5 ms·

It's partly a definition debate, but I think it's a mistake to try to label selfishness as everyone but selflessness. If something is win-win, it's not selfish

by wisty 15y ago

It's partly a definition debate, but I think it's a mistake to try to label selfishness as everyone but selflessness. If something is win-win, it's not selfish. Attempting to label mutually beneficial actions "selfish" is Ayn-Rand era propaganda. If an action is good for you, and bad for others, it's selfish. If an action is good for others and bad for you, it's selfless (though it might turn out to be a good thing for you - that's karma). If good for everyone (including you), or something that benefits you and doen't really effect anyone else, it's neither selfish nor selfless, it's just a smart move. Ultimately, selfishness describes motivations, not actions. If you think Google's action was selfishly motivated (and they had no concern for the positive or negative externalities of their action) then it's fair to call their action selfish. But unless you're a mind reader, it's hard to make that call.

maxharris 15y ago
But aren't we told by nearly everyone that it's better, morally, to be selfless? You're saying that it's better not to be selfless, but to make "smart moves"? From what I've read, it doesn't appear that you think that selflessness is a good thing. Is this correct?
- wisty 15y ago
  I think it's good to be selfless if there's a big net gain in doing so. I wouldn't inconvenience myself to give a tiny benefit to someone else - the "karma" would have to be worth the cost.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxharris 15y ago
    So, to be good according to your standard, there must be a big net gain for the beneficiary, and that beneficiary must not be or include you, correct? How do you decide what constitutes a benefit that's great enough? Where do you actually draw the line? Is it moral to go out to the movies, when that same money could change the life of an impoverished child (for a month or two) in some faraway land? Is it moral to selfishly pursue a college education (college benefits the student first and foremost), when the money spent on tuition could be spent on charity, and the student's time could be given to service? Also, why do you think that doing something morally good (though we obviously disagree about what constitutes the good) is any different from doing something that's practical (a "smart move")? I hold that the purpose of morality is to enable a flourishing life in the here and now, as opposed to something that's "tacked on," only theoretical, or somehow optional.
    - wisty 15y ago
      Nope, good for me is also good, as long as it doesn't cause much harm. Once you start talking opportunity cost, it gets a bit more complicated. But I implement my standard using reasonable heuristics, not some platonic maximization. Just because I believe in some underlying standard doesn't mean I act on it. I could cook up some underlying standard that's easy to meet (do what's good for number 1, do what "feel'), but that's kind of silly.
      - maxharris 15y ago
        Going one level below the discussion about the correct definition of selfishness vs. selflessness (the answer here might help us understand what the definition should be): What do you use as the standard for what "good" is? I.e., if you were to say that "healthy food is good," the question I'm asking is, "good for what?" Put another way, when you evaluate something as good or bad (or neutral) in a specific context, by what means do you decide which of these categories to place the thing in?

by wisty 15y ago

maxharris 15y ago

But aren't we told by nearly everyone that it's better, morally, to be selfless? You're saying that it's better not to be selfless, but to make "smart moves"? From what I've read, it doesn't appear that you think that selflessness is a good thing. Is this correct?

wisty 15y ago
I think it's good to be selfless if there's a big net gain in doing so. I wouldn't inconvenience myself to give a tiny benefit to someone else - the "karma" would have to be worth the cost.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- maxharris 15y ago
  So, to be good according to your standard, there must be a big net gain for the beneficiary, and that beneficiary must not be or include you, correct? How do you decide what constitutes a benefit that's great enough? Where do you actually draw the line? Is it moral to go out to the movies, when that same money could change the life of an impoverished child (for a month or two) in some faraway land? Is it moral to selfishly pursue a college education (college benefits the student first and foremost), when the money spent on tuition could be spent on charity, and the student's time could be given to service? Also, why do you think that doing something morally good (though we obviously disagree about what constitutes the good) is any different from doing something that's practical (a "smart move")? I hold that the purpose of morality is to enable a flourishing life in the here and now, as opposed to something that's "tacked on," only theoretical, or somehow optional.
  - wisty 15y ago
    Nope, good for me is also good, as long as it doesn't cause much harm. Once you start talking opportunity cost, it gets a bit more complicated. But I implement my standard using reasonable heuristics, not some platonic maximization. Just because I believe in some underlying standard doesn't mean I act on it. I could cook up some underlying standard that's easy to meet (do what's good for number 1, do what "feel'), but that's kind of silly.
    - maxharris 15y ago
      Going one level below the discussion about the correct definition of selfishness vs. selflessness (the answer here might help us understand what the definition should be): What do you use as the standard for what "good" is? I.e., if you were to say that "healthy food is good," the question I'm asking is, "good for what?" Put another way, when you evaluate something as good or bad (or neutral) in a specific context, by what means do you decide which of these categories to place the thing in?