This is in response to Tiassa's post about me in the child support/abortion thread in the EM&J section. He claims that if we only looked out for ourselves, then nothing good would have ever happened, or at least many good things would have never happened. This implies that we look out for other people, or that people are altruistic. Obviously the idea of altruism exists, but humans, at least the VAST majority, are not altruistic. Everything we do benefits us in some way, no matter what. We always have a choice, we always can do something other than what we did. So, by that logic, everything we do is better than doing something else, so everything we do benefits us, relatively. I donate money, I feel good. What seems like an altruistic action is not one, and has much deeper reasons for occurring. Humans are naturally very selfish, and something such as society cannot change our basic instincts.

This is in response to Tiassa's post about me in the child support/abortion thread in the EM&J section. He claims that if we only looked out for ourselves, then nothing good would have ever happened, or at least many good things would have never happened. This implies that we look out for other people, or that people are altruistic. Obviously the idea of altruism exists, but humans, at least the VAST majority, are not altruistic. Everything we do benefits us in some way, no matter what. We always have a choice, we always can do something other than what we did. So, by that logic, everything we do is better than doing something else, so everything we do benefits us, relatively. I donate money, I feel good. What seems like an altruistic action is not one, and has much deeper reasons for occurring. Humans are naturally very selfish, and something such as society cannot change our basic instincts.
Perhaps, but it seems like you were claiming in the other thread that your selfishness is cut off from the consequences your actions or proposals have for other people.

A lack of empathy. A disconnection. Perhaps a self-myth:I am not affected by what happens to others so much.

If most people were similarly disconnected - from their own more complex than they realize needs and desires OR from other people and their feelings - the world would be even more of a mess.

There's selfish and there's solipsism.

I've noticed that many people who are disconnected want to 'prove' that everybody else is 'really' selfish too.

I think the motivation for this 'proving' is that something nags about how it feels to be disconnected when it is pointed out.

I'm just nihilistic.

Some may think there are degrees of altruism, some may not. Most definitions I've seen are a bit extreme. No human is selfless.
Some people think I'm very selfless but I only do what I must due to my physical & psychological (& spiritual?) makeup. I never decided to be a nice person. I simply am what I am. What I am causes me to do what I do. My actions couldn't be much different if I were a programmed robot. People may have a clue to this when they say "They don't have it in them to steal (cheat, murder, etc)".
The word is yet useful to describe certain people and deeds.

The assertion of the OP is ridiculous. We have witnessed altruistic behavior in human beings numerous times. Far too many times to count, in fact. And to seal the deal, we've actually seen altruistic behavior in our primate cousins.

It exists. It's a wonderful attribute, really.

You feel good when you do something for someone else, because at a certain level you WANT to do good things, you want to help others, and you feel good because you just fulfilled that impulse.

*little voice in head: Shut up Visceral you overly idealistic dickwad.*

If someone saves another person at risk to their own life, how is that not altruistic?

The assertion of the OP is ridiculous. We have witnessed altruistic behavior in human beings numerous times. Far too many times to count, in fact. And to seal the deal, we've actually seen altruistic behavior in our primate cousins. Would you like give a specific example? One that cannot be readily explained by Betrayer's 'deep motives'.

This is in response to Tass's post about me in the child support/abortion thread in the EM&J section. He claims that if we only looked out for ourselves, then nothing good would have ever happened, or at least many good things would have never happened. This implies that we look out for other people, or that people are altruistic. Obviously the idea of altruism exists, but humans, at least the VAST majority, are not altruistic. Everything we do benefits us in some way, no matter what. We always have a choice, we always can do something other than what we did. So, by that logic, everything we do is better than doing something else, so everything we do benefits us, relatively. I donate money, I feel good. What seems like an altruistic action is not one, and has much deeper reasons for occurring. Humans are naturally very selfish, and something such as society cannot change our basic instincts.

I agree that we are selfish creatures, we haven't a choice. We are a value function. In seeking what we value, we express self interest.

This however, can incorporate altruism as you've used it above. There is no such thing as "selflessness" but certainly we can appreciate and act in service of, in concert with, or to the detriment of others.

