3 ms·

> Yes, exactly, you're misusing the word by widening its definition unnaturally. Unnaturally? As in, unreasonably wide definition by most people's standard? I

by 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.

by Dewie3 11y ago

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.