4 ms·

I haven't found much evidence for what I would call selflessness, so I tend not to believe in it. What I mean by selfish is: - You do it because you are motiv

by Dewie3 11y ago

I haven't found much evidence for what I would call selflessness, so I tend not to believe in it. What I mean by selfish is: - You do it because you are motivated to do it for yourself. I get an ice cream because I want an ice cream. I study for an exam because I want good grades, not necessarily because I like the studying. I give my SO a back rub because I like to see her smile, or just because I like to give a back rub. I do my friend a favour because I'm afraid he's not gonna like me if I rebuff him. - Doing things which benefit others can be done for selfish reasons; the distinction is intent, not outcome. - I could probably fill in other examples but I can't really think (of something) now. Some might think that I'm a misanthrope for believing that all people are selfish. But no, I'm a misanthrope for different reasons. I don't view being entirely selfish as inherently bad, which I guess some people do. If someone wants to do good by others, or at least not be in the way of others, that desire is not tainted because it is motivated by selfishness. Maybe my definition of selfish is so broadly applicable that it is quite useless. What good is a word if all things are [that word] and not something else, like an opposite?

EliRivers 11y ago
I have definitely seen people do things that make someone else happy, but makes the first person less happy and provides that first person with no benefit. I'm just one data point on a screen, but is that evidence for what you would call selflessness?
- kagamine 11y ago
  I suppose a cynic would claim that even though the giver is aware of the unhappiness it causes them, material loss, status in the eyes of others etc, the gain is made from "doing the right thing". A real cynic would say that fighting in WWII was for the glory of dying an heroic death. Posthumous acknowledgement of heroism and honor. But I happen to think many of those who fought in that particular war knew their fate and truly were selfless.
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    The case I had in mind involved enabling a drug addict to get more drugs. The only gain was that the addict became less unhappy for a time. Anyway, I propose that given that humans (possibly barring autistics etc) operate by building models of the minds of other people inside their own head, if a person does something based on that model to help the modelled person become more happy, it's a selfless act - I can quite literally create a model of someone else inside my head, calculate how to make them happy based on that model, and then do it. I'm not modelling how I can make myself feel good, or modelling how I'll look like a big man for helping someone; I'm modelling another person's emotions to work out how to make them happy.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  I've also seen people do things that offer no benefits to others but makes themselves unhappy. Either the person was acting irrationally or there was some benefit from being unhappy. If the latter, then helping someone else may have been the best way to lower one's own happiness. (As to why someone wants to be less happy, it can get dark fast. Look into why people will cut themselves to see rational reasoning for deliberately harming oneself.)
pegasus 11y ago
Yes, exactly, you're misusing the word by widening its definition unnaturally. Which you're aware of, so the question becomes: why? Who knows, you might find out that the reason could be ascribed to "selfishness" in a much more narrow (and appropriate) way.
- Dewie3 11y ago
  > Yes, exactly, you're misusing the word by widening its definition unnaturally. Unnaturally? As in, unreasonably wide definition by most people's standard? It seems that there are quite a few people who are hung up on actions having to be selfless when it comes to motivation, rather than just having to do with outcome. And they don't like the idea of actions having selfish motivations: they think that even if you do a lot of good for other people, if you do it because it makes you feel good, then it is tainted by that kind of selfish motivation. It doesn't really "count", and you're not really a good person. Maybe people don't like the idea of selfish motivations. Or maybe they are of what seems to be a majority view, that feelings and motivations are fickle and can change without much rhyme or reason. And in that case, basing your actions on what you feel like doing seems more unpredictable and less controllable rather than basing it on some kind of ethical reasoning + self discipline to live up to some kind of moral integrity inspired by that reasoning. And I agree with them that it's selfish. But not that it taints the good outcome. > Which you're aware of, so the question becomes: why? Who knows, you might find out that the reason could be ascribed to "selfishness" in a much more narrow (and appropriate) way. I don't get what you're saying here.
  - pegasus 11y ago
    > unreasonably wide definition by most people's standard? Yes - words meanings are defined by how people use them, after all. Let's say you help a friend and you both feel good about it, even though you sacrifice something of personal value in the process. That's a selfless act by most people's definition. Can you truly say that you did it solely for the kick you got out of it, regardless of his feelings about it? No, because you wouldn't feel that good about it if he wouldn't also feel good. On the other hand, if you just did it because you want to trick somebody into believing you care about their good (for example), then that's selfish, yes. Big difference, intention matters. Looking at it another way, one could construct a symmetrical argument for the nonexistence of selfishness, this time. Something along the lines of: the best possible course of action for ourselves, in the interest of preservation of life on the planet, is to look after our own person and interests. So really we're just being selfless when we're being selfish (Adam Smith: “Individual ambition serves the common good” - mentioned in the article). But this argument equally erases the boundary between the two opposite concepts. And that boundary is what makes words useful as you observed too. Without it our language and our conceptual framework become less rich. On the other hand I think it's good to observe this collapse of opposites, because it points to the limits of language and description. > I don't get what you're saying here. Please ignore that. It was just vacuous conjuncture on my part.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
anshin 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism RE: Misanthropy I strongly recommend you read Medaka Box and reserve judgment on why I recommend it until you've finished it.
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  A fantasy manga? I read the plot on Wikipedia; is there anything it leaves out that is vital to understand? A story that humans tell themselves is not usually very good evidence against egoism, but the opposite. We have a deep psychological need to see ourselves as "good".
  - anshin 11y ago
    It was in response to the misanthropy portion of the comment; it's not an argument against egoism at all.
Gravityloss 11y ago
What if we turned that around? "I don't believe in selfishness" - You get an ice cream because you've seen other people do it and have watched adverts and want to fit in. You've gotten an image that it's "a thing that people do", eating ice cream. You don't actually even like ice cream. You just don't want to offend anyone who does. - You help others because helping is a root cause, there's no "because" of some other thing. - You study, make a career just because, firstly, it's expected of you, by your parents, by your spouse, you can better support your children. Secondly your workplace and society rewards you with money, which is just a token of how much value you have added : in other words, how much you have helped others.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  I've read research that found that the more anonymous a good deed became, the less likely people were to do it. I also remember reading research that found that the more guilty a person feels, the more charitable they are in an anonymous setting. This was all years ago, but in general, there are some ways to test why people are motivated to do something.

