Philosophy Topic: Psychological Egoism (1)

[cap269]

If all actions are selfish, and there are no non-selfish actions, then the point itself is moot, as there is no alternative and label is meaningless. This of course is an error in logic, and thus makes psychological egoism a fallacy. Psychological egoism states that because we "want" to perform an action that appears selfless, we are in actuality acting selfishly by satisfying this want (referring to the strategy of redefining motives).

[Redflowers9]

every action is selfish so we're all selfish.. and by that I mean it's in the intention of a self benefit not the typical understanding which is that we are all horrible people. 

[Wittgenquine]

@CHRLPTRSN You, sir, win the internets.

[CHRLPTRSN]

I used to be an altruist. Then I took an arrow in the knee.

[jgtheone1]

FVSU!!!

[Sadnessinger]

"That's because all people are selfish."

"Are you callin' me selfish?"

"Are you callin' you people?"

XDXDXD

[giuffre714]

What about an involuntary reflex? That's a selfless act.

[CHRLPTRSN]

@giuffre714 An involuntary reflex is caused by the subconscious, which does it best to further your interests.

Additionally, if an act is involuntary, there are many who would say it could be neither good or bad, as free will was not involved.

[giuffre714]

@CHRLPTRSN For the people that would say it was neither good nor bad, I would say it was still selfless. As far as the subconscious goes, I don't think it plays a part in a gag reflex or a knee jerk.

[giuffre714]

If your only "desire" or "self interest" is to see others happy, then being selfish is a good thing.

[socrates123456789101]

That seems to be a distortion of what, say, evolutionary biologists mean by observable selfish and observable altruistic behavior. 

[socrates123456789101]

If selfishness means seeking pleasure then the person who takes pleasure in helping others is just as selfish as the person who takes pleasure in killing them. Right? There's no more or less selfish... everyone is equally selfish.

[SquishyRainbow]

@MrCharlieSinclair That's what we call circular reasoning.

[Sewblon]

@MrCharlieSinclair You can only declare that the actor did the action because it made them feel good, after they have done the action. You are presenting an unfalsifiable claim and passing it off as a necessity. I do not demand that every claim in formal discourse be falsifiable; but psychological egoism is, no matter how obvious it is to you, a metaphysical article of faith.

[Sewblon]

I think that the argument for psychological egoism presented here fails. It does not follow, alone from "doing x makes me feel good" that "I do x because it makes me feel good." I may in fact still do something for reasons completely unrelated to my own emotional satisfaction.

[rumbal]

There is just ethics on that which is beyond the words and, truth be spoken, beyond this "world".

[rumbal]

We can be talking about the exact same thing, but because we use different words we may not understand each other, and that´s just a waste and a pity is it not? In addition, if i say this is the signifficance and you that is the significcance, well is a conflict right? You can arrange words and pretend with hipocressy that you are saying truth, so words are not what matter, but that which is behind the words, that´s why there is no ethics on words

[rumbal]

Im absolutly happy that we are in a state of communication Wittgenquine and i´m also very glad that you replied and that you have criticicism. Is the word the thing? Can the symbol ever be what it represents with absolute non-distortion? It´s obvious that if we don´t agree in certain meanings of words we won´t talk, but the accurate and equal meaning of words between human beings are very much different of equal and accurate meaning of significcance behind the words. I have seen this in action

[rumbal]

But it´s also a question of language which can never be wrong or right, because words have self-imposed meanings that later become impositions of meaning on others. So please have security, if you are insecure, find out why and be secure. Since that is the only way of living rightly., live it

[Wittgenquine]

@rumbal You over estimate the degree to which language is at our whim. I can start using the word "selfless" to refer to the color red "acts" to refer to balls, and then truly say "Selfless acts exist" but that wouldn't mean that psychological egoism is false. I will have changed the meaning of the words such that they aren't even about the same thing PE means when it claims "Selfless acts don't exist".

[rumbal]

It´s obviusly imposibble for everyone to live a selfish life. It´s like the man in the middle east with the riffle pretending to make a living out of making wars with others when in that war he threatens his own security since there is no infallible killing device.. He can always be killed, so in that way, peace is the only valid way of living a secure life. And obviusly without security there is no life, unless you call an insecure life a life, which would seem quite absurd

[Wittgenquine]

@rumbal Then you reject psychological egoism which claims that every action is done from one's own wants and so constitutes a selfish act. If that is what selfishness consisted in, then I'd agree that it's impossible for anyone not to live a selfish life. You always act out of your wants/motivations. Clearly, then, you disagree with the psychological egoist about what "selfishness" is, since you say it is "obviously" impossible to always be selfish.

