15 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnehe considers it would be a fair exchange. the child had lived for a smaller period than him and deserves a chance. he has strong morals and really believes that. taking the shotgun blast is living up to his morals. reward.
[b]here is another example: a man jumps in front of a shotgun blast to save his wife. by my example this would seem a selfless act. but the man loved his wife. he pictured life without her and wanted to die rather than the alternative. saw here life more important than his. but substitute the wife with a drunk homeless guy and tell him you will shoot the ...[text shortened]... hild that he didn't know. No doubt to a self-centered person, this idea would be unfathomable.
this is not the example i was looking for.
have anything else or do i have to take some more abuse from you before? lemon understood what i was arguing and argued acordingly. you believe me to be the antichrist. which is your opinion and your problem.
15 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat is in it for them can mean "feel good about doing something". that is enough.
what is in it for them can mean "feel good about doing something". that is enough. and you don't even have to realize it on a conscious level. pavlov's dog doesn't realize he is drooling. but if there is no stimuli, you don't do the deed.
I explicitly made it clear that I think persons naturally derive satisfaction when they are successful in the purs behind those goals. how you came to decide on a certain action. why.
I don't know how many different ways I can state this: the fact that one ends up "feeling good" about some act they carried out doesn't necessarily show anything about the motivation that was involved (and doesn't show that those motivations were egoistic). Let me give you an example. Suppose for whatever reason, you and I cross paths and I see you in pain; and I see that you are suffering; and I see there is something I can do to alleviate your suffering. So I do it. And suppose then I feel a sense of satisfaction as I see that your situation dramatically improves and your suffering abates. Now, why did I feel compelled to act? What was my motivation? Was I thinking about my own welfare? Was I thinking about the satisfaction I might get? No. As a compassionate person, I value the state of persons being free from pain and suffering. Because of this, the circumstances were reason-giving for me. I also value your well-being and the well-being of persons in general, and hence your situation was reason-giving for me. There's absolutely nothing about my motivation in this case that could reasonably be construed as selfish. The object of my motivation and the purpose for which I undertook the action are not in any sense centered on my own benefit; rather, they are prosocial and other-regarding. The fact that I derived satisfaction from the exchange does not somehow change this. Again, you can expect persons to derive satisfaction from being successful in the pursuit of things they value.
And, again, that the consequences of some action I undertake happen to include my own personal satisfaction; this in no way demonstrates egoism. Psychological egoism is not a thesis concerning the outcome of the actions one undertakes but rather is a thesis concerning the motivations involved.
what else is there? anytime you do something you have a reason. whatever that reason is it has a "feel good part for you"
No, that's false. It is not the case that our reasons for acting always have a "feel good part" for the agent who acts from those reasons. People will in general find many different things reason-giving, or valuable. One's own welfare and personal benefit generally carries value, yes; but it is false that one's own welfare or personal benefit must enter into any reason(s) that could move the person. Persons are often moved by non-egoistic reasons. I think I have already provided you with examples. They would include moral reasons (e.g., to be motivated by a sense of moral duty) and prosocial reasons (e.g., to be motivated by direct concern for the welfare of another).
i told someone i could be easily refuted : simply give me an example of a selfless deed where i can't find a reward for the dood in question and i will cry uncle.
Apparently, then, you don't understand what would actually constitute a refutation of psychological egoism. I hope at some point you start understanding this distinction that I keep pointing out: egoism is not concerned with whether or not a reward can in fact be found in the cards for the agent; rather it is concerned with what motivates the agent. To refute psychological egoism, one could show that it is not the case that motivations always take the agent's own welfare and personal benefit as objects. That is what I have been focusing on in my arguments here.
how about if you wouldn't ever die of hunger no matter how long you would stay without food and all food had no taste. would you eat just so you feel your jaws move?
No, probably not. What does that have to do with demonstration of psychological egoism? The only reason I brought up the eating example is to try make the same point I keep trying to make: that just because personal satisfaction attends (or is in the cards of the consequences) for some action doesn't mean that it entered into the motivation for the action.
no, i only need to claim that to be motivated means there is a reward of some kind. and therefore there is also selfishness. you need to give me an example where there is no reward to prove me wrong. or you can point out that i haven't proven my point, i simply made a claim, and we will agree on a draw.
