Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
This is a question that I've struggled with a lot. And my only real insight I could get was that there is a problem with how this question is assumed.

Firstly most people discuss selfishness with a focus on how it is a bad thing with damaging outcomes, but I would argue that there is a sidestep to this which is: What type of selfishness are we talking about? I think there is a mutual selfishness that is beneficial, where all parties involved get something and this about as close to altruism as we can get.

On the other hand, I've had some experiences that definitely changed how I look at this question, and I was a deeply cynical person for a long time in my own life.

I used to work at a retail store on a council estate near where I live. Outside we had emergency defibrillators mounted on the wall with an access code (which we had to scratch off the front and keep inside the store because local kids kept messing with it and taking it out).

On this occasion, a young man came running down and demanded, aggressively, that we get the defib out for him because he said his mum was dying. I could see he was on the verge of tears and pretty distraught, so I got the code, got the defib and asked him if he wanted me to come with him, to which he said yes. We both ran up to the top of this estate (it's on a big hill so it's very sharply inclined) and to his house where a neighbour was already doing chest compressions.

Now a defibrillator only shocks the heart into its proper rhythm, either shocking it from arrhythmia or starting it if it has suddenly stopped. In this situation, the man's mother was cold to the touch and turning blue from the lack of oxygen in her blood. The neighbour actually gave me a very small shake of the head, indicating no hope I think. Even so, I cut her cardigan off and placed the defibs where it said to.

And the automatic voice on the box said to just do compressions. So that's what myself and the neighbour did for the next 7 minutes before the paramedics arrived.

Now the point of this story is that when he said he needed it and that he wanted me to come with him, at that moment I wasn't worried about whether or not I would look good, or if I could be bothered/care. The only immediate thought was of my own parents and other people that I love. And I realised I would, most likely, want someone to come with me too.

And you can easily argue the selfishness of this, it's only through my own family and relations that I cared, abstractly, about his mum. It could also be argued that I unconsciously wanted to look good (and that can go for here on a forum too by mentioning it).

And lots of other angles as well. However, going back to that sidestep, my main point is: Does that matter?

Does it matter if I was selfish or not? Wasn't the outcome the same as if I were selfless?

Is it not more important to distinguish between the more conscious drives and the unconscious ones? There's a world of difference between a psychopathic go-getter who sabotages everyone else in a zero-sum game of "what can I get?" and someone who simply acts based on an instinct that could be called selfish but is about as removed from the former as possible.

I don't think of myself as a good or bad person in that situation, just someone who acted.

As an aside, when it comes to the causal web of behaviour, that is a different issue and one we don't actually have a way out of.

Only the old quote: “We must believe in free will, we have no choice,” Isaac Bashevis Singer
 
I think the discussion could be on the definition of what satisfaction is. I don't mean satisfaction as a whole, as in you feeling satisfied by doing x, but as in you satisfying an internal need/thought/something by doing x.

In this example, you're saying “it seems like a good thing for the kid”, so the action is linked to a value of yours, to an emotional or ethical need. But that's on you. People help people when they feel good by helping. Again, that's not wrong, but our personal judgment is the motive behind our actions. We always try to get a reward, consciously or unconsciously.


I have no idea (talking about other people), maybe about the same? It depends on what moves every person, I guess. Some are (socially) selfless selfish people, some just feel good by running over others.
But then isn't it like saying anything we "choose" to do, as a choice, must be "selfish" because we are satisfying a decision we made?

But that just, to me, loses the flavor and the meaning of those words.

That then, the only option for doing something that is not "selfish" means to like...lose control of one's own autonomy, because in some abstract way satisfying a personal choice could be seen as "selfish"?

I guess my issue is still--why do we want to insist that having moral values, having ethical systems, or making decisions is selfish?

What does "selfishness" even mean then, at that point--or lack of it? So lack of selfishness would mean one absolutely has no autonomy and is like hypnotized into doing something, because through hypnosis we might not feel satisfied by making our own decision?

I mean, just to be clear I'm not picking strawmen--would that be an example of "selfishness" because we made a decision, so we must have had some motivation for it, and simply fulfilling any motivation or feeling satisfied with a decision or an action for any reason (altruism etc.) makes it "selfish"?
 
