Why People Do Things

[Atlas001]

If I ever find my Psychology book from my senior year in high school I will quote the proof that altruism does not in fact exist. I am extremely open-minded, and just like you, I argued with my teacher for weeks about altruism after his lecture about it. He put up with my incessant arguing and finally I realized he was right, and now I cannot even imagine thinking otherwise.
If you, however, want to think otherwise, that's fine, I'm just shedding some light on the other side of the argument, but I guess you are too hard set with your opinion

Let's say the people in the forest are all family members, than altruism would be existing if I were to sacrifice myself.

And the definition of altruism is basically the definition of selflessness.

Point proven. I mean scientific studies even say altruism exists, it's something in the brain that makes you react the way you do to certain situations.

If you can give me a good reason why altruism doesn't exist than maybe you can sway me, but I assure you there is none.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Rational people try to act in their own interests or the interests of their own family and species. I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Atlas001]

Rational people try to act in their own interests or the interests of their own family and species. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Precisely, which is exactly why the word altruism does exist, and it exists in the brain. It's like something that gets triggered when you need to act to protect the ones you care about.

 

[Memos]

Pretty great philosophy.
Although what about: for pleasure?

 

[wtp]

Pretty great philosophy.
Although what about: for pleasure?

Thank-you

Pleasure would either go under entertainment or importance.

 

[brimax]

That pretty much summs up why people do stuff, good work.

 

[MatthewGor123]

Precisely, which is exactly why the word altruism does exist, and it exists in the brain. It's like something that gets triggered when you need to act to protect the ones you care about.

Reciprocal altruism is, in it of itself, not really a great example to use for selfless acts. In animal behaviors, [which I'm assuming is what you mean, because this is the *only* type of altruism the majority of animals are capable of doing] altruism is defined as:

Mutually beneficial behavior in which an individual helps another because of expected reciprocal behavior.

For many animals, it enhances the survival of the species as a whole, which is what, ultimately, the majority of animals on Earth want to do. In fact, I truly believe that, despite the lack of rational thought, animals would probably be more likely to show "selfless" acts than humans, because the purpose of the animal is to pass on the genetics of their SPECIES, while the purpose in the majority of humans is to pass on their FAMILY LINEAGE. However, we haven't really been able to study animals actions in detail thus far, and therefore cannot determine if an act is truly selfless.

That being said, I still feel humans can definitely show selfless, altruistic acts which animals are incapable [as far as we know] of doing.

 

[Atlas001]

Reciprocal altruism is, in it of itself, not really a great example to use for selfless acts. In animal behaviors, [which I'm assuming is what you mean, because this is the *only* type of altruism the majority of animals are capable of doing] altruism is defined as:



For many animals, it enhances the survival of the species as a whole, which is what, ultimately, the majority of animals on Earth want to do. In fact, I truly believe that, despite the lack of rational thought, animals would probably be more likely to show "selfless" acts than humans, because the purpose of the animal is to pass on the genetics of their SPECIES, while the purpose in the majority of humans is to pass on their FAMILY LINEAGE. However, we haven't really been able to study animals actions in detail thus far, and therefore cannot determine if an act is truly selfless.

That being said, I still feel humans can definitely show selfless, altruistic acts which animals are incapable [as far as we know] of doing.

Point proven, animal wise, but we're talking about humans (creatures with the ability to think).

And the definition is unselfish concern for the welness of others; selflessness.

 

[Rune Shadow]

I do what ever i do because i want to and because i can! XD

 

[MatthewGor123]

Point proven, animal wise, but we're talking about humans (creatures with the ability to think).

And the definition is unselfish concern for the welness of others; selflessness.

That's the definition of altruism, which is basically the debate we're on right now, is it possible or not? I venture to say YES under some, very, very noble circumstances.

One person who I feel was truly selfless was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He knew he would get shot at some point, but he had the goal NOT FOR HIMSELF, but FOR HIS PEOPLE, that they would one day attain freedom. And because of his courageous, selfless acts [which basically got him murdered], African-Americans are no longer treated as inferior. I want to see somebody counter this, because it may be done, but I think I'll have a good counter-argument.

