, that's merely a side-effect, not selflessness.
Consider the following scenario:
Mother: "John, turn off the TV. You have to clean your room."
John: "But I don't want to!"
Mother: "If you don't clean your room right now, you'll be grounded for a week."
*Johns cleans his room.*
Did John do something that he didn't want to do? Let's analyze his options. He is told to clean his room. As of then, his options are to either clean his room or continue watching TV. He wants to watch TV, so he continues to watch TV. Shortly after, his mother threatens to ground him if he does not clean his room, so he chooses to clean his room. What changed? His options changed. He could either continue watching TV and get grounded, or clean his room. After reasoning that he does not want to be grounded, even if it means he gets to keep watching TV, he cleans his room. He ultimately wanted to clean his room, so as to avoid the consequences of not cleaning his room.
This is transferrable to every conscious action. We act solely out of self-interest. Sometimes our self-interest is correlated with others' wants and needs. This is when actions are seen to be motivated by "selflessness" (but not really). Why does a man donate to charity? His options are to either keep his money and let the poor stay as poor, or give his money and help the poor. He chooses the least-worst option because he would rather sacrifice his money than let the poor stay poor. He ultimately wants to donate his money, thus he acts in his self-interest by acting as he wanted to. Does this make him selfish? Yes. Does this make him a bad person? No. Selfishness is all we know. We act as we wish.
selfless (as defined by Merriam-Webster):
* having or showing great concern for other people and little or no concern for yourself
As reasoned previously, it is not possible to consciously act differently than how we want to. Our want determines our action. I'll try to redefine this so it is possible for us to be "selfless."
selfless (as defined by me):
* wanting to help or benefit others
The connotation of selflessness is correct, but not the denotation. Furthermore, while the denotation of selfishness is is correct, the connotation is not (necessarily). We often associate selfishness with people who act only or primarily in their own favor (i.e. those whose wants do not benefit others' wants), but we actually only ever act selfishly (which is not a bad thing necessarily).
Yeah, that was where I was going to go with this...
It's the definitions that are causing the conflict, because any form of altruism can be redefined as self-interest in some way; the definition used for self-interest is so broad as to be useless in understanding the nature of the choices being made and who someone is. By the definition that was given, would anyone ever choose something they didn't want? You're not really distinguishing between behaviors and preferences at all to say something useful.
Yes, people would choose to do something they didn't want to do for someone they 'love' in the hopes of getting what they actually want from them.
I may sit through a boring movie to get laid.
I may buy a gift to avoid the embarrassment of showing up empty-handed.
I may hold out on lunch to have dinner with someone I really, really love to talk to.
Ok maybe that last one is flaky but you should get what I'm saying here. Gratification schemas and how they work can be very complicated. Especially by life experience. We subconsciously work down these wrinkles, creating more of them in our personalities so by the time someone reaches our age group they're capable of masking their desires in multiple 'selfless' acts.
Yes, people would choose to do something they didn't want to do for someone they 'love' in the hopes of getting what they actually want from them.
I may sit through a boring movie to get laid.
I may buy a gift to avoid the embarrassment of showing up empty-handed.
I may hold out on lunch to have dinner with someone I really, really love to talk to.
Ok maybe that last one is flaky but you should get what I'm saying here. Gratification schemas and how they work can be very complicated. Especially by life experience. We subconsciously work down these wrinkles, creating more of them in our personalities so by the time someone reaches our age group they're capable of masking their desires in multiple 'selfless' acts.
I agree completely. This is what I had intended to communicate, but somehow something went awry (or perhaps the others do truly disagree). I like what you said about masking our desires with 'selfless' acts.
True selflessness as you define it is an impossible phenomenon. Absurd, as it were. Usually, the term refers to a propensity to make great sacrifice for little reward other than the satisfaction of conscience and having done the right thing, which of course ultimately constitutes an intrinsic, egoistic motive as well, trivially. But there's a significant distinction to make between drive toward self-sustenence and drive toward sustenence of others, don't you think?
Usually it is acceptable to assume self-preservation is a given, when thinking self-interest.
The altruistic soldier lost his life due to acting selflessly. This could be indicative of an acute or transient mental illness brought upon him by the stress and trauma of war.