[rumbal]

It is the global neccesary harmony between human beings which impels you to look at your spontaneous selfish behaviour. It impels you not to kill a human being, it impels you to clean up your body. So in not choosing, which is spontaneity the action is either right or self- revealing and if it turns out to be selfish, you clean that action with the un-choosed perception of the impossibility of living that life, being that thought not self- originated or motivated .

[rumbal]

Then there is the question of not being able to choose for a non-selfmotivated action. how do you know? if there is no choice, with choice being the manifestation of your personal tendencie, how can there be a personal tendencie? We must all live our lifes without choosing, without allowing ourselves to distort the inmese and rich flow of life that surround us. If that which we do when we don´t choose in spontaneity results to be selfish you need to look at it, but is not because you choose it

[rumbal]

So, to come up with that which is sacred thought (that is Truth) and sacred feeling (which is Love) one must first set aside eveything one knows, especially self-motivated actions and live in the unknown which is the mistery and the joy of life

[rumbal]

The negation of self-motivation is different because actions derived from it can sometimes result in the benefit of the global state of things. Why should one negates what is originated from inside you? Well everything which is originated in "you" must be incomplete, not matter how Truthful or good your actions is, so can one see the mediocrity of oné´s own thinking and feeling be disconttented with it and discover if there is a new way of living not iriginated in an imperfect entity?

[rumbal]

Then there is the question of the irrational attitude about tolerating one´s own selfish and self-motivated actions. It can be clearly be seen in selfish actions, what is the misery chaos and poverty of life which has caused in the world: you know America or Europe wanting their personal egos to leave the other countries with less or all the violent discrepancies of ideas which according to them justify blood-spilling. We all see selfhness is dangerous. The negation of self-motivated is apart.

[rumbal]

To say every actions or phenomena is a mix of good-evil, beauty-uglyness or Truth-False is either a lazy way of looking at it or a violation of the non-dualistic way of looking at life. Can a thing in this world be Truth and False at the same time? If we are analyzing a mix of things, of course. But if we look at one thing at the time that is either worng or right, false and Truth, ego or no-ego it can´t have two contradictory cualities, unless we are in fact contradicting ourselves.

[rumbal]

I´m glad you all replied and kept the topic alive., Selfishness and self-motivated actions are COMPLETELY different things, since you can be very altruistic and do very noble actions based on your noble and altruistic tendencies or motivations and, at least from my language interpretation which can never be wrong or right, to say my altruistic and noble self-generated actions are SELFISH seems quite incorrect. Then there is the topic of how can i depurate some actios into ego or non-ego

[Wittgenquine]

@rumbal I agree, except for your claim that language can't be right or wrong. I can't prove to you that "cars can fly" simply by deciding to mean "planes" by the word "cars". So the psychological egoist can't prove that "Every action is selfish" simply by deciding that "selfish" means self-motivated action rather than a self-directed motivation. There is a way in which language depends on how we decided to use it, but it seems to be more complicated than the "free for all" you imply it to be.

[Wittgenquine]

@sciencecheese Psychological egoism isn't the claim that selfishness is sometimes right. Nearly any ethical theory would admit that. Psychological egoism argues that every action is unavoidably selfish. This is a much more extreme claim. Furthermore, psychological egoism (which is the position Joey is arguing for) isn't that selfishness is always right (that would be ethical egoism), but rather that we have no choice but to be selfish.

[rumbal]

Fede2, don´t take things for granted. Self-motivated actions are not the only actions that exist.

[fede2]

@rumbal actually yes they are. no matter what the nature of the action or what it's aimed at, it always comes from within. to put it a different way, if actions are self-*generated* they are self-*motivated*. i don't think there's anything wrong with this.

[Wittgenquine]

@fede2 Every one of my actions might be rooted in my motivations/wants, but that doesn't make them selfish. Selfishness is a matter of what I want, not that I act from my wants. This is one place PE goes wrong: it misunderstanding what "selfishness" consists in. To help others out of a want to for them to be happy is not selfish, because it is a want for *others* to be happy. Contrast this with someone who only wants themselves to be happy. It is precisely "what it's aimed at" that matters.