More interestingly, we can virtually integrate our image of another into our own value function. While we are really serving ourself, the result is basically equivalent to altruism. This can happen on the scale of any number of people. For instance I'm quite sure there has to have existed at least once a politician who sought the position to legitimately "serve society". While in doing so, one actually serves to realize some desired value within their ego - they could earnestly be attempting to serve their idea of society. Erm, at least until the impossibility of it all (satisfying a multitude of diverging values) and temptation to abuse power corrupts their soul.

Then of course there is the example of one's child. In wanting what's best for my child, I act 'selflessly' because I've integrated an image of them into my own function of 'well-being'. Well that and they kind of tend to whine about it if you forget to feed them. Greedy, needy bastards that they are. Hehe. (tangent: I'm telling you at least in humans darwin's thing is expressed pertinently as "survival of the cutest", without which patricide would have doomed us long ago)

I think that was confused as altruism before anyone really had the basis to think through the function of mind. It managed to work its way into language because it accurately describes a behavior, though obviously falls short a bit IMO in explaining the motivation for such behavior. It's more expeditious to use the word as it was defined that to fuss with the rigmarole of splaining all the blah blah underlying it. It would seem though, that this perhaps subtle omission can have a surprisingly substantial impact that can lead to a fundamental clash of idea(l)s. Language kinda funny like dat.

Selfishness does not have to be intentional malevolence, greed and avarice.
Selfishness simply means that one is chiefly concerned with one's own self-interest.

Given that, while people will always take the strict Cynic route and claim that giving of one's self and suffering for the benefit of others will necessarily bring the giver some form of pleasure and self-satisfaction, that certainly does not imply that is the cheif goal of the giver.

If I help a stranger, I may feel some sort of boost in my own self image, but if my intention was to alleviate the suffering of the stranger and the self-satisfaction was one aspect of the results of that action, it was not a self-absorbed action.
If I call the press and make sure they all see me doing this good, give an oversized check with a portait of me on it, require that a building is named after me or give away 500 new cars on national television to studio audience members - then it was quite obviously for self-aggrandizement.

Although true altruism seems rare these days, it is possible.
I think the main reason it seems rare is because the people you hear about doing it are making sure you do hear about it.

How many times have you held a door open for a stranger with full hands?
How many times have you helped someone who was down on their luck?
How many times have you guven money or food to a starving person, or volunteered your time?

How many of those times required a press release?

As for selfishness keeping good things from happening, I disagree...
Think about rush hour commute.
You have a thousand jackasses jockeying for position, cutting each other off, racing to the next light, boxing other drivers out...
Many people would refer to that as selfish behavior, but it's not.
Being selfish is acting in a way that would benefit yourself.
These people are short-sighted, myopic morons.
They are definitely self absorbed, self centerd, self important...
But they are not acting in a selfish manner, because they don't benefit from their actions.

If they were, they would leave plenty of space in front of them.
They would merge one car from each lane (do the zipper).
They would allow people to pass them.
They would not cut anyone off.
They would not race up the shoulder to try and get past the line of cars.
They would not wait until the last moment to merge out of a closing lane.

If they were acting in a truly selfish manner, there wouldn't be such horrible rush hour traffic, there would be less collisions, less road rage and they (and everyone else) would get where they are going in much less time time.

True selfishness benefits all.

one raven ---Selfishness does not have to be intentional malevolence, greed and avarice.

====I hope I didn't seem to imply it does.

one raven --- Being selfish is acting in a way that would benefit yourself.
Being selfish is acting in a way that would benefit yourself.
These people are short-sighted, myopic morons.
They are definitely self absorbed, self centerd, self important...
But they are not acting in a selfish manner, because they don't benefit from their actions.

====The last line implies they don't believe they do or will benefit from those actions despite you & I clearly seeing they don't. That they have the knowledge & thinking ability to figure the best action & the discipline, control over emotion, impulse, etc to do it. Which contradicts : These people are short-sighted, myopic morons.

one raven --- True selfishness benefits all

====If the person has the knowledge, selfcontrol & rational thinking.

wesmorris --- While we are really serving ourself, the result is basically equivalent to altruism

====The result is sometimes equivalent to altruism.