by Dewie3 11y ago

EliRivers 11y ago

I have definitely seen people do things that make someone else happy, but makes the first person less happy and provides that first person with no benefit. I'm just one data point on a screen, but is that evidence for what you would call selflessness?

kagamine 11y ago
I suppose a cynic would claim that even though the giver is aware of the unhappiness it causes them, material loss, status in the eyes of others etc, the gain is made from "doing the right thing". A real cynic would say that fighting in WWII was for the glory of dying an heroic death. Posthumous acknowledgement of heroism and honor. But I happen to think many of those who fought in that particular war knew their fate and truly were selfless.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  The case I had in mind involved enabling a drug addict to get more drugs. The only gain was that the addict became less unhappy for a time. Anyway, I propose that given that humans (possibly barring autistics etc) operate by building models of the minds of other people inside their own head, if a person does something based on that model to help the modelled person become more happy, it's a selfless act - I can quite literally create a model of someone else inside my head, calculate how to make them happy based on that model, and then do it. I'm not modelling how I can make myself feel good, or modelling how I'll look like a big man for helping someone; I'm modelling another person's emotions to work out how to make them happy.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I've also seen people do things that offer no benefits to others but makes themselves unhappy. Either the person was acting irrationally or there was some benefit from being unhappy. If the latter, then helping someone else may have been the best way to lower one's own happiness. (As to why someone wants to be less happy, it can get dark fast. Look into why people will cut themselves to see rational reasoning for deliberately harming oneself.)

pegasus 11y ago

Yes, exactly, you're misusing the word by widening its definition unnaturally. Which you're aware of, so the question becomes: why? Who knows, you might find out that the reason could be ascribed to "selfishness" in a much more narrow (and appropriate) way.