My concern (and this isn't about the motivations of Nannerl or OP--I don't think they have these motivations, but I think the motivations exist and some might) is that the argument that all altruism is selfish has an emotional motivation, rather than is justified by logic.

It is the emotional satisfaction of people who do not choose altruism, and instead prefer to make selfish decisions to the extreme, who would like to equate their decisions to the altruists, as if they have the same motivation.

So like...a person who (as an extreme example) has a personal sex slave who just fulfills whatever desire that person has, and perhaps they are not kind to this slave--but they justify it as "all people are selfish."

And then to say the person who gives food to a child who is starving, because "children are valuable and should not be left to starve," is somehow doing that, not for an altruistic motivation at all--but because that individual just somehow finds giving children bread some selfishly satisfying thing, similarly to having some kind of personal slave to do anything one wants?

I mean, that makes no sense, because I think that even if you were to switch these people around, and put the altruist with the slave and put the selfish hedonist with the child, and even though they probably wouldn't be "satisfied" with the other's choice, it is not like the altruist is just some bizarre type of human that doesn't find personal satisfaction from selfishness. That wouldn't be satisfied having their needs or desires achieved through selfish ends.

Right? I mean, are we really saying that the altruist just is unable to feel the satisfaction of having a personal slave, if they were to want to choose to do that?

Because I dont' believe that--that sounds to me like a complete misunderstanding of human motivation.

And to me, it also sounds like it's more emotionally fulfilling of a fantasy to say "oh everyone is motivated by selfishness, just as I am so it is fine to do whatever I want and I do not have to consider that anyone else's action is morally or ethically more sound than my own." than really rational to say "any decision anyone makes and is satisfied by, must mean they are acting out of selfish motivation--no matter if the decision requires great personal sacrifice to the individual in an effort to help another one."

So...euh...I will probably have to try to write this in a more concise way. But these are some of my concerns about this argument--again--I do not think this is the motivation of Nannerl or the OP, but I think this is some people's motivation for perpetuating this argument--that it rather fulfills an "emotional want" (or a fear people have) and that is what makes it significant, not it's sound logic.

As for my own motivations--I have no problem being motivated by selfish desires--I think many are beneficial and mutually beneficial. However, I just see something fishy about trying to argue that any decision anyone makes must be selfish.

It seems bizarre and suspicious to water down language and meaning so much, and try to assert that the ethical egoist who cares nothing for anyone else's benefit than their own is somehow the moral equivalent of someone who makes decisions with others wellbeing in mind.
 
considering the fact that all our behaviour are some weird manifestations of survival instinct, probably the former. But so what? Both parties are benefitting? As long as it feels real, does the mechanism matter? A mother loves and cares for her child, but that’s because subconsciously she feels a drive to spread her genes. But the mother feels love, the child feels love, and everyone is taken care of
 


Just to warm up - note the special orthography






The ending is really weak:

“Morality requires some sort of sympathy, it requires the ability to sympathise with others [Not true]. If a person only cares for themselves then such a person needs psychological intervention or institutional intervention, they re beyond the reach of reason and argumentation at that point, the worry is that such people harm others severely on their way to institutions, so recognizing the limits of philosophy hopefully promotes early intervention for those though rare that are true egoist and do not care about the welfare of others.”

When philosophy runs out of arguments, the psychopath is quickly conjured out of the hat so that psychiatry, apparently as an auxiliary science of philosophy, can solve the unsolvable problem, a really interesting view.

Psychological egoism is a largely accurate description of animal behaviour. Humans essentially care about what they perceive as belonging to them, which may include the tribe or the nation or humanity or planet Earth. However, they are reluctant to spend money on the latter. One should follow the money flows of people who argue against egoism – they earn from spreading pleasant truths and keep the money for themselves, like everyone else. Of course, there are people who sacrifice themselves for others, which usually suits them badly.

The most popular way of helping others is to give them advice that doesn’t even take thinking time. Helping others on moving day is highly unpopular – bad enough that you have you have to keep moving yourself!
 