I do what ever i do because i want to and because i can! XD

I do what ever i do because I can't read the thread and post stupid shit instead like a fucking imbecile.

 

[Christmas Crackers]

One person who I feel was truly selfless was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He knew he would get shot at some point, but he had the goal NOT FOR HIMSELF, but FOR HIS PEOPLE, that they would one day attain freedom. And because of his courageous, selfless acts [which basically got him murdered], African-Americans are no longer treated as inferior. I want to see somebody counter this, because it may be done, but I think I'll have a good counter-argument.

You're making some brash assumptions there. How do you know Martin Luther King Jr. knew he would be shot eventually? How do you know he had a goal for himself and not for his people, he could very well have been reading speeches he wrote to get attention for himself? Did you ever talk to him/get to know him? Did you know he greatly undermined women and used them to run his campaign but never gave them the credit they deserved, because he believed in the superiority in the males over women? Maybe in YOUR opinion, he did these things for the betterment of his people, but you cannot say that in fact and therefore it cannot be argued.

 

[MatthewGor123]

You're making some brash assumptions there. How do you know Martin Luther King Jr. knew he would be shot eventually? How do you know he had a goal for himself and not for his people, he could very well have been reading speeches he wrote to get attention for himself? Did you ever talk to him/get to know him? Did you know he greatly undermined women and used them to run his campaign but never gave them the credit they deserved, because he believed in the superiority in the males over women? Maybe in YOUR opinion, he did these things for the betterment of his people, but you cannot say that in fact and therefore it cannot be argued.

1) "I have been to the mountaintop...I may not get there with you..."
"I have a dream that one day, my brothers and sisters and children can all..."

Okay, so you're telling me that MLK sacrificed his life in order to get attention? I don't know for a fact, and you're right that it's an opinion, but analyzing bits of his speeches and his word choice during his improvisation definitely leads me to believe that he wanted to help others, not just himself.

What campaign?

 

[Atlas001]

You're making some brash assumptions there. How do you know Martin Luther King Jr. knew he would be shot eventually? How do you know he had a goal for himself and not for his people, he could very well have been reading speeches he wrote to get attention for himself? Did you ever talk to him/get to know him? Did you know he greatly undermined women and used them to run his campaign but never gave them the credit they deserved, because he believed in the superiority in the males over women? Maybe in YOUR opinion, he did these things for the betterment of his people, but you cannot say that in fact and therefore it cannot be argued.

Matt's quote sums up your first question. Of course he was trying to get attention but not for himself, to himself, without attention no one would have known who he was, and we wouldn't be where we were today. And his feeling of superiority over females is only natural back when he was alive, that was still going on, we weren't educated enough then.

And, if you can't say it in fact it's all the more reason to be argued.

 

[Christmas Crackers]

1) "I have been to the mountaintop...I may not get there with you..."
"I have a dream that one day, my brothers and sisters and children can all..."

Okay, so you're telling me that MLK sacrificed his life in order to get attention? I don't know for a fact, and you're right that it's an opinion, but analyzing bits of his speeches and his word choice during his improvisation definitely leads me to believe that he wanted to help others, not just himself.

What campaign?

Your quotes just fuel the debate, because MLK could easily have said these things to make himself sound more important.

And I never said that MLK sacrificed his life in order to get attention, don't put words in my mouth, it does nothing more than make your argument sound frail.

What campaign? How can you be arguing with me without knowing MLK's campaign??

Look, the only reason I'm here arguing with you is to give you perspective, because it seems as if you do not see the actions of people for what they really are. You can't be so naive as to assume that MLK put himself in danger ONLY for the betterment of his people. Like I have said before, there is always a motive. Don't you think that part of the reason Opera donates so much money to charities is to have the spotlight put on her?

Don't even get me started with Atlas, he follows your words as if they were written by the hands of Jesus. Which may be a good thing for you

 

[Atlas001]

Don't even get me started with Atlas, he follows your words as if they were written by the hands of Jesus. Which may be a good thing for you

Are you joking, no one is following any one, we're just clearly more intelligent than you, you are claiming that we don't know what we are talking about but neither do you. Were you around when MLK was alive? No, so how can you tell us if we are right or wrong?

