A very common idea is doing good for goodness's sake. I really don't think this exists. We can only experience our situation, not others'. Being altruistic because it makes you feel better is selfish. Being altruistic because you believe a higher being will reward you for it is also selfish. Really the only other motive for doing self-defined good is because of social values.
This summer, I went to a camp where we got to go whitewater rafting. The night before, we went to the dollar general that was nearby. I went inside and bought a huge bag of candy and a couple things of pop-tarts. I gave the pop-tarts to the counselers for breakfast the next day, and I gave all the candy to the kids with us. I didn't do it for any reasons that were selfish. I spent my money for other people, without any idea of getting paid back in any way. I didn't even expect to get thanked or to get a warm fuzzy feeling inside of me. I just gave them stuff because it seemed like the right thing to do.
I just gave them stuff because it seemed like the right thing to do.
But you did feel good afterwards. Sometimes it is also from the subconscious. I think that all actions are "selfish" but define "selfish". I mean everyone wants something, and that's not selfish, but wanting everything without sharing, now that's selfish.
I went inside and bought a huge bag of candy and a couple things of pop-tarts. I gave the pop-tarts to the counselers for breakfast the next day, and I gave all the candy to the kids with us. I didn't do it for any reasons that were selfish
And why did do you do so; because you thought it was a nice thing to do; you wanted to do so because it was generous. It isn't hard at all to conceive that all conscious actions are selfish. I don't say that it's bad though; under such perspective, the pejorative weight of the term ''selfish'' lose much of it's impact.
When I say selfish I mean acting in self-interest.
Now this is something interesting. When we think of atruism or "good", we think of detrimenting yourself for the well-being of others. Is this self-interest? Go back to the bag of candy and pop-tarts example. If the man really wanted to act in self-interest, he would have kept the items for himself. To be altruistic, he relinquished his items to children and the teachers. How is this selfish, or acting in self-interest, when he just wanted to share? The real way to be selfish is to keep the items for yourself.
Selfish is acting in self-interest, but that is far from altruism. Selfishness is looking out for yourself, but not for others.
Maybe so Freak, but remember that anyway you turn this around, he was generous because he wanted to be generous. I know I'm being pretty intense here, but I just want to push the concept's meaning to the edge. Not acting in self interest would have been to throw the candies and pop tarts in the nearby river; that way you're completely unsatisfied while not having the moral joy of satisfying others at your detriment.
I personally find it interesting how you twist it to suit your definition. Could you not say that every act was selfless using the same method? I bought this expensive car so the salesman could get paid. You can never truly say a single act is either selfish or selfless, but to say every act is selfish is a bit wrong. I will quote a medal of honor citation for you... [/quote]As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines.[quote] I do not think the thing going through his mind when he jumped on that grenade as selfish, as no award can make up for the fact that he lost his life, and it was a chance he took to protect his fellow Marines. There is no self-interest involved, he was acting solely for someone else
As I said, I'm exagerating for the thread's purpose, although this not far from what I really think. As for your example; could you say you are buying a car only for the salesman to earn a living; you'd throw away the car afterwards because you'd have made your good dead; even so, you would have done it with the goal of helping him; thus it would be selfish. Rhetorically, I think almost every situation can be turned around to fit personnal interests; that's why I stipulated that selfishness shouldn't be considered so negative. I don't base my daily actions on the fact the I'm being selfish.
Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines.
And if he hadn't wanted to save them, he wouldn't have been selfish to not do so; you see, there's no real escape from these morality problems, for they are created by language and can be controlled by language.
I just truly do not understand how jumping on a live grenade could be considered a selfish act, by definition selfishness is placing your needs above the needs of others, so are you saying that he is being selfish to risk his own life to save others? Selfish people look for what they would gain out of a situation, and his personal gains were naught compared to the 2 lives he saved. In essence you are trying to make a play on words, and nothing more.
I personally think Fallensky is just splitting hairs and being too pedantic about a definition.
Altruism and selfishness are nearly the opposite ends of a spectrum. Using your same reasons, I could manipulate how selfishness is defined and say selfishness can turn into greatness. Using the raw definition, good is detrimenting yourself for the well-being of others, as was said. There is no selfishness or self-interest from this, because you are using effort from your own person to aid others.
I think the confusion rose out considering the ends rather than the means. Of course there can be actions that are not selfish, what I'm trying to imply is that we do nigh every action we do regaring a code we think is ''good'' and ''right'' for us. If you save two people from death; the results of the action won't be selfish at all; but the action in itself will still be a little egoist in the way it is done regarding factor you consider to be right and good. Even if I was trying to make a play on words; I never said it was a bid thing; to me, egoism just does not have the same signification regarding our everyday moves. You see, if it wasn't for egoism, we wouldn't do thing we find correct and satisfying, and thus we wouldn't do actions which resulst are not intrinsically unselfish.
It's not about playing with words, it's about not giving the same value to a words; to me egoism, or being selfish, is necessary; I'm almost saying it is good in a certain measure.
To me it sounds like you are trying to intermingle selfishness and self-preservation, and I can kind of see where you are coming at, albeit a bit on the extreme side. It vaguely sounds like you want to bring morality into the equation, which completely changes the entire topic.
I have a question. One that I have personal experience in. What is the selfish intent when you carry out an action that you know will hurt you and help someone else. You know that you're going to get hurt, and this gives you no comfort, but you do it anyway. Is that selfish? Because to me I see no self interest in the situation.