[fede2]

@Wittgenquine that doesn't refute PE. PE is not a normative metaethical system. it's *psychological*. it is purely descriptive. even if you want others to be happy, you have personal reasons for this.

So PE is preactically useless. however, there's plenty to be said about what particular reasons an indiviual has to be altruistic. you'll discover that plenty of nuances arise.

[Wittgenquine]

@fede2 That's right, PE is not a normative theory. But I'm not making a normative claim either. I am saying, descriptively, there is a difference between wanting your comfort and wanting someone else's comfort. One want is self-directed (i.e. selfish) and the other is other-directed (i.e. selfless). Now while if I fulfill either want I will be fulfilling one of my wants, PE is confused to think that merely acting from your own wants is selfish. Rather is has to do with what you want.

[rumbal]

If i question what i have always believed without the action of will, then there is unselfishness. Then there is no motivation that will neccesary be born out of your peronal and imperfect tendencies. That can only be experimented by denying your traditional way of thought, the way you have always thought ,and discover, ,without you wanting it or without you elaborating it, (which would be more personal interest or desire) what´'s left once you have denied it : Good Life.

[rumbal]

another example is me teaching the one who thinks unselfishness doesn´t exist and showing them it does exist. What kind of reward can i get by teaching you what a good and honest life means? I mean, i have wasted some time and you probably won´t even respond or probably never even think about these words... These "Friends" fragment is not Philosophy its just Sofism by Joey.

[rumbal]

It would only be selfish if you are the only one feeling good. If you feel good and your neighbour also, you are thinking about both and not only about yourself,. Ego means yourself and only yourself. If you help, BOTH are feeling good, hence there is no egoistic action. In addition, there are ceratin actions that make you suffer but help the rest, like picking up a piece of garbage on the street without reciving a reward, or learning how to dance for your chick when you don´t like to dance

[gjoycar77]

Using it in my Psych class today, thanks!

[sueshishi]

look at chandler starting at 1:19 lolll so funny

[lifeandphilosophy]

Interesting, but they are attacking a straw view of altruism.

[DaveDoggOwns]

This is true. Human action is purposeful and the one thing everyone tries to obtain FOR NO OTHER REASON but to obtain it is happiness.

[PrintsOfPeace]

how shallow. The Creator provides us with dreams and visions (see Numbers 12:6). We can learn to use them for our benefit, and to help others often at no cost to them (and sometimes not even to ourselves, except the time it takes.) Dreams caution against taking actions that cause loss of life or harm. It is necessary to profit from our creations and regular labors, but doing good as an act of charity or caring should not have any expectation of payment or it becomes a business transaction.

[tinurieaa]

lo egoísta tiene que ver con la intención, no con la acción!!

[ineedaname777777]

"you evil genius"

[ineedaname777777]

Ethic's class at Indian Hills. Someone asks you for help, you will lose a little but you can afford it. ................LUKE 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. (Faith in action!)

[geek2the2ndpower]

Jumping onto a grenade is still not completely selfless. If nobody jumps on the grenade, everyone is dead anyways. Whether you end up saving them or not, you know you tried to save the lives of your comrades. That sure would give me some satisfaction. Especially in a situation in which there is none to be had otherwise.

[Wittgenquine]

@geek2the2ndpower What about pushing someone else onto the grenade? Or maybe instead of jumping on it, you are in a room alone with the grenade and you have the option of throwing it into another room full of people.

And, no, it wouldn't give you satisfaction. You'd be dead. That's the problem for the psychological egoist. There is no payoff for someone who sacrifices his life, since he won't be alive afterwards.

[geek2the2ndpower]

@Wittgenquine

Well, those aren't the hypothetical situations we're talking about. We're asking whether or not anything is truly selfless, even a self sacrifice. Those new ones that you mention are obviously self centered actions.

Back to the original jumping on the grenade...  Even if everyone died regardless of your sacrifice, I would say one feels better knowing he tried to do something rather than nothing. This can be felt beforehand, because egoism is about what your intentions are.

[biznor3]

Joey uses better reasoning here than he does in any other episode of "friends", but he's still wrong. People have sacrificed their lives for the sake of others. Since they're dead, they don't stand to feel good about themselves afterwards.

[rudigha]

@biznor3

People sacrificing themselves can be explained by the sense of duty they feel; it's almost instinctive, and it feels "right" (and hence, good) to fulfill your duty. Avoiding shame (whether the shame is justified or not) may be a significant motive as well.

