emphryio

Wow.

emphryio

Well I guess I should've given this thread a different name. HaHa

To 99percent
Yes, I agree with you totally, although at first I reacted negatively when I saw the Ayn Rand reference.

Although her philosophy has some practical uses for some people in some situations, I feel she is ultimately just "overreacting" to communism. Communism was too extreme in one direction, she goes too far in the other. (That's probably a gross over-generalization.)

To Echidna
Glad to see you agree with me. Wish I had gone to your high school. Actually I haven't found too many people who do agree. And if they don't, I would like to know why. That is the point. (Probably should have used a question mark message icon.)

Adrian Selby

I've been interested in this subject in relation to a thought that perhaps all action is altruistic.

So I'm throwing it around, its not rock solid or anything.

If all actions performed by a person are said to be egoistic, or selfish, then does it make any sense to say that they are selfish, only to call an act selfish is to attempt to distinguish it from acts that are not selfish. But if all acts are selfish, then what?

But if one can argue that for any given example of an act, it can be shown the person acting is acting out of self interest, isn't it equally possible to provide a meaningful reason for why they're acting out of an altruistic intention.

I wonder about this because when I've suggested in discussions in the past scenarios where I believe I'm acting altruistically, people have told me that 'in fact' I haven't been altruistic, I just think I've been altruistic. Well, if people can better explain my acts than I can, perhaps my assertion that 'in fact' they're acting altruistically, is a better explanation than they have. So, I tested this by ascribing an altruistic explanation to any act I could think of, and it seemed to work equally well.

Which really only leads me to conclude that its all very well people defining for other people what they're 'really' doing by performing an act, but to do so, especially when its easy to redefine every single act someone performs as self interested merely because it can still be a meaningful assertion, is pointless, because the only grounds on which said assertions can rest is that they are meaningful interpretations of action. Yet if a contradictory and yet equally meaningful interpretation of the same action can also be posited, does the whole enterprise lose its meaning, forcing the analysis back to the place where, really, it makes sense to talk of self interested and altruistic acts as related to the intention behind the act, said intention being definable by the person acting.

Adrian

echidna

Again, I think the problem is consciousness is directly equivalent to self or self-ness. Hence a conscious act of selflessness is an oxymoron. But I see the problem as largely being one of semantics, and in fact I’d be curious if other languages had the same paradox in their definition of selflessness.

By definition when we act consciously we act literally selfishly. Maybe the main stumbling block for most people is the unpleasant baggage associated with the word, however by definition we must accept it as a given.

So what motivates us to act consciously ?
1. Self interest independent of the benefit to others.
2. Self interest dependent of the benefit to others.

In general “selflessness” is taken to mean 2, although literally it is neither. I think the literal interpretation is self-defeating and not useful.

For example :
Why do you donate money to the children’s hospital ?
1. Because I get tax breaks.
2. Because I enjoy telling my friends, I enjoy the thanks that the hospital gives me.
3. Because I want to live in a world where children are not sick.
4. Because I anonymously feel better knowing that those children are better off.

Personally I rate 1,2,3,4 as increasingly selfless, however at the end of the day, they are all about me wanting to influence the world & exert my will to make a difference.

I think the reason I get a bit riled with the simple dismissal of all acts as being literally selfish, is that I find that interpretation quite nihilistic & potentially amoral. It ignores that there are very significant moral differences between the 4 reasons.

In fact I find it interesting on introspection, at my own attitudes to the many potential reasons for my own actions. Honest introspection of 1,2,3,4 often yields uncomfortable results .

FWIW, I choose an example which I personally do not perform myself.

echidna

Further, I see morality based on either the religious concept of heaven and hell, or the secular Social Contractarianism, to be quite the selfish equivalent of 1.

OTOH, the religious "because it's Right" and often the “because God says so” is the secular equivalent of “because it feels right”, & both are the equivalent of 4 IMO. In neither case do we really have a cold calculated reason. We’re just gonna do it anyway !