It's insufficient to try and reason that selflessness can't exist, however the argument can be made that egoism is virtue. Selfless acts are however frequently motivated by self-interest and it's worthwhile to make note of it.
selfless (as defined by Merriam-Webster):
* having or showing great concern for other people and little or no concern for yourself
As reasoned previously, it is not possible to consciously act differently than how we want to. Our want determines our action. I'll try to redefine this so it is possible for us to be "selfless."
selfless (as defined by me):
* wanting to help or benefit others
I think your premise is flawed. It is entirely possible to consciously act differently than how we want.
In fact, that is one of maybe three basic characteristics that we look for in adult-level maturity. We expect all adult members of our society to be able to act against their own wishes and impulses to either delay gratification or serve the "greater good". Those who fail to meet that standard are generally seen as inferior in some way.
I think your premise is flawed. It is entirely possible to consciously act differently than how we want.
In fact, that is one of maybe three basic characteristics that we look for in adult-level maturity. We expect all adult members of our society to be able to act against their own wishes and impulses to either delay gratification or serve the "greater good". Those who fail to meet that standard are generally seen as inferior in some way.
Still, they'll be doing that in order to satisfy some set of parameters ultimately hooked up to gratification. It's just a more intricately programmed gratification.
But they don't want to do it. It's silly to say someone wants to do something they don't want to do.
And people do do things they don't want to do. That option is always available. But why would a person choose to do something they don't want to do? The question of this topic is that are people wanting to do these things they don't want to do, particularly, always from self-interest?
I think your premise is flawed. It is entirely possible to consciously act differently than how we want.
In fact, that is one of maybe three basic characteristics that we look for in adult-level maturity. We expect all adult members of our society to be able to act against their own wishes and impulses to either delay gratification or serve the "greater good". Those who fail to meet that standard are generally seen as inferior in some way.
I'm glad you pointed that out. However, allow me to explain. The transition from child to adult or, more specifically, immature to mature occurs not from a change of doing things that we want to do to doing things that we don't want to do; but rather from a change in what the things that we want to do are. E.g., as we become more knowledgeable, i.e., wise, we realize that it is more favorable for us to do things differently. And because it is more favorable, we do it. An excellent example of this is delayed gratification.
Still, they'll be doing that in order to satisfy some set of parameters ultimately hooked up to gratification. It's just a more intricately programmed gratification.
I suppose it is about time someone asked that. My proposition is that everything we consciously do is induced by self-interest alone. (Though all tangential arguments are welcome.)
True selflessness as you define it is an impossible phenomenon. Absurd, as it were. Usually, the term refers to a propensity to make great sacrifice for little reward other than the satisfaction of conscience and having done the right thing, which of course ultimately constitutes an intrinsic, egoistic motive as well, trivially. But there's a significant distinction to make between drive toward self-sustenence and drive toward sustenence of others, don't you think?
Absolutely. Many seem to have touched on the idea that by arguing that every conscious action is motivated solely by self-interest, that I am simultaneously arguing that altruism (in its connotational sense) is no better than egoism (in its connotational sense). From a moralistic perspective, altruism (in its connotational sense) is certainly of greater value than egoism (in its connotational sense).
*I hope it is apparent that this is more than a word game, despite my attention to the use of connotations and denotations. The only reason I specify those is because the denotation of altruism does not comply with the idea that everything is consciously done by self-interest. Which is why I refer to its connotation, which is, as you eloquently put it, the drive toward the sustenance of others.
For example, we may want to be selfless. I understand that much.
But selflessness is not masochism or even altruism. It doesn't mean that you must get no gratification whatsoever. Human motivation is far more complex than "what I want".
I guess what I'm really trying to say is, there is no contradiction to be found because there are no solid dictates. Just, being concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own. It doesn't say wholly concerned with the needs or wishes of others, or entirely at your own expense.
I would completely on board if your arguments were being made against the concept of altruism, but it doesn't really fit here.
But they don't want to do it. It's silly to say someone wants to do something they don't want to do.
And people do do things they don't want to do. That option is always available. But why would a person choose to do something they don't want to do? The question of this topic is that are people wanting to do these things they don't want to do, particularly, always from self-interest?
The bolded statement, in and of itself, is true. It is, indeed, axiomatically incorrect to say that someone wants to do something that they don't want to do. But here's the thing: it's impossible to consciously do something that you don't want to do. We only ever consciously do what we want to do. If I say "I don't want to exercise," but then I exercise so I can stay in shape, I was technically incorrect in saying that I did not want to exercise, i.e., I did want to exercise and stay in shape because I did not want to not exercise and get out of shape. In this case, I am weighing the pro et contra. The pro of getting in shape outweighs the con of having to exercise.