And a particular instance in which I would sacrifice myself for another person would be if I'd rather die than live without that person.

[biznor3]

@rudigha Of course there are *some* benefits to dying for a righteous cause, but they are minimal compared to the benefits of living. A soldier who dives on a grenade to save his comrades may feel a few seconds of overwhelming pride but how does this compare to a joyful, post-war reunion with his family?

I'm only trying to say that there exist some circumstances in which a person's actions are selfless. I agree, however, that these actions are explainable by a sense of duty.

[Twiggy269]

Kant claimed to be a moral act, one MUST perform selfless acts. Even the act of gaining pleasure from an action makes it outside the possibility of being a Morally "Good" thing.

Duty is the fundamental drive of (morally good/virtuous) action, not pleasure, or happiness.

Joey and Kant would have some fun debating this topic.

I'll bet Joey would whoop his ass, even being the numbskull his character is in this Show.

[bealove002]

Is this the episode, where they tell her Santa dosen't exist and she gets the shook of her life?

[logician360]

I think Joey's kind of right and wrong. Everyone is selfish in the sense that we all act on our own desires. However, I think that some desires can be unselfish, as their fulfillment doesn't make us feel good.

Suppose I'm a mad scientist and give you 2 choices; either I will torture someone you love, and make you believe that I didn't, or make you think that I tortured someone you love but don't. If you were selfish, you'd pick the first choice, but if you were unselfish you'd pick the second.

[logician360]

Because you suffer from the belief that someone you love is being tortured. Clearly, if all you cared about was your own happiness or peace of mind, you would choose the first option, where you believe that they aren't being tortured. I would pick the second choice, even though the first choice will afford me greater personal happiness and peace of mind. This shows that people don't always act so as to maximise their own personal happiness.

[logician360]

No, but you know that you will.

[logician360]

"So the situation assumes that the chooser will know the future (100% Certain)?"

To the extent that you can know the future at all.

"... the chooser may still act on their self interest based on that emotion."

Even if knowing that my loved one will survive will make me happy for a few seconds while the mad scientist erases my memory, it will still be outweighed by the pain I feel when believing that they're being tortured. Option one is still the more self serving choice.

[Wittgenquine]

@logician360 Exactly right. Nice example.

[dhale750]

the distinction between what motivates us in our actions and what happens as a result of our actions doesn't defeat psychological egoism - an egoist can still explain how we were motivated in our seemingly altruistic actions by selfish (that is, directly self beneficial) reasons.

[HisW1tness]

This is the scene that stands out in my mind when I think of "Friends", which is probably why I'm not as harsh on the show as a lot of people.

Also, "Wittgenquine" is the best youtube handle EVER.

[Wittgenquine]

@HisW1tness Thanks. I was inspired by the fairly widely known fictional philosopher Kripstein (the name for Kripe's misinterpretation of Wittgenstein; a view not held by Kripke or Wittgenstein, but Kripstein).

[fede2]

yeah, joey is 100% spot on. altruism is philosophically bankrupt.

[natedaug1]

@fede2 Joey is right, but it does not mean the other extreme exists where people are completely selfish. We are sort of a mixture of selfish and unselfish tendencies.

[fede2]

@natedaug1 actually, selfishness is unavoidable in the sense that all action is self-motivated. that is what physchological egoism is, and there's nothing wrong with it. even actions that seek the benefit of others are ultimately selfish because you have personal reasons to see this happen.

[natedaug1]

@fede2 Yeah, I just don't think actions are either 100 percent selfish or 100 percent unselfish. There is a balance between the two extremes that we fall into. It is not necessarily a 50/50 proposition but neither absolute exists.

[fede2]

@natedaug1 depends on what you mean by "unselfish". actions can be aimed at the benefit of others but even so, you cannot separate yourself from this senario. and even if you hypothetically could, i don't think it would be a good thing.

[natedaug1]

@fede2 Do you understand what I am trying to say? I am saying both concepts of selfish/unselfish can exist within in a single action, because absolutes do not exist. If all actions are completely selfish then unselfishness doesn't exist. But I do think unselfishness exists, just not absolute unselfishness. I think a more likely explanation of behavior is that actions are a combination of factors including selfish and unselfish motives all existing at the same time.

[fede2]

@natedaug1 i understand what you are saying but i don' think you understand me. jy conention is that in the litteral sense "unselfishness" doesn't exist. i already explained why. if you dissagree i'm going to need a counter-argument from you and:

"because absolutes do not exist"

is not an argument. it's a statement or a slogan. you are going to have to explain your assumptions.

