3 ms·
My discussion was this: >I find discussions of selfishness interesting in the context of a biological imperative. Why is an interesting discussion, but not id
by ty6853 1y ago
My discussion was this:
>I find discussions of selfishness interesting in the context of a biological imperative.
Why is an interesting discussion, but not identical here. The charge I was responding to was specifically addressing selfishness.
I am totally open to the idea one can act selfishly both under the pretext that there is or isn't free will, which moots any attempt you're making here to shoehorn the argument into that.
- apsurd 1y agook then "selfishness" is now the unanswerable topic. it's too complex. Classic "there is no altruism". All acts are selfish if one derives any benefit from them. are there acts that people do by choice that give them no benefit? i don't think this is reductionist btw. Philosophy tends to make people eye-roll. These are unanswerable questions! Discussion is the fun part.
- ty6853 1y agoI would break this into a few categories Selfish non-choice. Ex: The fetus takes nourishment from the mother, even in the case she would rather abort and doesn't consent to the continued hosting of the fetus. Selfish choice: Ex: I must take a dump, but the place I choose to take a shit is on my bosse's chair because I don't like that his is better than mine. Non-selfish choice: Fireman is driving home after his shift ended, saves baby from fire. Non-selfish non-choice: Woman involuntarily starts screaming after witnessing an unrelated car drive into a lake. Passers-by hear the scream and alert emergency services.