5 ms·

>But are they doing that selflessly and out of charity, or are they biking for the exercise, car pooling/public transport to save money? In other words, doing t

>But are they doing that selflessly and out of charity, or are they biking for the exercise, car pooling/public transport to save money? In other words, doing those measures out of selfish reasons. Many behaviors considered positive for society are encouraged by appealing to self interest. Various tax credits (EV tax rebates come to mind), appeals to health and cost reduction (bicycling, walking, car pooling/public transport, etc.) and many other areas where a change in behavior is considered a "public good" are encouraged by benefits (or punishment -- tickets for not wearing a seat belt, drunk driving, etc.) that appeal to an individual's selfish interests. As such, why does it matter if societally net-positive things are being done for selfish or altruistic reasons, as long as people do them?

narag 5y ago
As such, why does it matter if societally net-positive things are being done for selfish or altruistic reasons, as long as people do them? You are responding in the context of a thread without considering the reason the thread developed: someone stated that the effect worsens because selfish behaviour.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >You are responding in the context of a thread without considering the reason the thread developed: someone stated that the effect worsens because selfish behaviour. Your point is well taken. However, GP questioned whether folks were doing net-positive things due to altruism or selfishness. Assuming that the result is net-positive (which might be an incorrect assumption, but I'm going with it), it's irrelevant as to the 'why'. If results are net-negative or zero impact, it might be worthwhile to ask the 'why' of the motivation behind the behavior. I'd add that while the initial post may have asserted that (paraphrasing) "selfish behaviors make things worse," GP's comment didn't address that at all and every other response to GP interpreted it the same way I did. Is it a requirement that I respond not only to the comment to which I respond, but every comment prior to that one? If so, how far does that requirement to apply prior context apply? Do I need to address the psychological make up of selfish vs. altruistic behavior? The science underlying climate change and greenhouse gases? The basis for chemistry in our physical world?
  - narag 5y ago
    Well, I mean the chain the_mitsuhiko -> whatshisface -> Retric -> gruez -> you And yes, there seems something got lost there. Assuming that the result is net-positive (which might be an incorrect assumption, but I'm going with it), it's irrelevant as to the 'why'. Hmmm... no. the_mitshuhiko stated that intentions were an important reason as to why things were worse. Then the discussions drifted to other situations where intentions were the same and the results were not. That could invalidate the_mitshuhiko point since selfish intentions not always lead to worse results. Then Retric suggested that in fact the_mitshuhiko might be right because along with selfish motivation there could be also selfless motivation. gruez's comment is where I started feeling a diconnection, because hey, the point seems to be that you can do selfless things for selfish reasons. I really got lost there. If your motivation is selfish, you're not being selfless, like, not at all. Yeah, your actions could lead to good results to society, but that doesn't make them selfless, just useful. When you respond to gruez, you don't say that. You say that it doesn't matter what's the motivations. I actually kinda agree, but it does matter in the context of this thread. I consistently get frustrated when a thread goes too deep and people starts responding just to my last comment, maybe I'm being extra sensitive here.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >I consistently get frustrated when a thread goes too deep and people starts responding just to my last comment, maybe I'm being extra sensitive here. I get you. And my comment wasn't intended to slight anyone, and certainly not to frustrate you. If that was a result of my comment, I'm sorry about that You hit exactly upon my point with: >You say that it doesn't matter what's the motivations. I actually kinda agree, but it does matter in the context of this thread. Again, I take your point, but mine wasn't an observation of the larger issue, just that in the grand scheme of things, if someone does the right thing, it usually doesn't matter whether or not they're done for the right reasons. As long as it gets done.
      - narag 5y ago
        if someone does the right thing, it usually doesn't matter whether or not they're done for the right reasons Totally agree. Unfortunately the reverse is also true: if someone does the wrong thing it usually doesn't matter wether or not they're done for the right reasons (or wrong reasons?) but it also happens all the time. Sometimes it's very difficult to know if a reason is good, wrong or evil. Driving children to school? Not sure about the USA, but when I used to drive in Madrid, school holidays were patently obvious.

narag 5y ago

As such, why does it matter if societally net-positive things are being done for selfish or altruistic reasons, as long as people do them? You are responding in the context of a thread without considering the reason the thread developed: someone stated that the effect worsens because selfish behaviour.

nobody9999 5y ago
>You are responding in the context of a thread without considering the reason the thread developed: someone stated that the effect worsens because selfish behaviour. Your point is well taken. However, GP questioned whether folks were doing net-positive things due to altruism or selfishness. Assuming that the result is net-positive (which might be an incorrect assumption, but I'm going with it), it's irrelevant as to the 'why'. If results are net-negative or zero impact, it might be worthwhile to ask the 'why' of the motivation behind the behavior. I'd add that while the initial post may have asserted that (paraphrasing) "selfish behaviors make things worse," GP's comment didn't address that at all and every other response to GP interpreted it the same way I did. Is it a requirement that I respond not only to the comment to which I respond, but every comment prior to that one? If so, how far does that requirement to apply prior context apply? Do I need to address the psychological make up of selfish vs. altruistic behavior? The science underlying climate change and greenhouse gases? The basis for chemistry in our physical world?
- narag 5y ago
  Well, I mean the chain the_mitsuhiko -> whatshisface -> Retric -> gruez -> you And yes, there seems something got lost there. Assuming that the result is net-positive (which might be an incorrect assumption, but I'm going with it), it's irrelevant as to the 'why'. Hmmm... no. the_mitshuhiko stated that intentions were an important reason as to why things were worse. Then the discussions drifted to other situations where intentions were the same and the results were not. That could invalidate the_mitshuhiko point since selfish intentions not always lead to worse results. Then Retric suggested that in fact the_mitshuhiko might be right because along with selfish motivation there could be also selfless motivation. gruez's comment is where I started feeling a diconnection, because hey, the point seems to be that you can do selfless things for selfish reasons. I really got lost there. If your motivation is selfish, you're not being selfless, like, not at all. Yeah, your actions could lead to good results to society, but that doesn't make them selfless, just useful. When you respond to gruez, you don't say that. You say that it doesn't matter what's the motivations. I actually kinda agree, but it does matter in the context of this thread. I consistently get frustrated when a thread goes too deep and people starts responding just to my last comment, maybe I'm being extra sensitive here.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I consistently get frustrated when a thread goes too deep and people starts responding just to my last comment, maybe I'm being extra sensitive here. I get you. And my comment wasn't intended to slight anyone, and certainly not to frustrate you. If that was a result of my comment, I'm sorry about that You hit exactly upon my point with: >You say that it doesn't matter what's the motivations. I actually kinda agree, but it does matter in the context of this thread. Again, I take your point, but mine wasn't an observation of the larger issue, just that in the grand scheme of things, if someone does the right thing, it usually doesn't matter whether or not they're done for the right reasons. As long as it gets done.
    - narag 5y ago
      if someone does the right thing, it usually doesn't matter whether or not they're done for the right reasons Totally agree. Unfortunately the reverse is also true: if someone does the wrong thing it usually doesn't matter wether or not they're done for the right reasons (or wrong reasons?) but it also happens all the time. Sometimes it's very difficult to know if a reason is good, wrong or evil. Driving children to school? Not sure about the USA, but when I used to drive in Madrid, school holidays were patently obvious.