No, to be motivated does not entail anything about reward. I have already given you examples where "reward of some kind" does not enter into motivation. For instance, in cases of moral duty. Suppose someone knows that if he tells the truth it will carry dire consequences for him. But, despite this, he feels compelled to tell the truth all the same because he takes it to be simply his moral duty. You tell me: in what way does reward enter into his motivation? Or another example: an agent acts to alleviate the suffering of a friend because she is directly concerned about her friend's well-being. You tell me: in what way does reward enter into her motivation?
You could say in such cases that, well, the agents are really just catering to their own values; and securing things that one values brings reward in some form of satisfaction. For instance, you could say the truth teller gets the satisfaction of being true to his moral fiber; and the compassionate agent gets the satisfaction of feeling good about her friend's improvement. But, sorry, that doesn't show that reward enters into motivation. Of course persons will act to secure things they value and will often act in accord with their desires. However, when oneself and one's own welfare are not the objects of value and desire, such things can hardly be construed as selfish. The motivations in these examples are not selfish.
how do you feel when you help others? do you feel pain? does it feel like your insides are burning and you want to die? if its true, then indeed it would be a selfless act to help others. if you feel nice and fuzzy then it isn't so selfless anymore.
I'm getting tired of repeating the same objection over and over: yes, people often end up feeling good when they help others; but that in itself has really nothing to do with demonstrating they were motivated selfishly in such cases.
if the effect of an action doesn't benefit you in any way and it does benefit others then the cause was selfless. rather the motives that led to performing the action were selfless.
No. Why do you insist on drawing these kinds of conclusions about the motives that elicit the agent's action from facts about the consequences of the action? The facts regarding the outcome of an action do not necessarily show anything about the motivations that governed the agent.
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by LemonJellosorry i don't feel like supporting a point that it is really not important anymore. i alreayd told you that what you call psycho egoism is not really selfishness. nobody in their right mind can say that the dood who sells toys made of toxic materials because he wants to make a buck is the same kind of selfish as the dood who saves a child from drowning at the cost of his life.
[b]what is in it for them can mean "feel good about doing something". that is enough.
I don't know how many different ways I can state this: the fact that one ends up "feeling good" about some act they carried out doesn't necessarily show anything about the motivation that was involved (and doesn't show that those motivations were egoistic). Let m ...[text shortened]... rily show anything about the motivations that governed the agent.[/b]
what i do want to point out as a conclusion to our not so little rants is that all people are motivated somehow. that motivation is its own reward. take away that and you have robots. if you don't feel anything when you do something, how can you judge right from wrong? would you then say that a child who doesn't have a job, that cannot exist on its own is more worthy to live than a man who produces something to society? i am saying you need this kind of psycho egoism. its ok to feel good about it. that is basically what drives you. even if you don't know it.
you love someone and you want to make them happy. and that makes you happy. you don't go through the process of realizing it makes you happy. not really important. take that "feel good" away and you are a shell. you do something but you don't really understand why.
my claim is that without psycho egoism as you call it, humans would be a lot more of the real kind of egoism.
15 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat i am REALLY saying is that there are no "selflessness". that every action is governed by a motive and nobody in their right mind does something without a motive.
this discussion is starting to be a little pointless. i cannot admit that there are selfless acts because in my view that would imply people acting without thinking, without motives. and that would imply that you didn't really think about the good your are doing either.
an example of maybe a selfless act would be the wife that continues to love her husba is governed by a motive and nobody in their right mind does something without a motive.
Exactly how is "that every action is governed by a motive and nobody in their right mind does something without a motive" a restatement of "that there is no selflessness"? The question under debate here is whether or not motives are alway selfish (or at least I thought that is basically what we were debating). If you're just going to assume that they are (such that you think that to be governed by a motive is more or less just a restatement of to not be selfless), then that is really just begging the question. Isn't it?