This is in response to Tiassa's post about me in the child support/abortion thread in the EM&J section. He claims that if we only looked out for ourselves, then nothing good would have ever happened, or at least many good things would have never happened. This implies that we look out for other people, or that people are altruistic. Obviously the idea of altruism exists, but humans, at least the VAST majority, are not altruistic. Everything we do benefits us in some way, no matter what. We always have a choice, we always can do something other than what we did. So, by that logic, everything we do is better than doing something else, so everything we do benefits us, relatively. I donate money, I feel good. What seems like an altruistic action is not one, and has much deeper reasons for occurring. Humans are naturally very selfish, and something such as society cannot change our basic instincts.

I completely agree with you. All actions that people do benefit them in some shape or form.

I completely agree with you. All actions that people do benefit them in some shape or form.

Did you read my post above?

I'd like to see your respnse to that.

All actions that people do benefit them in some shape or form.

And whatever benefits them, they think is the right thing to do.

And whatever benefits them, they think is the right thing to do.

Nonsense.
People do things that cause them grave suffering to help others.

Nonsense.
People do things that cause them grave suffering to help others.

Which in absolutely no way benefits them???

I don't think true altruism is possible. I never said selfishness was always a bad thing, but I can't think of anything that people do that doesn't benefit them in someway.

Which in absolutely no way benefits them???

I don't think true altruism is possible. I never said selfishness was always a bad thing, but I can't think of anything that people do that doesn't benefit them in someway.

Just because an action may benefit them in some way, that does not necessarily mean it is not an altruistic action.
Altruism is about intentions.

Just because an action may benefit them in some way, that does not necessarily mean it is not an altruistic action.

I didn't say or imply otherwise.

Altruism is about intentions.

Intentions & results.

Intentions & results.

I disagree.

If I do something with the best of intentions and it ends up badly, it does not make me a bad person.

I don't think true altruism is possible. I never said selfishness was always a bad thing, but I can't think of anything that people do that doesn't benefit them in someway.

I said earlier : Most definitions I've seen are a bit extreme. No human is selfless.
But I can't think of a better word for what we're discussing.

I don't think true altruism is possible. I never said selfishness was always a bad thing, but I can't think of anything that people do that doesn't benefit them in someway.

I said earlier : Most definitions I've seen are a bit extreme. No human is selfless.
But I can't think of a better word for what we're discussing

1 can have good intentions yet be too careless or too selfcentered despite actually wishing to help or too myopic to know what another needs or insist on doing it their way instead of the way the other needs it. I encounter people who I believe intend to help me but I must ask them to please just leave me alone.

I agree that we are selfish creatures, we haven't a choice. We are a value function. In seeking what we value, we express self interest.

This however, can incorporate altruism as you've used it above. There is no such thing as "selflessness" but certainly we can appreciate and act in service of, in concert with, or to the detriment of others.

More interestingly, we can virtually integrate our image of another into our own value function. While we are really serving ourself, the result is basically equivalent to altruism. This can happen on the scale of any number of people. For instance I'm quite sure there has to have existed at least once a politician who sought the position to legitimately "serve society". While in doing so, one actually serves to realize some desired value within their ego - they could earnestly be attempting to serve their idea of society. Erm, at least until the impossibility of it all (satisfying a multitude of diverging values) and temptation to abuse power corrupts their soul.

Then of course there is the example of one's child. In wanting what's best for my child, I act 'selflessly' because I've integrated an image of them into my own function of 'well-being'. Well that and they kind of tend to whine about it if you forget to feed them. Greedy, needy bastards that they are. Hehe. (tangent: I'm telling you at least in humans darwin's thing is expressed pertinently as "survival of the cutest", without which patricide would have doomed us long ago)

I think that was confused as altruism before anyone really had the basis to think through the function of mind. It managed to work its way into language because it accurately describes a behavior, though obviously falls short a bit IMO in explaining the motivation for such behavior. It's more expeditious to use the word as it was defined that to fuss with the rigmarole of splaining all the blah blah underlying it. It would seem though, that this perhaps subtle omission can have a surprisingly substantial impact that can lead to a fundamental clash of idea(l)s. Language kinda funny like dat.

Oh yeah. Well I'm convinced, continue arguing this thread if you want to get rid of the language barriers, and debate the intention of this topic.

So is altruism just helping others? If that's so then I take back what I said. I thought it meant selflessness. Silly me, I've been avoiding English classes for so long...

