| I have been taught by my dad that people that make sacrifice for others or that help others wanting nothing in return do so because they are doing those things for themselves. What he means by this: they help others because either it makes them feel good about themselves, on a moral high ground of sorts, or because not helping makes them feel bad, so they don't feel guilty, they go on to help. What are your thoughts on my father's theory? Do you think it has merit? |
 Leading biologist Scott Pitnick said: The bigger your 'nads, the smaller your brains |
| It can seem too inhuman to think like that, but I do think he has a point. That's the thing: almost no one would care to help a homeless person on a general basis. However, if that homeless person is by their home door, then they will see them everyday and start feeling guilty for not helping. Surprise, they end up helping. |
 |
| your father was right, and it is not necessary to deepen if you've ever helped anyone. But that is normal for human beings, since we are selfish beings. People help because it is their job, because they will feel alone, because they will feel guilty, etc. Even if nobody knows that you ever helped, you will have that feeling inside of you. That feeling that makes you feel useful, mature, a good person or any feeling of satisfaction. |
| I think he's right, no one does anything without the internal motivation for it first. If you do something, you do it to satisfy something for yourself, and sometimes that happens to line up with what other people want I guess. |
GatesOfOblivion said: bigboy420 said: I think he's right, no one does anything without the internal motivation for it first. If you do something, you do it to satisfy something for yourself, and sometimes that happens to line up with what other people want I guess. Replace no one with most. You don't need a reason sometimes.... What sort of thing are you referring to? Interested to hear what you're thinking |
| Philosophy have a name for it too Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from so doing. This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism but i do not understand this line "This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be." and im trying to still understand it sometimes but no luck lol |
Maneki-Mew said: How is it "proven" and by what method?That's not even a theory. That's a proven fact. Tho I don't think there's anything in wrong with it, since we are programmed this way. Helping other releases many hormones that make us happy. You get rewarded for your actions and it's likely that do them again. Seems to be like an idea that intuitively makes sense but is impossible to prove since any man can always lie about it; a man can always say "I experience no joy from doing this, yet do it anyway." and the counter-argument is then "But you lie! you naughty boy!", and then we're at a standoff. |
 It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| although if you think more about it hivemind like the social bees and ants have have some selflessness among them a lot and i remember that Charles Darwin said this group selection thing is against his theory of natural selection that focuses on individuals more rather than a group and we humans are called social creatures too ye it feels good to share and help others at times and to even be motivated to sacrifice something for others at times but does it mean that we feel good solely because we just want to get something in return when we do those so that is where the selflessness idea comes in |
deg said: although if you think more about it hivemind like the social bees and ants have have some selflessness among them a lot and i remember that Charles Darwin said this group selection thing is against his theory of natural selection that focuses on individuals more rather than a group ye it feels good to share and help others at times and to even be motivated to sacrifice something for others at times but does it mean that we feel good solely because we just want to get something in return when we do those so that is where the selfishness idea comes in Eusocial insects are really interesting, but even then, what is it that drives their self-sacrificial actions? The way I see it, they're hard wired to value the hive over the individual, and act based on that internal hard wiring. So in that sense, it's still internally motivated and based on an action that satisfies something internal. |
| @bigboy420 their interest is about the group more than their self though right? like even doing the ultimate sacrifice killing themselves for the sake of the group, think of the trolley problem and ideas like utilitarianism (for the greater good of humanity) kind of stuff and i edited my previous post lol since i made a lot of mistakes there |
deg said: It's probably something close to prescriptive versus descriptive grammar. The latter merely describes how the language is used, the former prescribes the best way to use the language. So, I'd take that line as: this is a phenomenon, we've observed and therefore, we are able to describe, but we are not saying this is how things should be, rather we're saying this is how things are. It seems like a sloppy way of saving face, so they are not held responsible for saying 'there's no altruism'. but i do not understand this line "This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be." and im trying to still understand it sometimes but no luck lol |
|
| well, to help to not feel guilty is not altruistic, but yes, you can do beneficial things for others in return that you know you did something good. self-improvement for the sake of entertainment and betterment invokes the same feeling. |
| @Kosmonaut thanks but honestly my 3rd world IQ and even language barrier still gives me difficulty to fully understand it but i will take a look at it more when im not lazy anymore to google about those as for the topic also sociology says if we are really free then why we follow others? stuff like sheeple or hivemind mentality, mob mentality, peer pressure, groupthink, and any other social influence words make us seem to at least follow the group more rather than our self interest |