“Morality requires some sort of sympathy, it requires the ability to sympathise with others [Not true]. If a person only cares for themselves then such a person needs psychological intervention or institutional intervention, they re beyond the reach of reason and argumentation at that point, the worry is that such people harm others severely on their way to institutions, so recognizing the limits of philosophy hopefully promotes early intervention for those though rare that are true egoist and do not care about the welfare of others.”
My understanding is that ethical egoism isn't a coherent ethical system because it's not something that can be universally applied--if everyone in society acted like an ethical egoist, society would just fall apart.

Deferring to one's own personal gain for every decision, and having it be the guiding factor, without considering the impact one has on others is antisocial. It also has no ethical consistency.

I do think the argument is valid--an ethical egoist "wants a world in which their own benefit is maximized" so they cannot advocate for others to also maximize their benefit, as that would take away from his." It is illogical for an ethical egoist to want others to act like them--because then it would be harder to exploit them. The ethical egoist wants others to be altruistic, compassionate and giving, so that he can take advantage of them.

It's not a coherent ethical system, because ethical systems must be able to be practiced by the entire society or at least the majority. And ethical egoism falls apart because it depends on altruism of others to exploit.

I mean...isn't it in the altruists self interest then, to eliminate the ethical egoist? So how can he advocate to the altruists to follow ethical egoism, when that is advocating that he himself get eliminated from society (and so lose his resources)?

I think the problem with egoism in general is that it ignores the importance of the relationship with the rest of society. Animals don't only act in their own individual interest. There is a difference between the interest of a species survival and the interest of an individual's survival.

Species like humanity did not get ahead by stabbing each other in the back with no regard for anyone else. We aren't solitary, antisocial creatures who depend on our claws and teeth to survive the harsh world--we depend on society and each other to work together in systems we can agree with, to manipulate the external world to be more beneficial for our species.

Herd animals close around the weak and the vulnerable to protect them--not because it's the individual interest of the outer animal to protect the weak and give his life, but because it's in the interest of the species.

Wolves don't risk being the alpha and biting down first on the hind of an animal, getting a kick to the jaw, because it is just the individual alpha's best interest--but rather because it is in the pack's best interest to have a strong leader who is willing to sacrifice for the pack.

Ethical egoism isn't reflected in biology or nature--because survival of the fittest isn't only about one individual's survival--but of the survival of the species, which is often also dependent on other species survival, because none of us (no species, no individual--none of us) is actually completely independent.

(Edit: I realized I don't actually know how wolves hunt--but large cats do bite the hind like that. Probably wolves don't b/c they are smaller. I also have almost no knowledge about philosophy--but I took a couple of classes--elementary logic and beginning ethics.)
 


Just to warm up - note the special orthography




Ok I watched the two later videos b/c they were shorter, and half of the first (I initially responded without watching the videos b/c I should probably be doing something else right now but I'm just an unthinking animal so...)

I guess yeah, most animals probably are more psychological egoists, because they really aren't capable of the type of logic we are. And if they were, we wouldn't know it because they can't talk to us in human language to explain their decisions or motivations.

I think there's something to be said about logic and thinking as well as emotion.

I do think that both are involved in ethical systems--And so a deficiency in either emotion or rational thinking can result in unethical acts and also flawed ethical systems (like ethical egoism--if it can even be considered an ethical philosophy).

I suspect though, that people are more mesmerized by this idea that every motivation we have comes back to self-interest or egoism, because some people are probably terrified of the idea (because of how we've been socialized to view self-interest as bad) and some people are probably in love with the idea (because they want to promote this idea that their own overly selfish motivations are normal, when they aren't.)

Thanks for sharing the videos--I found the second two pretty straightforward and concise. The first one was also interesting, but I will have to try to get to it another time when I have fulfilled my ethical obligations of whatever it is I'm supposed to be doing right now, rather than learning to be a more ethical person from philosophy (haha that seems kind of ironic and perhaps misguided--at least my old ethics teacher would probably ask about whether it is more ethical of me to neglect the cultivation of my ethical beliefs for...idk...go for a walk to take care of my body and happiness).
 
"Goodness is not goodness that seeks advantage. Good is good in the final hour, in the deepest pit, without hope, without witness, without reward. Virtue is only virtue in extremis."

Therefore, it's not strange that you have never heard of any selfless act in your life, much less being in presence of one.