Furthermore, the desire, i.e., the "want," is the self-interest. We all do the things we do for different reasons.
E.g., I could do something because I want to help myself or because I want to help someone or because I want to do the right thing.
But selflessness is not masochism or even altruism. It doesn't mean that you must get no gratification whatsoever.Human motivation is far more complex than "what I want".
I agree with everything quoted here but the underlined statement. As for the bolded statement, it should be noted that I am trying to communicate that we do everything we do, i.e., not none of it, not part of it, not even most of it, all of it in our self-interest. Therefore any decision that is not a pure blend of self-interest is impossible. As for the underlined statement, I disagree. Perhaps you could supply me with some examples or reasoning as to how you've reached such a conclusion?
In addition to that, perhaps this will clear my proposition up a little:
I suppose it is about time someone asked that. My proposition is that everything we consciously do is induced by self-interest alone. (Though all tangential arguments are welcome.)
True selflessness as you define it is an impossible phenomenon. Absurd, as it were. Usually, the term refers to a propensity to make great sacrifice for little reward other than the satisfaction of conscience and having done the right thing, which of course ultimately constitutes an intrinsic, egoistic motive as well, trivially. But there's a significant distinction to make between drive toward self-sustenence and drive toward sustenence of others, don't you think?
Absolutely. Many seem to have touched on the idea that by arguing that every conscious action is motivated solely by self-interest, that I am simultaneously arguing that altruism (in its connotational sense) is no better than egoism (in its connotational sense). From a moralistic perspective, altruism (in its connotational sense) is certainly of greater value than egoism (in its connotational sense).
*I hope it is apparent that this is more than a word game, despite my attention to the use of connotations and denotations. The only reason I specify those is because the denotation of altruism does not comply with the idea that everything is consciously done by self-interest. Which is why I refer to its connotation, which is, as you eloquently put it, the drive toward the sustenance of others.
Usually it is acceptable to assume self-preservation is a given, when thinking self-interest.
The altruistic soldier lost his life due to acting selflessly. This could be indicative of an acute or transient mental illness brought upon him by the stress and trauma of war.
The bolded statement is an excellent point. It is for reasons such as this that I have been careful to attach "consciously" to "act." Not all of our actions are reasoned. I may drive off the road while I'm not paying attention. But these are not, as I have said, conscious actions. Nevertheless, I'm glad you brought light to that.
It's insufficient to try and reason that selflessness can't exist, however the argument can be made that egoism is virtue. Selfless acts are however frequently motivated by self-interest and it's worthwhile to make note of it.
How is it insufficient? I'm not saying it can be absolutely proven, but I have yet to know of any conscious, selfless acts. By the scientific method, it is thus reasonable to conclude such.
Selflessness has a certain vagueness as to it's exact meaning. As a descriptive term, it could mean some self-sacrificing act. In moral philosophy, it is harder to put into a nutshell, and some might even argue against it. Language has certain functions and uses, but to define selflessness completely, and even hold it up as an ideal everyone should emulate, extends the meaning into the metaphysical. I don't like to indulge in metaphysical arguments like "what is the meaning of life", because if there's no objective referent, then the argument is about nothing. As for the self-sacrificing act, a soldier may die to save his comrades on the battlefield, and we may commend it, but in reality, it's just something that happened.
"Selfless" seems to me to be a word used to desribe a situation where a persons focus is predominately on the benefit of others as deemed more important than the benifit for themselves.
There seems to be an aspect of life where importance of superficial self benefit tends to harm the well-being of others. When a person relenquishes that easy path --- "selfless" is a word used.
I would not go far analysis of the word as in "No-self" choices.
The word just as easly could have been "Otherfull".
"Selfless" seems to me to be a word used to desribe a situation where a persons focus is predominately on the benefit of others as deemed more important than the benifit for themselves.
There seems to be an aspect of life where importance of superficial self benefit tends to harm the well-being of others. When a person relenquishes that easy path --- "selfless" is a word used.
The definition of a word nor its meaning is not the purpose of this thread. I am careful as to indicate what definition I am using for a word so as to avoid confusion. If you have not already, I encourage you to read more of the posts made to see what the purpose is.
Though on a truly universal scale there is no differentiation between selfish and selfless, to deem all actions selfish is to lose the meaning of selfish. Humans do not operate on a universal scale.
