Selfish-less-ness

[Deacon Frost]

Well, this is a current debate in #ghosts, so I figured I'd bring it here to make it more readable, and such.

Alright, so first the point of topic:

No person is capable of a completely, 100% selfless act. In every instance there is at least a shred of selfishness in what it is you do. It may not be noticeable, you may not even consciously be aware of such, but it's there.

The counter argument is that selflessness is plausible in some instances, or is plausible when the person consciously says it is selfless.

Anyways, my point of view is that selflessness is not possible, whatsoever. I believe it was Sythe who said something like if you were truly selfless you'd die or some shit. I completely agree with this statement as you never know if what you are consuming could be put to better use for another.

Selfishness on the other hand spans over the entire hold of society with the illusion of selflessness. For instance (don't debate this, it's just an example) christian acts of kindness are incredibly selfish as they're not doing it for the person, they're doing it for themselves... scoring points for the afterlife, etc... Either that, or it makes them feel good... or they enjoy the recognition. Point is, somewhere, in every 'selfless' act is a hint of selfishness.


GO!

 

[Rabs]

There is no such thing as selfless person, only a person who is kind.

 

[wizardzgame]

There is no such thing as selfless person, only a person who is kind.

Explain your reasoning you believe so.

 

Anyways, my point of view is that selflessness is not possible, whatsoever. I believe it was Sythe who said something like if you were truly selfless you'd die or some shit. I completely agree with this statement as you never know if what you are consuming could be put to better use for another.

The most selfless act you can make is to die so that someone else can live by consuming your resources, living in your house, driving your car etc. Christianity (which is packed with altruism) even admits this -- Jesus died so you can live.

My question with respect to the above is: Why would anyone choose to follow a moral code where the highest virtue is death / self destruction? In my mind that alone is the criteria for pure evil (in a moral tautological sense and in a premoral utility / pragmatic sense). Indeed, we see countries where altruism is put into practice via political force, and millions die. Surprising? not really.

Selfishness on the other hand spans over the entire hold of society with the illusion of selflessness. For instance (don't debate this, it's just an example) christian acts of kindness are incredibly selfish as they're not doing it for the person, they're doing it for themselves... scoring points for the afterlife, etc... Either that, or it makes them feel good... or they enjoy the recognition. Point is, somewhere, in every 'selfless' act is a hint of selfishness.


GO!

The debate is over an 'ought' rather than an 'is', but is inconsequential. We suspect, from recent research into mammal intelligence, that all animals have what is essentially a utility function; that is, a relatively simple function by which they set short and long term goals which they then fulfill through their actions -- and this is manifest by a set of 'urges' / commands handed down to the brain for implementation.

A utility function for a robot driving a taxi might be: "Maximize profit whilst staying in the bounds of the law"

Humans appear to be no different to animals in this respect. Each of us has a slightly unique utility function based on some homospaien baseline. And, based on the goals people set, we can infer some semblance of what this utility function is / might be...

This is an inconclusive list: Self interest, survival, collecting resources, and reproducing seem to be included. Also: inhibitions such as an aversion to violence, and an aversion to social outcastedness.

Given the above, no amount of arguing about what 'ought' to be is going to change anything, and indeed the waters become entirely muddied, because if you feel the urge to argue in favour of selflessness as the highest virtue then your utility function would still be prompting that very act of argumentation; If you were right then everyone would be dead because a selfless utility function would lead to instant suicide of everyone, and if you are wrong then you are either ignorant or lying, because a selfish utility function is in conflict with what you are saying.

Of course utility functions are just a theory, but the supporting evidence is pretty good.

 

[Slaidz]

I agree when you say a person can't be selfless, but I do think that everyone can have brief moments of selflessness.

 

You seem to assert that genuine concern for another sentinent, rational human being is impossible, and that all acts are motivated by self-interest. I find it unfeasible to suggest that out of 6,000,000,000 people, not one of them would move out of genuine concern for the woman's health; the woman's family, etc.

Isn't this just evidence of empathy? It doesn't really have anything to do with virtues or morality. Like if you see someone who's just broken a leg and is writhing on the ground in absolute agony, you're going to call an ambulance / doctor, right? You're not going to stand there and say "Hrmm, let me think about this... let me just consult my moral code for the correct action to suit this situation."

Morality (virtue/vice) is high level rational judgment about the quality and integrity and intention of action. It is possible to have a selfless moral code, albeit an inconsistently and unhappily applied code, in the same way it is possible to cut your own hand off if you are absolutely convinced it's going to murder you in your sleep.

 

[The Riddler_]

Isn't this just evidence of empathy? It doesn't really have anything to do with virtues or morality. Like if you see someone who's just broken a leg and is writhing on the ground in absolute agony, you're going to call an ambulance / doctor, right? You're not going to stand there and say "Hrmm, let me think about this... let me just consult my moral code for the correct action to suit this situation."

It's just coincidence that it was an elderly woman, if it was an average adult male, would it still be considered empathy?

 

It's just coincidence that it was an elderly woman, if it was an average adult male, would it still be considered empathy?

Well no, and it would also be considered weird and subservient.

 

[The Riddler_]

Well no, and it would also be considered weird and subservient.

Yet, it's him acting out his selflessness.

And weird because of the rarity of the occurrence or because it's just something they wouldn't do themselves.

 

Yet, it's him acting out his selflessness.

In technical terms that would potentially be considered a moral act of selflessness. But what is your point exactly? As I already stated:

Morality (virtue/vice) is high level rational judgment about the quality and integrity and intention of action. It is possible to have a selfless moral code, albeit an inconsistently and unhappily applied code, in the same way it is possible to cut your own hand off if you are absolutely convinced it's going to murder you in your sleep.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

A mother taking care of her child is selfless.

 

[draco14]

A mother taking care of her child is selfless.

but if the mother didnt take care of her child would she be punished?

 

[dam prayer noobs]

but if the mother didnt take care of her child would she be punished?

Are you suggesting that some mothers pretend to care and love their child for 18 years because of fear of punishment?

 

Are you suggesting that some mothers pretend to care and love their child for 18 years because of fear of punishment?

Are you suggesting that a mother taking care of her child is selfless?

Well would you consider procreation to be selfless then?

 

[Rabs]

Explain your reasoning you believe so.

You find people only commit selfless acts, simply because it makes them feel good about doing so.
You also find, people who commit selfless acts although they don't enjoy doing so - often do it for a bigger reason.
E.g. For religiosity or to be reciprocated in return.

 

[T R 1 B A L]

Mothers taking care of a child is not selfless - the aim of humanity is reproduction, meaning the mother is doing it for her own gain, as well as for the child's.

 

Mothers taking care of a child is not selfless - the aim of humanity is reproduction, meaning the mother is doing it for her own gain, as well as for the child's.

Well my point was that if procreation is not selfless then neither is feeding your own children, since they are both undertaken to the same end: raising offspring.

 

[T R 1 B A L]

Eh, but isn't existing selfish?

Sure, you had no choice, but the fact that you take nutrients from your mother etc..

 

Eh, but isn't existing selfish?

Sure, you had no choice, but the fact that you take nutrients from your mother etc..

Sure, I'm not saying it isn't. Where self-interest overlaps then you have win-win selfishness. That's how the world gets along so well. That's why when you go out to buy dinner the shop doesn't grumble about charity and neither do you. You both fulfill your own self interest and you both win from the exchange.

 

[jCash]

9/11, fire fighters risked there lives to save hundreds, many firefighters lost there lives. selfless?