To the people who think all is about selfishness, I think I'll quote Shakespeare.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


It's no good clinging on to a very limited set of beliefs.
 
My concern (and this isn't about the motivations of Nannerl or OP--I don't think they have these motivations, but I think the motivations exist and some might) is that the argument that all altruism is selfish has an emotional motivation, rather than is justified by logic.

It is the emotional satisfaction of people who do not choose altruism, and instead prefer to make selfish decisions to the extreme, who would like to equate their decisions to the altruists, as if they have the same motivation.
I think you're overseeing their position. If you boil down what that "motivation" is, it's:
I think the discussion could be on the definition of what satisfaction is. I don't mean satisfaction as a whole, as in you feeling satisfied by doing x, but as in you satisfying an internal need/thought/something by doing x.

In this example, you're saying “it seems like a good thing for the kid”, so the action is linked to a value of yours, to an emotional or ethical need. But that's on you. People help people when they feel good by helping. Again, that's not wrong, but our personal judgment is the motive behind our actions. We always try to get a reward, consciously or unconsciously.

I have no idea (talking about other people), maybe about the same? It depends on what moves every person, I guess. Some are (socially) selfless selfish people, some just feel good by running over others.
(Now my interpretation)
An altruistic person thus chooses their actions based on how it makes them feel, just like how a selfish person chooses their actions based on how it makes them feel. So they could be argued to be one and the same.
 
I think you're overseeing their position. If you boil down what that "motivation" is, it's:

(Now my interpretation)
An altruistic person thus chooses their actions based on how it makes them feel, just like how a selfish person chooses their actions based on how it makes them feel. So they could be argued to be one and the same.
Okay--so like...if an altruistic person has empathy...which most altruistic people have.

And so they don't hurt someone because they would empathetically or sympathetically feel pain, knowing that they are hurting another person...it is "selfish"?

Or alternately, if an altruistic person simply values the other person for who they are...autonomously...and so they do not want to harm the person...

Because they are motivated by their feelings of "value" and not wanting to harm something that they see value in, they are being "selfish"?

Doesn't this kind of dilute the meaning of selfishness? What is the point of claiming this thing?

The only good I can see in it is that people should accept that sometimes individualistic feelings are good--that they are not always bad. And that one doesn't need to just be possessed or lack agency, or be the tool of some other entity in order to be "good," but I also don't think someone needs to lack agency or desire in order to act in a way that is unselfish. I'm getting a bit tangled up there though. But it does bother me.
 
Okay--so like...if an altruistic person has empathy...which most altruistic people have.

And so they don't hurt someone because they would empathetically or sympathetically feel pain, knowing that they are hurting another person...it is "selfish"?

Or alternately, if an altruistic person simply values the other person for who they are...autonomously...and so they do not want to harm the person...

Because they are motivated by their feelings of "value" and not wanting to harm something that they see value in, they are being "selfish"?

Doesn't this kind of dilute the meaning of selfishness? What is the point of claiming this thing?

The only good I can see in it is that people should accept that sometimes individualistic feelings are good--that they are not always bad. And that one doesn't need to just be possessed or lack agency, or be the tool of some other entity in order to be "good," but I also don't think someone needs to lack agency or desire in order to act in a way that is unselfish. I'm getting a bit tangled up there though. But it does bother me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a determinist, and I DO I believe selfless acts exist. I particularly like that you point out that words have meaning, and there is a distinction between "selfish" and "selfless", but the whole point of the thread is to say they might be one and the same.

...but they say that empathy ITSELF comes from people feeling good about other people. This logic might seem circular to you... so let me ask:

Does free will exist? Are the base of people's choices simply the collection of specific electrical impulses in the brain?
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a determinist, and I DO I believe selfless acts exist. I particularly like that you point out that words have meaning, and there is a distinction between "selfish" and "selfless", but the whole point of the thread is to say they might be one and the same.

...but they say that empathy ITSELF comes from people feeling good about other people. This logic might seem circular to you... so let me ask:

Does free will exist? Are the base of people's choices simply the collection of specific electrical impulses in the brain?
Sorry--I didn't see this before. I do believe in free will.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a determinist, and I DO I believe selfless acts exist. I particularly like that you point out that words have meaning, and there is a distinction between "selfish" and "selfless", but the whole point of the thread is to say they might be one and the same.