Apply a hierarchical scale. Beyond a certain point there is no differentiation of the self. Individuals compete against each other, families against families, tribes against tribes, societies, countries... But it stops on a global scale (currently, or at least if we're competing against other worlds, we don't know it for sure) and will always have an ultimate limit. The higher up the scale one directs altruistic actions toward, the more selfless they are.
Apply a gradient. Which is more selfish, diving on the bomb or running away to save himself?
Though I think John is a bad example, I'll use him to discuss agency and degree of foresight in decision-making:
John can only make choices if he knows they exist and can only make them based on the extent he can reasonably predict the future. Repeatedly choosing to watch TV and accept punishment challenges mom's authority and effectively neutralizes it if she observes that punishment doesn't accomplish her desired outcome and either changes or gives up.
For John, depending on his level of knowledge, foresight, and pragmatic capability, accepting punishment can effectively be deferred gratification. His agency allows him to alter his future consequences. His dirty room is only a problem if he wants a clean room. It's John's room, and while it may be under mom's roof, mom doesn't live in its conditions on a daily basis like John does. Given that John's dirty room exists to begin with, his parents must have made some mistake in raising John that allowed that to occur. Why doesn't John value cleanliness? Was he ever taught to do so?
Apply agency to the recipients of altruism. Are recipients obligated to pay back givers, and if so, to what degree? 100%? 10%? 1000%? What might each of those numbers accomplish? What if one agent's 1000% is another's 10%? What if one agent realizes the previous sentence and others don't? What if a selfish action is interpreted by another as altruistic, or vice versa?
Apply time. If his fellow soldiers "pay it forward" in whatever manner, do private's actions then become selfless? To what extent does private's a priori knowledge and beliefs about those he sacrifices himself for determine whether or not his actions are selfless? How far does the future extend? What role does intent play?
Considering the difference between subjective and objective (or, rather, more objective) self-interest, how does one differentiate between agency and self-interest in the context of an agent's perspective? Are people who play the lottery acting in their own self-interest? Subjectively, sure. They want to play the lottery. More objectively, not if they're playing to win money. It's called the idiot tax for a reason.
Apply learning. If a lottery player playing to win money learns that the odds aren't in their favor and stops playing because of that, then their past lottery playing is both subjectively and objectively against their self-interest. So no, agency and self-interest aren't the same, it just seems that way in the present, because that's where you exist. You cannot know the future nor objectively access the past.
If you do something for another knowing full well ahead of time that it won't benefit you, or will benefit them more than you, surely it's selfless to at least some extent. What is sacrifice to you? I ask rhetorically if it's possible to act altruistically considering all applications simultaneously; to have a positive impact on the top of the hierarchy by helping another individual or even yourself; to objectively be selfless? I'll say yes and that this would indeed be selfless, especially if that's your intent, but the answer falls under true objectivity, which can't be known unless you're omniscient. From there, we enter faith territory. I choose to believe yes and that it's a counterintuitive process that's part numbers game and part effort game.
The argument against this that I can foresee is that I'm choosing to live in delusion because it makes me feel good and that ultimately it doesn't matter if one is objectively selfish. My counter is that if I'm right, the two are wholly self-reinforcing upon the same target beneficiary which will become something greater than either. "Never going to give you up. Never going to let you down...."
Here's another one for you.... What if one uses their agency to sow seeds that create deterministic paths for other agents, who honestly believe the whole path-they're-following thing is their own idea? Maybe we can operate on a universal scale...
Infinitatis said:
I like what you said about masking our desires with 'selfless' acts.
I myself do this, depending on person and circumstance. For example, I publicly donated a portion of my Christmas gift value to a charity in order to simultaneously induce guilt in someone for not giving much while also showing that I do indeed empathize with those who the charity benefits. I was well aware that it was selfish while planning it out, yet justify the act because of its message. Rationalization? And if so, is that wrong if the intent is good?
However, though false positives exist, there are false negatives as well. There are many instances where people are unnecessarily suspicious of good favors or potentially beneficial suggestions for no apparent reason. I can only assume that they've been conditioned by others who have selfishly taken advantage of them in the past. See Broccoli Syndrome.
Ok I read more of the post.
-
I think you have connotation - denotation thing backwards.
"Selfless" - [concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own; unselfish.]