There is nothing about the concept of motive that should make us think selfishness is inherent to it. An agent's motives can have objects that do not have anything genuine to do with the agent's self or own welfare. So motives can be non-selfish (or 'selfless'😉.
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf this is impasse, that's okay. I don't agree with you, but it was very nice having the discussion with you. So thank you for the nice discussion.
sorry i don't feel like supporting a point that it is really not important anymore. i alreayd told you that what you call psycho egoism is not really selfishness. nobody in their right mind can say that the dood who sells toys made of toxic materials because he wants to make a buck is the same kind of selfish as the dood who saves a child from drowning at t ...[text shortened]... out psycho egoism as you call it, humans would be a lot more of the real kind of egoism.
15 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziGiven your very nice arguement so far,dear Zahlanzi, could you pleas give me your opinion on this particuelar example. (of course everyone else is welcome)
he considers it would be a fair exchange. the child had lived for a smaller period than him and deserves a chance. he has strong morals and really believes that. taking the shotgun blast is living up to his morals. reward.
this is not the example i was looking for.
have anything else or do i have to take some more abuse from you before? lemon unders ...[text shortened]... argued acordingly. you believe me to be the antichrist. which is your opinion and your problem.
I was in the bathroom with ny girlfriend and water had been thrashed everywhere by the children. She went to turn the light switch and was electrocuted . Before either of us could think I immediately stuck my finger in the same spot and was also promptly electrocuted.
She asked "why would you do something so stupid??" .
Of course I had no answer but still tried to clumsily explain why I had stuck my finger there.
She brings this up again and again as an explanation of how stupid I can be. God bless her.
I guess you could say I acted instinctively(?) But to this day I really couldn't put that action (sticking my finger in a spot where I knew it would be electrocuted) down to any 'reward/satisfaction' rection.
I would say "love" was involved and I was acting in the moment, still I have great difficulty trying to explain such a foolish action.
(I apologize in advance to anyone who thinks my point is silly. Sorry)
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by LemonJellowhat i meant to say was that i was defending a technicality for the point of the technicality. the real life scenario is that we cannot speak of the "selfishness" i was suporting without ruin the meaning of the word selfishness.
If this is impasse, that's okay. I don't agree with you, but it was very nice having the discussion with you. So thank you for the nice discussion.
the point i was trying to make that "any kind of reward makes the deed selfish" has the same real value as "if we perceive the world through our senses how can we be sure we are not deceived sometime or even all the time?". matrix philosophy that has only entertainment value and it's to be done in a marijuana circle.
thank you for the nice debate, i have a deadline at work else i would think of more directions to approach the point i was supporting.
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelso let me get this straight. she was given a short buzz. and that was that. seconds after you stuck your finger in the same spot. and you too were shocked. if this is the example, it is not an example of love, but one of morbid curiosity.(and yes, stupid, i mean no offense but seriously dude, you must realize it was stupid).
Given your very nice arguement so far,dear Zahlanzi, could you pleas give me your opinion on this particuelar example. (of course everyone else is welcome)
I was in the bathroom with ny girlfriend and water had been thrashed everywhere by the children. She went to turn the light switch and was electrocuted . Before either of us could think I immediat ...[text shortened]... foolish action.
(I apologize in advance to anyone who thinks my point is silly. Sorry)
love would have been something like she is being electrocuted during a larger period and you panic and instictively grab on to her even if you know from elementary school physics you would get shocked to and it wouldn't help her at all.
but don't worry we all do stupid stuff. even smart people.(it's funnier when they do it)
if you want "what was i thinking" examples search "here's your sign" jokes from jeff foxworthy i believe.
here is one example of that: a person is going to a cashier lady (or something) in an airport and says: Ma'am, my luggage has been misplaced, can you help me? to which she responds: Has your plane landed?. and the person replies: "no it hasn't i am having an outer body experience. here's your sign"
(sign being the "i am stupid" sign)
15 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell, like I said, such an idea would be unfathomable for you. What you seem to fail to realize is that you are so self-centered that someone operating on a different paradigm than you is impossible in your mind. You know how you work and so must everyone else.
he considers it would be a fair exchange. the child had lived for a smaller period than him and deserves a chance. he has strong morals and really believes that. taking the shotgun blast is living up to his morals. reward.
this is not the example i was looking for.
have anything else or do i have to take some more abuse from you before? lemon unders ...[text shortened]... argued acordingly. you believe me to be the antichrist. which is your opinion and your problem.