And actually Phil and I were the ones who came to the conclusion that things can also be done selflessly, so how am I following Matt?

 

[MatthewGor123]

Your quotes just fuel the debate, because MLK could easily have said these things to make himself sound more important.

And I never said that MLK sacrificed his life in order to get attention, don't put words in my mouth, it does nothing more than make your argument sound frail.

What campaign? How can you be arguing with me without knowing MLK's campaign??

Look, the only reason I'm here arguing with you is to give you perspective, because it seems as if you do not see the actions of people for what they really are. You can't be so naive as to assume that MLK put himself in danger ONLY for the betterment of his people. Like I have said before, there is always a motive. Don't you think that part of the reason Operah donates so much money to charities is to have the spotlight put on her?

Don't even get me started with Atlas, he follows your words as if they were written by the hands of Jesus. Which may be a good thing for you

Why bring Atlas into this discussion? He was here before I was -> don't put him into this discussion please.

I know MLK's "campaign" if that's what you want to call his speeches/preaching... I have just never referred to him as his campaign. But anyways, Operah and MLK are two very, very different people. MLK was nothing more than a man with a dream. Operah is a multi-millionaire, and yes - of course, she wants recognition for her charity. But she's different; she's not, realistically, sacrificing anything for charity. Is she, herself, going to live in an African community for a year? No, she's just using some of her excess money to give herself a good image, while helping other people out.

On the other hand, MLK sacrificed hours of his time, and, ultimately, his life for what he truly believed in. Another example: Pat Tillman. Cornerback for the Arizona Cardinals, one of the best kick returners in the NFL. However, as a young kid, he promised himself he would fight in the army to protect those around him at any cause. So, after a few years in the NFL, he decides to fight in the army, and was killed fighting for our country. Was that selfish? Of course not; he had all the fame and fortune any man could want.

Does personal pride even make an action not selfless anymore? I don't think so, if the prime intention/rational thought process behind the action is to help others rather than yourself, what's wrong with getting a sense of personal satisfaction, anyways?

Are you joking, no one is following any one, we're just clearly more intelligent than you, you are claiming that we don't know what we are talking about but neither do you. Were you around when MLK was alive? No, so how can you tell us if we are right or wrong?

And actually Phil and I were the ones who came to the conclusion that things can also be done selflessly, so how am I following Matt?

Meh, I don't think the word "intelligent" is a good one to throw around. There are plenty of dumb people who are good at putting ideas together in some circumstances, and there are plenty of intelligent people who have no idea how to elaborate their ideas. But meh. And I have no clue why he said you were following me, whatever

 

[Christmas Crackers]

Why bring Atlas into this discussion? He was here before I was -> don't put him into this discussion please.

I know MLK's "campaign" if that's what you want to call his speeches/preaching... I have just never referred to him as his campaign. But anyways, Operah and MLK are two very, very different people. MLK was nothing more than a man with a dream. Operah is a multi-millionaire, and yes - of course, she wants recognition for her charity. But she's different; she's not, realistically, sacrificing anything for charity. Is she, herself, going to live in an African community for a year? No, she's just using some of her excess money to give herself a good image, while helping other people out.

On the other hand, MLK sacrificed hours of his time, and, ultimately, his life for what he truly believed in. Another example: Pat Tillman. Cornerback for the Arizona Cardinals, one of the best kick returners in the NFL. However, as a young kid, he promised himself he would fight in the army to protect those around him at any cause. So, after a few years in the NFL, he decides to fight in the army, and was killed fighting for our country. Was that selfish? Of course not; he had all the fame and fortune any man could want.

Does personal pride even make an action not selfless anymore? I don't think so, if the prime intention/rational thought process behind the action is to help others rather than yourself, what's wrong with getting a sense of personal satisfaction, anyways?

Pat Tillman made a promise to himself that he would fight in a war should be need to. Therefore, to satisfy HIMSELF, he went to fight in war, regardless of who he was protecting. How do you know he had all the fame and fortune any man could want?? Maybe that didn't satisfy him?

There's nothing wrong with getting a sense of personal satisfaction, that's not what I'm arguing. The fact that it is there is what I'm arguing.

EDIT: Opera is sacrificing her money for charity...