| i just read the criticism part of psychological egoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism#Criticism and this part is good Psychological egoism has been accused of being circular: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment." In particular, seemingly altruistic acts must be performed because people derive enjoyment from them and are therefore, in reality, egoistic. This statement is circular because its conclusion is identical to its hypothesis: it assumes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment, and concludes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment. This objection was tendered by William Hazlitt[27] and Thomas Macaulay[28] in the 19th century, and has been restated many times since. An earlier version of the same objection was made by Joseph Butler in 1726. Joel Feinberg, in his 1958 paper "Psychological Egoism", embraces a similar critique by drawing attention to the infinite regress of psychological egoism. He expounds it in the following cross-examination: "All men desire only satisfaction." "Satisfaction of what?" "Satisfaction of their desires." "Their desires for what?" "Their desires for satisfaction." "Satisfaction of what?" "Their desires." "For what?" "For satisfaction"—etc., ad infinitum.[29] |
| @deg The infinite regress there doesn't make sense, in my opinion. I'd say that 'their desires' refers to a variable. So you could say "All men desire only satisfaction of their desires for x." where x is the thing desired. I don't think it's reasonable to ask "Their desires for what?", that's like saying "all men can think" and being asked "Can think what?" as a response. It's a meaningless question to ask in the context, in my opinion. |
bigboy420 said: @deg The infinite regress there doesn't make sense, in my opinion. I'd say that 'their desires' refers to a variable. So you could say "All men desire only satisfaction of their desires for x." where x is the thing desired. I don't think it's reasonable to ask "Their desires for what?", that's like saying "all men can think" and being asked "Can think what?" as a response. It's a meaningless question to ask in the context, in my opinion. you could say that but one line their implies self-desire or selfishness (the "their desires" parts) more though rather than selflessness EDIT: i got bad english skills but english as a language to me seems egoistic lol like "i want to be happy" - selfishness "i want others to be happy" - selflessness both uses "i want" so that automatically says selfishness for a lot of people that they neglect the rest of the context |
degSep 28, 2019 7:05 PM
| @deg I think it could just as easily be "their desires" for the people around them to be happy, for the world to be a better place, or whatever. I think the point is more that actions we describe as "selfless" still have grounding in the desires of the person performing them. Rather than saying that Altruism doesn't exist, it's like saying that it can exist specifically because people sometimes want good things for others and will act to achieve it. Another way of looking at it in my mind: Actions we describe as "selfish" = actions which directly benefit the person acting. Actions we describe as "selfless" = actions which do not directly benefit the person acting, but by which they are indirectly satisfied in some way. |
| @bigboy420 ye i edited my previous post again lol and added there that i think its just how the english language is for example |
deg said: "i want to be happy" - selfishness "i want others to be happy" - selflessness both uses "i want" so that automatically says selfishness for a lot of people that they neglect the rest of the context it's more like wanting others to be happy (by helping them): 1. so they owe me next time/talk well about me 2. so they'll be a more productive person in my company 3. so they'll be a better friend, which will benefit entertainment, help me with more stuff, etc. 4. so I don't have to worry about feeling guilty for any mishaps they suffer through 5. so others will see me as a good person etc. |
DaConduit said: deg said: "i want to be happy" - selfishness "i want others to be happy" - selflessness both uses "i want" so that automatically says selfishness for a lot of people that they neglect the rest of the context it's more like wanting others to be happy (by helping them): 1. so they owe me next time/talk well about me 2. so they'll be a more productive person in my company 3. so they'll be a better friend, which will benefit entertainment, help me with more stuff, etc. 4. so I don't have to worry about feeling guilty for any mishaps they suffer through 5. so others will see me as a good person etc. that number 4 part is interesting guilt is part of our nature too so that conflicts with our self-interest at times right? include empathy there as well and you will get that we cannot fully be 100% selfish all the time imo as long as we have a normal/healthy psychology so maybe there is balance or a spectrum between selfishness and selflessness |
| If helping others didn't feel good, no one would do it. No one would do anything at all if they didn't biologically feel something to promote any action. That's just a basic look at the concept of a sort of free will paradox, if you can call it that. More immediate and purely selfish actions can produce greater and easier pleasure, so getting it from helping others is better and for multiple parties. How is that an "exacerbated" form of egoism? |
MasterGlythSep 28, 2019 7:23 PM
 I can see you |