So is altruism just helping others? If that's so then I take back what I said. I thought it meant selflessness. Silly me, I've been avoiding English classes for so long...

I guess so. He's saying that we do good things for others, and we just feel good just because? I take it back though, that doesn't convince me. M-W defines altruism as this, and I don't think this exists.

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

I guess so. He's saying that we do good things for others, and we just feel good just because? I take it back though, that doesn't convince me. M-W defines altruism as this, and I don't think this exists.

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

I don't think people can be unselfish either. But you don't have to be unselfish to be devoted to helping other people.

You also don't have to be a completely unselfish person to perform an unselfish action.
People are capable of acts of altruism.

You also don't have to be a completely unselfish person to perform an unselfish action.
People are capable of acts of altruism.

But are their truly unselfish actions? I help people out all of the time even if their is no obvious benefit for me. It's just who I am, but when I think about it, I get a high off of making others happy, so am I really doing it for them? It's a question I'm having trouble answering myself. I want to say that yes I am, but if helping people made me feel miserable then I probably wouldn't help people. I can't speak for others but, I think my altruistic actions actually involve my welfare too.

Oh yeah. Well I'm convinced, continue arguing this thread if you want to get rid of the language barriers, and debate the intention of this topic.

If I want to get rid of language barriers? Surely you jest. Sounds good on paper but in practice, especially on a forum like this - nearly impossible most of the time. It's not MY barriers in question, it's yours as you cited in the OP.

I presume you're being sarcastic given your attempt to parameters on my participation, as if what I've said is irrelevant or dim-witted.

Since we're setting parameters on participation, how about you continue to respond to me if you can muster something a smidge of substantial criticism rather than toiling in the same muck all but a few seem to become entrenched in when they delve into this and similar topics?

I think for instance that you and one_raven are basically correct in your assertions, but are separated by that which you seem to scoff at as irrelevant. The ramifications of choices regarding specific words render your respective analysis divergent, even though in general I think you probably mean basically the same things.

Regarding m-w, generally speaking you'll find it terrifically dissapointing for utilization in topics of philosophy.

Since we all seem to agree that people can be kind to others and such, the key word in the definition they offer is of course 'unselfish', which you and I reject on an apparently common basis. The term obviously means different things to different people and validates or invalidates the definition of altruism on that basis.

So what does it mean to be selfish?

To me, it's inescapable and as such almost redundant to say, but the outcome in terms of behavior can still appear altruistic, even if it isn't in the strictest sense. This is a consequence of how I model mind though, and isn't necessarily pertinent to someone who differs from me greatly in the way they model it.

As such i think what is to be learned from your question has less to do with the actual issue you're attempting to probe (since really it's wholly dependent on the far-reaching implications of the term selfishness), and more to do with how people use language and the ramifications of their assumptions.

Otherwise you're basically mentally masturbating over the definition of selfishness, which you haven't defined in detail enough to support your usage of the term.

"self-interest" doesn't really cover it, because we can integrate care of others into our own self-interest. "self-benefit" doesn't really cover it to me as it basically means the same thing. raven's point about suffering from choices made for the benefit of others may be valid contradiction of the way you seem to be using the term selfishness.

perhaps you'd be so kind as to clarify why it isn't.

CutsieMarie89,There are no completely unselfish actions but for practical purposes some actions are called unselfish or atruism. If a person does enough of this often enough they're properly called an altruist. I don't mean that to seem like a goal, just definition. You benefitting doesn't mean the deed isn't altruism.
It's natural & logical. It couldn't be any other way unless someone or something got control of your mind/brain.
It's a philosophical truth that people should recognize but it doesn't invalidate the good you do.

Dudes. How is it that true selflessness does not exist??

If someone sacrifices their own life to save that of a person they care about, or dies for something they believe in, how is that not selflessness??

I have a friend who served in the Iraq war. We were talking about it over the net and I commented on how he must have great courage. He denied that, explaining that he merely realized that there was a cause that was greater and more important than his own wellbeing. How was that not selflessness????