To be concerned implies a motivation from ones "intention". Every conscious choice is directed from that persons "intention".
You are replacing "intention" for "self-interest".
"Self-interest" - [one's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.]
The problem with that being that self-interest includes not taking into consideration other peoples regard. Selfless is an intent aimed with others regard above their own.
This problem exist under the actual denotation of these terms. The connotation of selfless would be something like: "Selfless" - [concerned more with the needs and wishes of the self to 'act' selfless.]
:::::
Only if you are arguing that ones choices is always "fully" maximizing their regard and it just so happens to affect others regard, can we throw out 'selfless' but we also have to throw out 'self-interest'.
But I would point out an issue here.
My regard has a synthetic happiness perspective {ego} that is hard to differentiate from true mental well-being. This is studied in psychology by many experiments and typically involved in most spiritual and theological perspectives.
You can not fully maximize your regard in every choice. Are ability to form an intent {which caries with it the array of means to accomplish a goal} is dependent on a persons experiential understanding. {ego} adds experiential confusion and alters the intents we are capable of forming. Learning and confusion are necessities and this is an aspect of life.
Are intents are never perfect. Those goals are sourced from some level of confusion and the means to achieve them do not perfectly actualize what's expected.
When I was about 22 I was at a friend's house. Her sink was full of dishes and I took it upon myself to wash them. It was a serious WTF moment for her as we were not romantically involved and it was spur of the moment. She said 'aww how nice thank you!' when I was in fact just doing it for myself. I was at the time embroiled in a serious project at school and needed to do something, anything to break from that daily cycle. So I washed her friggin dishes for her.
Later, probably when I was 29 I had a buddy over and he was standing in the kitchen talking to me. He went over and ran the sink and started washing the dishes in the sink. I said, 'hard day eh?' he nodded.
Sometimes I think we perceive people doing things that benefit us as selfless when they truly aren't. That probably helps inflate this selfless person myth quite a bit.
@Intolerable Yes, this could be the case but so can the opposite. Good intension (in some way helping another) interpreted as selfish. Intensions can't be seen by anyone except by those who act and even then, those who act can hide and distort their intensions (self distortions) adding another layer of difficulty to unravel.
Assume that for a moment I may have been interested in her romantically. I wasn't but lets assume for the sake of the next proposal.
She says in a gestural way she appreciates my helping her out. I could take advantage of her now by leaning on the act as a show of affection which wasn't my initial intent but whatever, I'll ride it out anyway.
I think people do this all the time. We're opportunistic by nature. If only to sate curiosity.
I'll go right to the cherished notion of selflessness which is parenthood. It's actually easier to explain than it looks. We view them as an extension of ourselves. We want for them what we did / did not have to see their expressions, etc. Our children therefore can be assumed to be a toy for a very mature person. One such puppet we can live vicariously through to experience childhood all over again.
You are describing situations where people 'act' selfless inorder to gain a self advantage unseen to those who see the preformance. This is ego.
Think of this:
-
A Father who has egotistical fantasy that he should spend all his money on a van and guitar to be a rock star and get a uhaul of blow and stash of money for prostituites. Or he could buy stuff his new baby needs to survive like food.
-
This decision maybe "difficult" to decide what to do. He 'thinks' his fantasy will be fullfilling but in the past addiction has brought only grief. He is unsure if it brought grief because his prior band just didn't do well enough or if it has to do with all the self endulgment.
-
On the other hand, He has an inkling of a idea that maybe fullfilment is really when you sacrafice for some notion of a greater purpose. He is unsure if a greater purpose exist or if providing for his kid will actually bring fullfilment.
-
Because of this "difficult" nature of the choice, shows what his maturity is. Even if he decides to help his kid - an on looker can not know how ''difficult" and how fragile of thin line was walked to get that outcome.
-
Because this difficulty exist we needs words such as 'selfish' and 'selfless".
::::::
But we could say that being selfless is still typically 'self-fullfilling'. I think this should be the OP's argument.
Dear Infinitatis I think that, following your reasoning, the only true possible selfless act is the one imposed.
Or in other words: a non free act. This is the only act that wouldn´t provide any kind of satisfaction to the subject, nor it would mean an advantage for the group, but pure pain. The kind of act that goes against life nad any hint of it.
I´m talking about sadism, torture (?)
This is of course too idealistic, maybe as much as altruism.
I wonder if altruism is instictual, or just some mirage we want to see to help us explain the absurd of nature.