Dewie3 11y ago
> Yes, exactly, you're misusing the word by widening its definition unnaturally. Unnaturally? As in, unreasonably wide definition by most people's standard? It seems that there are quite a few people who are hung up on actions having to be selfless when it comes to motivation, rather than just having to do with outcome. And they don't like the idea of actions having selfish motivations: they think that even if you do a lot of good for other people, if you do it because it makes you feel good, then it is tainted by that kind of selfish motivation. It doesn't really "count", and you're not really a good person. Maybe people don't like the idea of selfish motivations. Or maybe they are of what seems to be a majority view, that feelings and motivations are fickle and can change without much rhyme or reason. And in that case, basing your actions on what you feel like doing seems more unpredictable and less controllable rather than basing it on some kind of ethical reasoning + self discipline to live up to some kind of moral integrity inspired by that reasoning. And I agree with them that it's selfish. But not that it taints the good outcome. > Which you're aware of, so the question becomes: why? Who knows, you might find out that the reason could be ascribed to "selfishness" in a much more narrow (and appropriate) way. I don't get what you're saying here.
- pegasus 11y ago
  > unreasonably wide definition by most people's standard? Yes - words meanings are defined by how people use them, after all. Let's say you help a friend and you both feel good about it, even though you sacrifice something of personal value in the process. That's a selfless act by most people's definition. Can you truly say that you did it solely for the kick you got out of it, regardless of his feelings about it? No, because you wouldn't feel that good about it if he wouldn't also feel good. On the other hand, if you just did it because you want to trick somebody into believing you care about their good (for example), then that's selfish, yes. Big difference, intention matters. Looking at it another way, one could construct a symmetrical argument for the nonexistence of selfishness, this time. Something along the lines of: the best possible course of action for ourselves, in the interest of preservation of life on the planet, is to look after our own person and interests. So really we're just being selfless when we're being selfish (Adam Smith: “Individual ambition serves the common good” - mentioned in the article). But this argument equally erases the boundary between the two opposite concepts. And that boundary is what makes words useful as you observed too. Without it our language and our conceptual framework become less rich. On the other hand I think it's good to observe this collapse of opposites, because it points to the limits of language and description. > I don't get what you're saying here. Please ignore that. It was just vacuous conjuncture on my part.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

anshin 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism RE: Misanthropy I strongly recommend you read Medaka Box and reserve judgment on why I recommend it until you've finished it.

juliangregorian 11y ago
A fantasy manga? I read the plot on Wikipedia; is there anything it leaves out that is vital to understand? A story that humans tell themselves is not usually very good evidence against egoism, but the opposite. We have a deep psychological need to see ourselves as "good".
- anshin 11y ago
  It was in response to the misanthropy portion of the comment; it's not an argument against egoism at all.

Gravityloss 11y ago

What if we turned that around? "I don't believe in selfishness" - You get an ice cream because you've seen other people do it and have watched adverts and want to fit in. You've gotten an image that it's "a thing that people do", eating ice cream. You don't actually even like ice cream. You just don't want to offend anyone who does. - You help others because helping is a root cause, there's no "because" of some other thing. - You study, make a career just because, firstly, it's expected of you, by your parents, by your spouse, you can better support your children. Secondly your workplace and society rewards you with money, which is just a token of how much value you have added : in other words, how much you have helped others.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I've read research that found that the more anonymous a good deed became, the less likely people were to do it. I also remember reading research that found that the more guilty a person feels, the more charitable they are in an anonymous setting. This was all years ago, but in general, there are some ways to test why people are motivated to do something.