Sacrificing one's life for someone else is still a somewhat selfish act I think. You may kill yourself in order to save them because you don't want to live in a world without them. Although a noble gesture it's still a selfish one. I work with people who put their lives on the line for others every single day, both soldiers and FBI agents and they all have different reasons for doing what they do, but all of their reasons really boil down to the same thing. It's how it makes them feel. If you don't like the way something makes you feel you probably won't do it. I helped out a local church at their pray the gay people straight fund raiser and I felt terrible doing it because I didn't support their cause, it felt nice to help them out, but I won't be doing that again, it made me feel awful.

You feel awful for a reason. Because you supported something that was wrong.

People don't always do things because of how they feel. Like in my friend's case, they often do things because they are able to put their own feelings aside and act in the name of what is important and right, regardless of their own fear or pain.

Yeah I think people do always do things because of how it makes them feel.

Not always, they don't.

Like I said, people sometimes do things because they have detached their own feelings from the situation and judged what is really important, using reason and not their feelings.

To wesmorris: No, I actually meant what I said. You basically got me on that, and I agreed. So then I asked if we could shift the topic slightly to incorporate what you said. The irony of a misunderstanding on the internet about language barriers BECAUSE of language barriers is impressive.

Not always, they don't.

Like I said, people sometimes do things because they have detached their own feelings from the situation and judged what is really important, using reason and not their feelings.

I don't believe it possible to detach one's self from one's feelings. You always have feelings about something. You just may have to decide which feelings you can live with and which you might have to let go.
Whenever I help out the SPCA have their mega adoption day, I have to work with this terrible lady who makes me so mad, that all I can think about is just leaving, but then I remember that they would be short staffed if I left and then fewer animals would find homes. The sadness and guilt I would feel for letting some of the animals die outweighs the anger and irritation I feel towards evil she-witch Mrs. Young. I'd rather be mad than be sad so I stay and I keep coming back.

People don't always do things because of how they feel. Like in my friend's case, they often do things because they are able to put their own feelings aside and act in the name of what is important and right, regardless of their own fear or pain.


It is delusional to think it possible to actually put your own feelings aside. The feelings you refer to above are 'their feeling about the feelings of others', see?

You can't actually put your feelings anywhere outside of your own mind, but they can change based on how you think others feel.

Yeah I think people do always do things because of how it makes them feel.

There is no alternative, since to live is to feel, even if what you feel is numbness. What is thought is also part of 'how you feel about...', so logically, I don't think there even the possibility of escaping what you said.

My fundamental theorum of mind:

Action (or reaction) is the perfect expression of value.

I find that helpful in differentiating what people claim to value and what they actually do.

I find that helpful in differentiating what people claim to value and what they actually do. Which is where things like skepticism (any rather extreme version) and rationality tend to fall apart. We have the PR release and the actual person. Me, I've always been skeptical of PR releases.

It is delusional to think it possible to actually put your own feelings aside. The feelings you refer to above are 'their feeling about the feelings of others', see?

You can't actually put your feelings anywhere outside of your own mind, but they can change based on how you think others feel.

So if for example I feel like saying something hurtful but I refrain from doing so because that would be taking out my shit on others...What is at work there?

This is in response to Tiassa's post about me in the child support/abortion thread in the EM&J section. He claims that if we only looked out for ourselves, then nothing good would have ever happened, or at least many good things would have never happened. This implies that we look out for other people, or that people are altruistic. Obviously the idea of altruism exists, but humans, at least the VAST majority, are not altruistic. Everything we do benefits us in some way, no matter what. We always have a choice, we always can do something other than what we did. So, by that logic, everything we do is better than doing something else, so everything we do benefits us, relatively. I donate money, I feel good. What seems like an altruistic action is not one, and has much deeper reasons for occurring. Humans are naturally very selfish, and something such as society cannot change our basic instincts.

Whether most humans are altruistic or not is a psychological question, not a philosophical one.

So if for example I feel like saying something hurtful but I refrain from doing so because that would be taking out my shit on others...What is at work there?

That's controling yourself in spite of those feelings in favor of other feelings.

So if for example I feel like saying something hurtful but I refrain from doing so because that would be (me) taking out my shit on others...What is at work there?

Your mind.

Whether most humans are altruistic or not is a psychological question, not a philosophical one.

Depends on what you believe altruism is. The actual debate on what altruism is is philosophical, so I put it here because several members still debate the meaning of it. It is also philosophical to say whether one action is truly altruistic, of whether it is the cause of a "deeper motive," as someone quoted me of saying.