Antichrist? Don't recall ever calling you the Antichrist nor anyone else for that matter unless it was to point out tongue in cheek that Christians that supercede the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul or others are literally against (anti) Jesus (Christ).
17 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnesure buddy, whatever you say.
Well, like I said, such an idea would be unfathomable for you. What you seem to fail to realize is that you are so self-centered that someone operating on a different paradigm than you is impossible in your mind. You know how you work and so must everyone else.
Antichrist? Don't recall ever calling you the Antichrist nor anyone else for that matter ...[text shortened]... ings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul or others are literally against (anti) Jesus (Christ).
17 Jan 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziMy point was that my decision to stick my finger there happened BEFORE my thought processes were complete. Stupid? Sure! But it wasn't the sort of stupid that was a stupid decision. It was just a 'gut reaction'. Thats my point: Not all actions are based on a reward motive. Sometimes we just dont have the time to think before we react.
so let me get this straight. she was given a short buzz. and that was that. seconds after you stuck your finger in the same spot. and you too were shocked. if this is the example, it is not an example of love, but one of morbid curiosity.(and yes, stupid, i mean no offense but seriously dude, you must realize it was stupid).
love would have been somethi ...[text shortened]... an outer body experience. here's your sign"
(sign being the "i am stupid" sign)
17 Jan 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelwe are not discussing the morality of reflexes man. is each step you make on your way to work moral or not? we are talking about conscious decisions, decisions you took the time to weigh the morals and cons and pros and so on.
My point was that my decision to stick my finger there happened BEFORE my thought processes were complete. Stupid? Sure! But it wasn't the sort of stupid that was a stupid decision. It was just a 'gut reaction'. Thats my point: Not all actions are based on a reward motive. Sometimes we just dont have the time to think before we react.
"But it wasn't the sort of stupid that was a stupid decision. It was just a 'gut reaction'"
on a side note, i believe all gut reactions are stupid. sure we all do them but we must strive to reduce the frequency at which we take gut reactions. (better eliminate them altogether)
17 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat about the gut reactions of a driver who finds herself propelled into some sort of potential collision.
we are not discussing the morality of reflexes man. is each step you make on your way to work moral or not? we are talking about conscious decisions, decisions you took the time to weigh the morals and cons and pros and so on.
"But it wasn't the sort of stupid that was a stupid decision. It was just a 'gut reaction'"
on a side note, i believe all gut re ...[text shortened]... to reduce the frequency at which we take gut reactions. (better eliminate them altogether)
They some studied some 'dumb ass' soldiers once put into a crash scenario on an aeroplane. It was amazing that once they realized they were in danger some sort of automated thought response took over, they did not panic, they just all did everything they could to minimize damage to every person on the plane.
edit: Once my dad was driving us,his family down some freeway where the speed in our lane was 150km/h. There was an accident ahead and the cars immediately in front of us were putting on there brakes. This all happenend in a split second. My dad swerved instinctively into the stopping lane and averted the collision while the car(s) behind rammed into to oncoming carnage. I just remeber winshields shattering as we drove on by. I dont think my dad stopped because the horror of that mega pile up would've been too greusome for his kids (?)
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelstill i don't believe morals are involved in reflex actions
What about the gut reactions of a driver who finds herself propelled into some sort of potential collision.
They some studied some 'dumb ass' soldiers once put into a crash scenario on an aeroplane. It was amazing that once they realized they were in danger some sort of automated thought response took over, they did not panic, they just all did everyt ...[text shortened]... d stopped because the horror of that mega pile up would've been too greusome for his kids (?)