Keiju said: deg said: that's why the concept is described as descriptive over normative. descriptive describes what people perceive as right, a person helping out of guilt is an example of thatthat number 4 part is interesting guilt is part of our nature too so that conflicts with our self-interest at times right? include empathy there as well and you will get that we cannot fully be 100% selfish all the time imo as long as we have a normal/healthy psychology so maybe there is balance or a spectrum between selfishness and selflessness but it furthers the point that there is nothing pure-hearted about altruism. even if it's not selfishness, being forced into doing something out of guilt doesn't seem better either are you implying selfishness should overcome guilt like guilt is bad? ye i get that you added the word "being forced" there though should our self-interest have absolute freedom even if its destructive like self-destructive like addiction? |
deg said: DaConduit said: it's more like wanting others to be happy (by helping them): 1. so they owe me next time/talk well about me 2. so they'll be a more productive person in my company 3. so they'll be a better friend, which will benefit entertainment, help me with more stuff, etc. 4. so I don't have to worry about feeling guilty for any mishaps they suffer through 5. so others will see me as a good person etc. that number 4 part is interesting guilt is part of our nature too so that conflicts with our self-interest at times right? include empathy there as well and you will get that we cannot fully be 100% selfish all the time imo as long as we have a normal/healthy psychology so maybe there is balance or a spectrum between selfishness and selflessness I guess if you want to put it that way, but you'll have to define what selfish and selflessness is, and how negative reinforcement and avoidant behavior is evaluated. the psychological hedonism interpretation can resolve that, but now you'll have two axes each for selfishness and pain/pleasure. |
| @RicePounder your idea of altruism got some science behind it that was mentioned by @Keiju which is the battle of 2 desire system in our brains that are sooner/small rewards vs later/big rewards and usually those sooner/small rewards wins our choice hence the proneness to addiction or worldly desires |
friedegg7 said: Well that's awfully cynical lol. I disagree personally. I don't think personal satisfaction or any recognition received for a "good deed" negates the selflessness of the act. It's all about motive, really. no we must demonize sacrificing for or helping others lol /s but ye reminds me of the hero syndrome that can be considered fake heroism (My Hero Academia Overhaul arc hype because it was mentioned there) |
| everything is technically egoism what matters is how you use it. selfless selfishness.  |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
RicePounder said: deg said: no we must demonize sacrificing for or helping others lol /s but ye reminds me of the hero syndrome that can be considered fake heroism (My Hero Academia Overhaul arc hype because it was mentioned there) Yeah...the parts where they talk about traditional heroes vs their modern day hero is relevant to this talk about altruism. I mean lets disregard the crimes that the anti-hero Stain did and listen to what he said, b/c he made some really good points regarding self-service or service to others. btw i love Stain lol what a likable villain and that hero syndrome will be mention in this new upcoming season of My Hero Academia too but it was not elaborated there though i have to google that when i heard of it first |
Maneki-Mew said: And how is this "proven"? How could this possibly be proven for the simple reason that any apparatus attached to the subject to measure the supposed endorphins would contaminate the result for the simple reason that the subject now knows that he is being watched? Even if enough of such apparatus were attached to subjects to observe their actions and the result would conclude this release in all cases with no exception, it would still amount to no proof at all of your thesis as all subjects would be highly contaminated — and that's a very big "if" to begin with; to my knowledge something of this scale has never been done.Sphinxter said: How is it "proven" and by what method? The fact that a healthy brain releases endorphines, when you're helping someone and they are responsing in positive ways to your actions. Endorphines are always released to "reward" you and to make you repeat your actions. You claim this is to be a "fact" that this be proven; I demand to see the research that supposedly proves it, for as said I consider such research to be impossible to exist with current technology without contaminating the subject. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| A view used by some to excuse hedonistic egoism. It's a way for some people to claim no matter what people do they are all the same selfish bastards so it doesn't matter what you do to other people. This is false to claim it's of moral equality because there is clearly unequal results of actions and these are not without meaning because the universe doesn't revolve around "you" and "you" alone. Selfless does not mean totally devoid of self it means placing needs of others above one's own. People need to stop being so literal with this term. Besides it is unproven to claim that all actions all people take are for their maximum enjoyment of options they had to choose from. There also is the problem that this simplifies things too much. There are different kinds of good feelings and you can experience them not always together. Something can feel pleasurable but also make you feel emotionally bad or hurts your body but makes your mind feel good. It's just not so simple. |
