4 ms·

>"Second, if you spend time helping others only so far as it enriches your life, that is literally the definition of selfishness." Everyone does selfish things

>"Second, if you spend time helping others only so far as it enriches your life, that is literally the definition of selfishness." Everyone does selfish things, some of those things make people happier. The author doesn't say to help people to be not selfish, the author says to help people to feel better about yourself. >"This is NOT an approach to life that should be encouraged or applauded." Any reason why not? >"If you are the world's most efficient and productive marble bathtub designer, and you only help others to the extent that it makes you happier, you are a jerk." What if you are the world's most productive and efficient designer of water systems to help save people in third world countries, and you only do it to the extend it makes you happier, are you still a jerk? I like the way you pass judgement on people and at the same time try to get people to not help others because you view it as selfish. [added] scarcrowbob (below) has such a good comment it is quotable.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>I like the way you pass judgement on people and at the same time try to get people to not help others because you view it as selfish. Yeah, his post is so asinine it makes my head hurt. At the end of the day, there is a selfish component to everything. There is no such thing as pure altruism: even acts that seem purely altruistic are performed ultimately because they make the person feel good. The important thing is that this does not make the person a jerk. I mean, is Bill Gates a jerk? No, right? Helping other people makes him happier, and gives him satisfaction with the feeling of giving back to the world, but if we act like rational people and evaluate his actions on the effect they have on others, then he's definitely an awesome person.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
bendoernberg 13y ago
Do you believe there is any basis on which someone's conduct can be judged? It seems like there are three options here: no judgement (moral relativism), judgement based on someone's intent, or judgement based on the impact of someone's actions. I choose option 2.
- wtvanhest 13y ago
  I do like the framework you proposed. Sometimes you don't have to only take one approach at problem solving/analysis. Usually it is helpful to consider multiple factors and do so on a scale. I like to combine moral relativism with the person's intent, both internal (what they hope to accomplish for themselves) and their external intent (what they hope to accomplish for others) with the impact of their actions. Any single approach will likely cause massive errors in analysis. That is typical of all analysis, not just philosophy.
  - bendoernberg 13y ago
    I'd agree with that, it definitely is a mixture. My argument is that this article implicitly endorses using "does this make me happy" as the sole framework for analyzing your actions, and that is not an admirable approach IMO.
    - crusso 13y ago
      You're making up all kinds of straw men there. The article made no such endorsement, implicitly or otherwise.
      - bendoernberg 13y ago
        "Help others – 100 hours a year is the magical number."
        crusso 13y ago
        You said as the "sole framework". That's made up.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>I like the way you pass judgement on people and at the same time try to get people to not help others because you view it as selfish. Yeah, his post is so asinine it makes my head hurt. At the end of the day, there is a selfish component to everything. There is no such thing as pure altruism: even acts that seem purely altruistic are performed ultimately because they make the person feel good. The important thing is that this does not make the person a jerk. I mean, is Bill Gates a jerk? No, right? Helping other people makes him happier, and gives him satisfaction with the feeling of giving back to the world, but if we act like rational people and evaluate his actions on the effect they have on others, then he's definitely an awesome person.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

bendoernberg 13y ago

Do you believe there is any basis on which someone's conduct can be judged? It seems like there are three options here: no judgement (moral relativism), judgement based on someone's intent, or judgement based on the impact of someone's actions. I choose option 2.

wtvanhest 13y ago
I do like the framework you proposed. Sometimes you don't have to only take one approach at problem solving/analysis. Usually it is helpful to consider multiple factors and do so on a scale. I like to combine moral relativism with the person's intent, both internal (what they hope to accomplish for themselves) and their external intent (what they hope to accomplish for others) with the impact of their actions. Any single approach will likely cause massive errors in analysis. That is typical of all analysis, not just philosophy.
- bendoernberg 13y ago
  I'd agree with that, it definitely is a mixture. My argument is that this article implicitly endorses using "does this make me happy" as the sole framework for analyzing your actions, and that is not an admirable approach IMO.
  - crusso 13y ago
    You're making up all kinds of straw men there. The article made no such endorsement, implicitly or otherwise.
    - bendoernberg 13y ago
      "Help others – 100 hours a year is the magical number."
      - crusso 13y ago
        You said as the "sole framework". That's made up.