[natedaug1]

@fede2 "Absolutes do not exist," is more of an observation I have made. Whether someone is talking about psychological egoism or psychological altruism it, is a metaphysical statement. There is no way to "prove" either one empirically because frankly neuroscience has not mapped out all of consciousness, even if that is possible. I am making a metaphysical statement. Also psychological egoism is circular, because the premises have the conclusion in it. "People want satisfaction of their

[natedaug1]

@natedaug1 desires." "Why do people want to satisfy desires?" "Because they desire satisfaction." This could go on ad infinitum.

[fede2]

@natedaug1 i don't think it goes ad infinitum at all. the ultimate answer is analogous to the pleasure/pain mechanism. ultimately people want their personal good. i don't think further justification is required here.

what you need to understand about PE is thet it is in now way normative. it is 100% *descriptive*. it intends to *exlpain* human action, including altruistic action. in that case, PE would indicate that such actions necesarily come from personal reasons no matter what they may be.

[natedaug1]

@fede2 Alright I must admit my interest in philosophy is not psychological egoism. I am more interested in existentialism and phenomenology, and Isiah Berlin. I guess I don't really see the big revelation in psychological egoism, Ayn Rand and her followers and other libertarians have been talking about the "virtues of selfishness" for awhile. I guess your just describing it, but it doesn't really seem that earth shattering.

[Wittgenquine]

@fede2 It does go on ad infinitum. People can't just want "their personal good". What do you buy for someone who only wants "their personal good"? A new car? Well, they don't want that, they only want their personal good. A lifetime supply of pizza? Well, they don't want that either, they only want their personal good.

The problem is that to give content to the idea of "my personal good" I have to want things *other* than my personal good. Which is one of (the many) reasons PE is false.

[Wittgenquine]

@natedaug1 I don't understand the claim that absolutes don't exist. It even seems a bit self-contradictory. But here are a couple absolutes off the top of my head: (1)red is a color, (2)all water is H20; (3)all triangles have only three sides; (4)numbers don't have location; (5)if determinism is true, no event is uncaused; (6)if determinism is false, at least one event is uncaused; (7)3 is greater than 2; (8)everything that exists in space also exists in time; (9)if it's actual, its possible...

[Brulluhhman]

@fede2 Then selfishness would also be bankrupt. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness. Although I believe there can be a natural multiple interest when it comes to altruism. Win/win.

[ngbdkhg]

LOL,i regarded Friends a one of the dumbest shows on TV, but i stand corrected.And i never thought i would say this, but i agree with Joey.

[samdathi]

Even though I'm a bit snotty with my intellectualism, I've always had a secret fetish for Friends. It is genuinely very funny, at least the earlier series.

And I always had a special fondess of this clver scene which is a very clear nod to philopshical egoism. I also like Phoebe's Cartesian reference at the end.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"Joey is committing the classic fallacy of the psychological egotist: he's equating self-motivation (an internal desire to do something) with selfishness (acting soley in the interests of oneself)."

But if you do something that is self-motivated YOU ARE acting in the intersts of your self. If you weren't you couldn't be self motivated to do it. Both imply the other.

[We4get1918]

its an egoist. an egotist is something completely different. And you are committing a fallacy yourself.

[DaveDoggOwns]

Why don't you give it a name.

[DaveDoggOwns]

All actions of rational beings are inherently selfish, regardless of whether they benefiting only themselves or helping someone else.

[Wittgenquine]

@DaveDoggOwns Usually someone who is arguing for psychological egoism doesn't even notice the distinction, but you are right that after one notices it a psychological egoist could argue that one implies the other. However, this won't succeed. One way of seeing the difference is in the example Logician360 posted in these comments about the mad scientist.

[Myndir]

Joey is committing the classic fallacy of the psychological egotist: he's equating self-motivation (an internal desire to do something) with selfishness (acting soley in the interests of oneself). It's a tautology to say that every action of the self is self-motivated, but that doesn't equivocate to saying that every action of the self is selfish.

Wow, Joey is a much deeper character than I'd thought!

[Wittgenquine]

@Myndir Well said.

[HIXAA]

nice vid dear

[setheurovision94]

What is it with the look on Chandler's face?

[geek2the2ndpower]

nice

[Chrisnoscrub047]

Sick.  Perfect example.