You are describing situations where people 'act' selfless inorder to gain a self advantage unseen to those who see the preformance. This is ego.
Think of this:
-
A Father who has egotistical fantasy that he should spend all his money on a van and guitar to be a rock star and get a uhaul of blow and stash of money for prostituites. Or he could buy stuff his new baby needs to survive like food.
-
This decision maybe "difficult" to decide what to do. He 'thinks' his fantasy will be fullfilling but in the past addiction has brought only grief. He is unsure if it brought grief because his prior band just didn't do well enough or if it has to do with all the self endulgment.
-
On the other hand, He has an inkling of a idea that maybe fullfilment is really when you sacrafice for some notion of a greater purpose. He is unsure if a greater purpose exist or if providing for his kid will actually bring fullfilment.
-
Because of this "difficult" nature of the choice, shows what his maturity is. Even if he decides to help his kid - an on looker can not know how ''difficult" and how fragile of thin line was walked to get that outcome.
-
Because this difficulty exist we needs words such as 'selfish' and 'selfless".
::::::
But we could say that being selfless is still typically 'self-fullfilling'. I think this should be the OP's argument.
In your example the man who supplies for his children rather than his guitar is a man who simply doesn't value the guitar over his children. It's still down to the man and what he personally values. It's still an act of self to say X is more important to me than Y.
Maybe he's torn on what to do because he really likes both? This seems to be more realistic. Maybe he chooses and has regrets either way because he didn't have enough cash to do both. It's still a selfish response.
Dear Infinitatis I think that, following your reasoning, the only true possible selfless act is the one imposed.
Or in other words: a non free act. This is the only act that wouldn´t provide any kind of satisfaction to the subject, nor it would mean an advantage for the group, but pure pain. The kind of act that goes against life nad any hint of it.
I´m talking about sadism, torture (?)
This is of course too idealistic, maybe as much as altruism.
I wonder if altruism is instictual, or just some mirage we want to see to help us explain the absurd of nature.
Well maybe this scenario? A stranger steps into the path of a train to push another stranger off the tracks of an oncoming train.
As unlikely as this seems this could happen. If the man is dying this would be his ideal way to exiting the world. Or if the person he is saving reminds him of someone he really cares about he may do the same.
Again it isn't likely. Swap the strangers for a father and son scenario and I think it's pretty clear most fathers would switch places with their son in a certain death scenario. Only because the thought of living without his son would be too much to bear on himself. Still not selflessness.
A choice to full fill a value is not selfish if that value is full filled because other benifits and the personal satisfaction is only because other benifited.
The selfish choice is you "think" you will full fill a self created value and that the satisfaction is only because you benifit not i response to others benifit but usually thier harm.
Both choices full fill a value and has benifit. But selfish and selfless describe the mannar you benifit.
A choice to full fill a value is not selfish if that value is full filled because other benifits and the personal satisfaction is only because other benifited.
If personal satisfaction is the crux of the result then yes, it is entirely selfish.
We wade into the weeds on this for a reason. English doesn't allow for a clear understanding of what is going on but breaking it down to brass tacks shows that all decisions revolve around the self.
"On 1 July 1916 at the Battle of Thiepval Ridge in World War I, British army private William McFadzean of the 14th Battalion, the Royal Irish Rifles threw himself on top of a box of Mills bombs after the pin came loose on two of them whilst he was attempting to load the bombs into a bandolier. As a result of his action only one other man in the trench was injured in the resulting explosion. Private McFadzean was posthumously awarded the Victoria cross."
I see. Well, what you don't hear about is the instances where they have to shoot their fellow soldiers for fear of being discovered because the injured soldier is writhing in pain.
[Edit] An army vet told me that when I mentioned the same thing FWIW.
I think we just disagree on what the word selfish is used for.
If I was to give you two options of people who you had to choose between, and you had to survive in wild of Alaska for the rest of your life with.
And the only information you had to choose between the two from was a world wide vote for the most selfish person in mankind or the most selfless person in mankind.
Which one would you pick? clearly the words selfish ands selfless helps us understand what the person derives their satisfaction from.
Yes every choice is typically aimed at self fulfillment! But we can be fulfilled by vary different methods! selfish and selfless are those different methods! Because there is different methods we named them so we can communicate information.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
My proposition is that everything we consciously do is induced by self-interest alone. (Though all tangential arguments are welcome.)