I withdraw my previous comments. Good topic !

tronvillain

echidna:
While I would consider all of those motivations equally selfish, I think we tend to place more emphasis on actions that have internal motivations rather than external motivations. It is just the way we are built.

Adrian Selby

with regard to those 4 points, is there not an increasing amount of altruistic intent in them, by which I mean, a consideration of the welfare of others. It cannot be doubted that the welfare of others is more beneficially affected by those acts. I can also say that this is the reason for acting that way.

If I were to interpret all action as self interested, what could I conclude from this. It seems empty. Doing honourable things, charitable things, seeking equality, all these things might be self interested, yet this analysis doesn't offer any further conclusions, because we still have to figure out whether murdering others or striving for world peace is better or worse. At best, it removes the concepts of self interest and altruism out of any ethical framework.

Whilte therefore on one level I am only doing what 'I' think is right, am I not also doing it for altruistic reasons?

How is it impossible for me to perform an act that is altruistic, because I think the dispute is whether one can act purely altruistically. If we concede one cannot do this, I don't think it can be argued that we can only act in our self interest. However, as per my previous post, I think the problems are semantic, as acts can be redefined to fit any meaningful and consistent motive.

emphryio

Are you saying it's impossible to prove that a person can never act altruistically? Or are you saying because you cannot act altruistically, the concept of self-interest is meaningless?

I assume you are saying the first.

You cannot attempt to perform an altruistic act. Any act you perform, you do so because in some way it is in your own self-interest. With that said, some people have some strange ideas about whats in their self-interest. But I repeat, you cannot ATTEMPT to perform a truly altruistic act.
Any action attempted is done so ultimately out of self-interest.

That doesn't prove it. I think Echidna came closer to proving it earlier.

Now you may try to perform an altruistic act just to prove me wrong, but then you're only doing it to prove me wrong, etc. (Actual examples might work better at proving it for you. Although it would never truly be proved then in a mathmatical sense.)

I wonder if this so. This is what Echidna was saying at first. But what about this:

Suppose a person was "dumb" enough that they incorrectly thought of Echidna's third and fourth actions as altruistic. Now suppose they're also "smart" enough that they realize altruism is completely illogical and not something they're going to waste their time with.

The result is such a person will not perform actions that could actually be beneficial to themselves along with the rest of society.

It would seem there are such people out there. Agree/Disagree?

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]</p>

echidna

Literal conscious selflessness is an oxymoron.

If one searches dictionary.com, one finds a range of definitions for “selfish” :

From : The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, one finds the standard common meaning :

But from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., the definition is more subjectively loaded in a negative sense :

In a nutshell, take your choice which definition you choose.

Semantics is a great way of starting a fight …

echidna

Again from dictionary.com …

#1 is the classic meaning, but still ignores the impossibility of conscious selflessness. It leaves the ambiguity which we are struggling with, that welfare for others can also benefit ourselves.

#2 seems interestingly closer to the “good” connotations which we have with the word, however stresses instinct rather than consciousness.

While #2 works in a zoological context, I think a few qualifiers are required to bring it into a human context. Firstly human altruism is not always to the benefit of the survival of the species. In fact human altruism is often best exemplified by acts which defy utilitarianism, where the needs of the individual are stressed over the needs of the many. As another example one could even describe an illegal act of euthanasia as altruistic (in a strange kind of way). Indeed human altruism need not be limited to other humans, saving whales can be described as altruistic in my book.

Personally I’m satisfied with neither 1 or 2 & I see altruism’s “goodness” best characterised by a sense of genuine empathy for others. Sure it’s still a conscious act & therefore strictly selfish, but personally I find quite a moral difference when acts are driven by empathy rather than direct self-benefit.

Now whether that’s instinctive or not … who knows. Personally I’ve suggested yes in the past, the existence of universal human virtues (but not objective), qualitiative but unquantifiable, not as absolute blacks and whites but as guidelines greys.