 

[MatthewGor123]

Pat Tillman made a promise to himself that he would fight in a war should be need to. Therefore, to satisfy HIMSELF, he went to fight in war, regardless of who he was protecting. How do you know he had all the fame and fortune any man could want?? Maybe that didn't satisfy him?

There's nothing wrong with getting a sense of personal satisfaction, that's not what I'm arguing. The fact that it is there is what I'm arguing.

EDIT: Opera is sacrificing her money for charity...

How do I know? Because he basically said before leaving the NFL, that he's not doing it for fame or anything like that. He wants to help protect the country he loves. And he made a promise to himself to help protect his country - yes, it was to himself - but you're saying no such thing as a selfless act exists. So I'm asking YOU:
Does a decision made that was originally made for the sole purpose of helping others that later becomes a means of personal satisfcation really imply selfishness? Can you not gain personal satisfaction THROUGH being selfless?

And Operah Winfrey's sacrifing of her money has not impacted her lifestyle in any way, thus not being an act of selflessness.

 

[Christmas Crackers]

How do I know? Because he basically said before leaving the NFL, that he's not doing it for fame or anything like that. He wants to help protect the country he loves. And he made a promise to himself to help protect his country - yes, it was to himself - but you're saying no such thing as a selfless act exists. So I'm asking YOU:
Does a decision made that was originally made for the sole purpose of helping others that later becomes a means of personal satisfcation really imply selfishness? Can you not gain personal satisfaction THROUGH being selfless?

And Operah Winfrey's sacrifing of her money has not impacted her lifestyle in any way, thus not being an act of selflessness.

*Oprah*(correct spelling) Winfrey donates her money to charity, leaving her with less money, which impacts her lifestyle. QUANTITY doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is donating leaves you with less money, thereby impacting your lifestyle.

Good question. The answer is yes for the first and no for the second. If the decision was made for the sole purpose of helping others, but later evolves into a means of personal satisfaction, then that obviously implies selfishness (which isn't the best word to use because of its negative connotation). I don't know how you can argue this any other way. I mean, you start off wanting to help people, then you use your decision to get personal satisfaction...it's cut and dry.
As for the second question, the answer is no, because you're gaining personal satisfaction, therefore you are not being selfless. That one's also quite clear.

 

[MatthewGor123]

*Oprah*(correct spelling) Winfrey donates her money to charity, leaving her with less money, which impacts her lifestyle. QUANTITY doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is donating leaves you with less money, thereby impacting your lifestyle.

Good question. The answer is yes for the first and no for the second. If the decision was made for the sole purpose of helping others, but later evolves into a means of personal satisfaction, then that obviously implies selfishness (which isn't the best word to use because of its negative connotation). I don't know how you can argue this any other way. I mean, you start off wanting to help people, then you use your decision to get personal satisfaction...it's cut and dry.
As for the second question, the answer is no, because you're gaining personal satisfaction, therefore you are not being selfless. That one's also quite clear.

Yeah, you're right - it is Oprah. My fault. And you say quantity does not matter; do you have any evidence of Oprah's lifestyle changing? If you can list for me what you would do with 2.7B dollars, that you couldn't do with 2.649B dollars (she has donated ~51M dollars to charity, according to Wikipedia), I would agree with you. But obviously, there's really no difference in those two sums of money. Her lifestyle, one of philanthropy from the start anyways, has obviously NOT changed from her donations - it has only changed through her acquisition of wealth.

Now, let's just say we have Joe the Schmoe. His only purpose in life is to help other people. He dedicates 100% of his life to helping other people. Is he also being selfish, by following through on his dedication, thus satisfying his goals? Of course - NOT.

Selfless: acting with less concern for yourself than for the success of the joint activity

I don't know about you, but it does not say here that you cannot satisfy your own personal desires, as long as your motivation/concern is about the SUCCESS of the joint activity (the group), and this concern is GREATER than the concern you have for yourself. You don't need to throw away all personal, emotional desires as long as they do not interfere with the success of the group.

It depends on the definition of selflessness, but nowhere have I found a site that tells me selflessness is the same as COMPLETE SHUNNING of oneself.

/discussion?