I ran across an interesting thought in a book I'm reading and thought I'd share it. The author says that there is no such thing as a selfless act. But that there are 3 types of selfishness. 1: the act of getting pleasure out of pleasuring ourselves. ex: pretty much anything you do for yourself. 2: the act of getting pleasure from giving pleasure. ex: charity. You think you are doing a selfless act by helping others for nothing in return, but, in fact, you get that good feeling or that sense of doing something good by doing it, so, in truth, you do get something in return. 3: the act of avoiding feeling bad by giving pleasure. ex: helping someone because of guilt. You help someone because you don't want to feel guilty. You don't really want to do it, but you'll feel bad if you don't, so you take the lesser of the two evils. Strange theory, but it makes sense. Any thoughts?
--phish
Originally posted by PhlabibitI thought of that too. But the author actually gave that example. He said there are multiple reasons that someone would do that. For instance, suicide bombers commit their atrocities because they think they're going to heaven, so ultimately, they think they're going to get something out of it. The same thing could, perhaps, be said about our grenade fellow. Or perhaps, recognition as a hero.
Diving on a handgrenade in a bunker full of your buddies. Not that I ever tried it... but I hear people have done it.
P
Edit
new avatar phla?
Yup, new avatar.
Ever watch the show Friends? They had one of the characters trying to do a selfless act.
They finally thought they did it... one of the other characters says "Feels good, doesn't it?!"
"Yes! Oh, no!!!!"
Too funny.
P
Edit Good point BL. You never know when it's over... there may be no subtle guiding light.....
Originally posted by PhlabibitPhoebe, wasn't it? Love that show, so funny...😀
Yup, new avatar.
Ever watch the show Friends? They had one of the characters trying to do a selfless act.
They finally thought they did it... one of the other characters says "Feels good, doesn't it?!"
"Yes! Oh, no!!!!"
Too funny.
P
[b]Edit Good point BL. You never know when it's over... there may be no subtle guiding light.....
[/b]
Originally posted by LivingLegendI can't remember if it was Poebe trying to do the act, or the one who knows it can't be done...
Phoebe, wasn't it? Love that show, so funny...😀
Was in Monica also? I'll probably see the episode this evening since we are talking about it... That happens a little too often.
P
What a strange argument. The author is presenting an empirical hypothesis about human motivation called 'psychological egoism'. As support for his claim that altruism is impossible he cites an apparently constant correlation between our actions and the derivation of satisfaction. This constant correlation is taken as evidence that our actions are, in fact, motivated by the expectation of satisfaction. But suppose I were to present a similar argument about driving a car: There is a constant correlation between the driving of a car and the burning of fuel, therefore the ultimate reason people drive cars is to burn fuel. Hence, nobody ever drives a car purely because they want to get somewhere.
More generally, it is a constraint on the acceptability of empirical hypotheses that they are, at least in principle, disconfirmable. An empirical hypothesis has to be able to be 'put to the test', as it were. Now what do you think this author would take as being evidence against his claim? Suppose someone performs an act they think is altruistic, and yet they derive some pleasure from it. The author would claim that the pleasure was the reason for the action. But suppose that someone performs an apparently altruistic act and, in fact, derives no pleasure from it at all. The author would probably say that they had erroneously expected to derive pleasure, and it was this expectation that motivated them to act. But suppose someone performs an apparently altruistic act and neither expects nor receives any pleasure from it (like in the hand grenade case). Then, the author claims that the motivation was actually to avoid guilt, or to be seen as a hero after their death. Is there anything that would count as evidence against this claim? If not, then the empirical hypothesis is faulty.
Originally posted by bbarrYou could use that same correlation in the opposite fashion: there is a constant correlation between the driving of a car and going somewhere, therefore the ultimate reason people drive cars is to get somewhere. Since the person driving the car is actually getting something from the act of driving, the transportation to destination, or the pure enjoyment of driving, could this be a selfish act?
What a strange argument. The author is presenting an empirical hypothesis about human motivation called 'psychological egoism'. As support for his claim that altruism is impossible he cites an apparently constant correlation between our actions and the derivation of satisfaction. This constant correlation is taken as evidence that our actions are, in fact ...[text shortened]... s is to burn fuel. Hence, nobody ever drives a car purely because they want to get somewhere.
Originally posted by bessyboo"Do you think here often?" 😉
Hey bbarr, what's your favourite chat up line? 😀
Anyway.... try as I might I can think of a single 'selfless act' that I carried out in my long life. I've got to admit to feeling satisfaction about what I've done... like handing in a full wallet to a police station or just generally helping people out.
Originally posted by phishermanphish, what is this book and who is the author? this sounds like something i would have written in frshman intro to philosophy (or better yet--logic) to try to impress my professor, only to get a low mark!
I ran across an interesting thought in a book I'm reading and thought I'd share it. The author says that there is no such thing as a selfless act. But that there are 3 types of selfishness.
--phish
Originally posted by Mad CowanHa-very funny (sarcasm). The book is Awareness by Anthony de Mello. You should pick it up and read it, you might learn something. I'm assuming you stopped your philosophy education after your freshman year (or did you even make it that far)! Just kidding. 🙂
phish, what is this book and who is the author? this sounds like something i would have written in frshman intro to philosophy (or better yet--logic) to try to impress my professor, only to get a low mark!
Besides, it's based more on spirituality and psychology. He's got some strange theories, but it makes for interesting reading.
Originally posted by bbarrHappily married, eh? I'll have to try and do equal justice to the line, it's a good one. Got just the girl in mind, Marianne here I come! It should work, English girls 😀
lol, "I'm not trying to date you, beautiful, I'm just trying to kiss you". In virtue of this line I ended up happily married. 😲