Sphinxter said: The supposed contamination can occur if you choose to follow the road of the moralfags. One can easily be put in a state of anesthésie unknowingly, and given that the apparatus isn't exterior to the body, you could theoretically attach it to him. But you are right in this, there is no current technology that wouldn't be strangely protruding off of our fake patient and cause serious confusions, not to mention several ethical lawsuits directed to all of the instigators of the operation.Maneki-Mew said: And how is this "proven"? How could this possibly be proven for the simple reason that any apparatus attached to the subject to measure the supposed endorphins would contaminate the result for the simple reason that the subject now knows that he is being watched? Even if enough of such apparatus were attached to subjects to observe their actions and the result would conclude this release in all cases with no exception, it would still amount to no proof at all of your thesis as all subjects would be highly contaminated — and that's a very big "if" to begin with; to my knowledge something of this scale has never been done.The fact that a healthy brain releases endorphines, when you're helping someone and they are responsing in positive ways to your actions. Endorphines are always released to "reward" you and to make you repeat your actions. You claim this is to be a "fact" that this be proven; I demand to see the research that supposedly proves it, for as said I consider such research to be impossible to exist with current technology without contaminating the subject. |
| Only in a very limited and boring sense. Rational actors act on their personal preferences. In that sense everyone is self interested. Of course, there is still a valid demarcation between more selfish and less selfish people. If you see a hungry homeless man and offer them food, you may say you did it because if you didn't, you'd feel guilty, so you acted on a selfish motive of not feeling guilty. But the real question is why you would feel guilty over the thought of a man starving when you could have prevented such. The reason is simple. You have empathy. You saw yourself starving. Briefly the interests of the homeless man became your interests and you acted to satisfy them. Everyone has preferences that they act on. But someone who isn't selfish has their preferences affected by the preferences of others, because they see them as equally as valid as their own. The selfish person in contrast does not take the interests of others into account, or worse, it affects him in motivating a desire to work against the interests of others. This is why we would naturally say of a person who not only didn't give the homeless man food, but say, fooled them into doing errands for them under the promise of food but didn't pay up just so they could enjoy the misery it caused, that they are selfish, and someone who instead gave the homeless a sandwich out of guilt was comparatively not. |
Well, on a biological level, yes. And there's a whole book on this subject already. If you're interested: |
 Ｍｅｎ Ａｒｅ Ｆｒｏｍ Ｍａｒｓ， Ｗｏｍｅｎ Ａｒｅ Ｆｒｏｍ Ｖｅｎｕｓ ａｎｄ Ｇａｙｓ Ａｒｅ Ｆｒｏｍ Ｕｒａｎｕｓ |
| I actually didn't know anyone itt at the time and completely forgot where everyone fell on the issue, lol. traed said: A view used by some to excuse hedonistic egoism. It's a way for some people to claim no matter what people do they are all the same selfish bastards so it doesn't matter what you do to other people. This is false to claim it's of moral equality because there is clearly unequal results of actions and these are not without meaning because the universe doesn't revolve around "you" and "you" alone. Selfless does not mean totally devoid of self it means placing needs of others above one's own. People need to stop being so literal with this term. It always strikes me as odd that in these kinds of threads, people conflate "selfish" with "having any degree of self interest in motive" when in common usage we actually mean "self centered" as in "not caring much for the interests of others." I tend to think there's a rather self serving motive in considering every act as selfish, as you say. ;p But I suppose a lot of people find the reasoning attractive. Maybe it speaks to our apathy these days. RicePounder said: If person X knows that person Y is hitch hiking and decides to give a ride. Person X does not physically benefit from it. What if person X is indifferent as to whether to pick Y up or not? Does the simple decision to help or not determine psychological gratification? What if the decision to help or not was purely a matter of chance, by flipping a coin - just like Kanao Tsuyuri from Demon Slayer? If one was devoid of human emotion or had very little of it, if one was indifferent to whatever outcomes arise out of taking action, and if one has nothing to gain from said action....can that action then be considered "altruistic"? Right now, it seems that among participants of this thread, altruism is like this double-edged, circular, concept that requires subjective variables of the human condition. I would say that Altruism can exist to varying degrees....HOWEVER, in my case where "altruism exists only in a state of mind above all worldly desires", I've set conditions to define what can be considered altruistic; whereas other theories elsewhere might have different conditions and definition. In my own case, I consider altruistic acts very feasible....you just have to do it w/o thinking about your own feelings and whether or not you benefit from it - like a robot that was programmed to do something just for the sake of doing it. That would be selfless, but I wouldn't associate that with altruism. It's just a reflex at that point. You have to act out of conscious concern for others for it to be altruistic. |
| come to think of it if natural selection is link to selfishness then group selection might be for teamwork like altruism so team first or others first in that regard |
More topics from this board
Poll: » do you even watch anime like how you used to?college_boy - 10 hours ago |
15 |
by Mualani
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» I believe in solipsism. Is that crazy?purple_rayn - 6 minutes ago |
1 |
by SmugSatoko
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Why are Vikings worshipped when they were thugs that stole and raped anythingvasipi4946 - Today |
27 |
by Adnash
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Can I Still make Shit posts on MAL?MellowJello - Today |
18 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» How often do you go to the gym or workout in general?ZakuF_ - 40 minutes ago |
5 |
by Icymatika
»»
22 minutes ago |