...but they say that empathy ITSELF comes from people feeling good about other people. This logic might seem circular to you... so let me ask:

Does free will exist? Are the base of people's choices simply the collection of specific electrical impulses in the brain?
They are not the same. It's a spectrum and there are varying levels of selfishness, some of which we call selfless and altruistic and some, malicious.
 
I am sure there are selfless acts. Even if it may benefit you in some way, that doesn't mean you're thinking about that or primarily motivated by that. As a mom myself I don't care at all whether I leave a legacy in the world, I care that those sweet little eyes aren't crying.

Of course there is often a mix of motivations behind someone's actions. But I think if you truly care and want to do good, it doesn't matter if you also recognize that 'doing the right thing' will make life better for you as well as them.
 
Sorry--I didn't see this before. I do believe in free will.
Not a problem. If I was fined for every day I haven't gotten back to someone, I'd be in deep debt. The other thread was interesting as well.
If you believe in free will, then it would follow that it doesn't truly matter what chemicals or reasons or whatever else was going on in one's brain. One can simply choose to be selfless and that's that.. We could, of course, explain why free will exists but that's another thread for another topic.
 
You kind of answered your own question. The intent defines the action. The first woman saved the child for selfless reasons while the second saved the child for selfish reasons. Only she would know if she is selfish or selfless. We would just have to take her word for it.

Selfishness gets too much of a bad rap. In many situations, being selfish is the more morally correct choice of the two.
 
Discussion starter · #38 ·
You kind of answered your own question. The intent defines the action. The first woman saved the child for selfless reasons while the second saved the child for selfish reasons. Only she would know if she is selfish or selfless. We would just have to take her word for it.

Selfishness gets too much of a bad rap. In many situations, being selfish is the more morally correct choice of the two.
You kind of answered your own question. The intent defines the action. The first woman saved the child for selfless reasons while the second saved the child for selfish reasons. Only she would know if she is selfish or selfless. We would just have to take her word for it.

Selfishness gets too much of a bad rap. In many situations, being selfish is the more morally correct choice of the two.
So can you be unintentionally selfish or selfless? and if that's the case then what are examples of each? once you've identified the selfless example, how on some level isn't it selfish either for the person themselves or for everyone on the large scale?

thank you for replying. 🙏
 
As Secondpassing pointed out, it does sound like a question about determinism, and I'm a determinist, thus you can imagine where I'm going.

I do think (nearly) everything comes from a selfish motivation, but that is not necessarily wrong. Taking your example, even if the woman gives her child the food out of pure love, that love is felt by her and it creates a need in her. If she didn't give her child the food, she would feel guilty, and if she does, she'll feel satisfied or that is worth it. It's a response to her own values.

Some people like to help others and that's why they do it, even when they have to sacrifice some of their own needs, but because there's a higher priority, they'll get a stronger emotional reward (or avoid remorse) once they do it. Of course, that's still beautiful, the fact that you feel good when doing something for someone else, but still, at the end we're all looking out for ourselves.
You're only looking at one half of it. That the love is felt by her is only half of the equation. The other half is that the love is felt for someone else. And this is where intent defines whether the same act is selfish or selfless. Is she concerned with her need to keep her lover alive? or is she concerned with her lover's need to keep themselves alive?
 
I am sure there are selfless acts. Even if it may benefit you in some way, that doesn't mean you're thinking about that or primarily motivated by that. As a mom myself I don't care at all whether I leave a legacy in the world, I care that those sweet little eyes aren't crying.

Of course there is often a mix of motivations behind someone's actions. But I think if you truly care and want to do good, it doesn't matter if you also recognize that 'doing the right thing' will make life better for you as well as them.
Exactly--what does "selfishness" even mean if doing anything you are motivated to do is defined as "selfish"?

Just because an action delivers a consequence, doesn't mean that consequence is the primary motivation (or even enters into the equation).

It's like people can't get that being altruistic is actually good at times (for everyone involved)--so if it benefits both parties, it has to be defined as "selfish" which is silly. Of course there are people who do things for self gain--but there are also times people do things for other reasons.
 
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top