If I identify as separate from the universe... THEN, and only then, I can be selfish, and act against the inevitable progression of the universes evolution with respect to time.
If we are, as all evidence would suggest, a part of the universe, supernatural/non-physical phenomena doesn't exists. Our choices are thus predetermined bio-chemical/physical reactions aimed at the homeostasis of the blob of energy we've come to consider our 'self. '
@curthor when a someone asks you for help, the kind of help that won't help you, that's when we act selflessly for the sake of "the good" which is our Lord and savior Jesus Christ
The sense in which Jesus is supposed to be a "savior" is saving you from punishment for all of your selfish acts, not saving you from performing them. Jesus didn't bring down selfless acts from the heavens like Prometheus brought down fire. The point of Jesus-as-savior is that while humans will continue to act selfishly and selflessly, that Jesus is saving humanity from damniation for their selfish acts.
Setting aside Jesus, and focusing on "the Lord" part. Your view that when "we act selflessly" we do so for the sake of the Lord is as implausible as psychological egoism (PE). PE claims we only act for the sake of ourselves, you claim that we only act for the sake of ourselves or the Lord. Both views are very reductive about our psychology. We certainly seem to be able to act for many things. I can act for my own welfare, for my religious beliefs, for a friend's welfare, for adventure, etc.
You also seem to be relying on is "God is good". That's a claim that even people who deny God's existence probably admit would be true of him if he exists. But that claim is ambigious between 2 other claims: (1) "X is good b/c God approves"; (2) "God approves of X b/c it is good." If (1) is true, then God is good in the sense he makes things good by approving them. If (2) is true, then God is good in that he never does bad and only apporves of things that are good.
Assuming "God is good" is true, the problem of determining whether "God is good" is true in sense (1) or sense (2) is called the "euthyphro dilemma".
Nearly all philosohers think sense (2) is the correct answer to the euthyphro dilemma. Otherwise what God approves of and thereby makes good is strangely arbitrary and, furthermore, it means it was at least possible that good/bad could have been the other way around had God (arbitrary) decided differently.
However, if "God is good" is true in sense (2), then it is certainly true that I can act selflessly because God approves of selfless actions. It is also true I can also act selfishly for the same reason God approves of selfless actions--namely, that selfless actions are good.
Which means, given the most likely answer to the euthyphro dilemma, even if we act selflessly for the sake of "the Good" that isn't the same thing as acting selflessly because God approves of selfless acts.
However, I suspect you didn't actually mean your comment descriptively (e.g. "There is a chair in the room" which can be a true or false description) but expressively (e.g. "USA! USA!" which isn't true or false but a chant expressing one's approval of the USA). I suspect you were simply expressing how your motivation for selflessness comes from your motivation to act in a way God approves of. And--as an expression of your personal motivations--is not subject to the problems I've noted.
And I can bet that every single one of those people derived some good feeling from doing what they did, or some improved social status, or were more liked by their friends, or some other benefit. And this is not meant as derogatory in any way--you don't get any "brownie points" for not deriving any pleasure out of your good deeds (though for some strange reason people insist that just doing a good deed isn't good enough--you should also be as miserable as possible while doing it).
@TheMathGuy You've never done something contrary to your best interest for someone else' benefit. People are illogical more often than they are logical, that is where John Nash's game theory breaks down.
@curthor You can't prove I've never done somethiing contrary to my best interest. That's why PE is more of an ideology, than a testable falsifiable theory. Second, even if we are illogical, why cant we be illogical in an altruistic rather than a selfish way? Finally, it's very strange to say that the atheist solder who sacrifices himself for his peers is acting in his interests since he is killing himself. You could list some weak possible selfish m, but listing is not proving.
@socrates123456789101 With your 2nd point, is premised on PE being false: "even if we are illogical, why cant we be illogical in an altruistic rather than a selfish way?" Sure, but Psychological Egoism (PE) is the claim that we cannot be altruistic--even mistakenly or illogically. PE claims we can only ever do things we think of as selfish. Ethical Egoism / Rational Egoism is the very different view that while we can try to be altruistic, it is illogical/irrational to perform altruisitic acts.
@socrates123456789101 "You can't prove I've never done somethiing contrary to my best interest... PE [isn't] a testable falsifiable theory." I mostly agree with you. But: (1) being untestable is probably enough by itself to show that a theory is wrong. Although, this is a complicated matter; (2) more importantly, the reason ppl. are inclined to adopt PE is easily revealed as a mistake. In that way, PE can be undermined as a theory. I'll explain in my next reply... [pt 1/2]
Continued [pt 2/2]: The primary reason ppl are inclined to adopt PE is their confusing 2 things: (a) performing an act for a goal one has, & (b) having as one's goal what would most benefit oneself. Now, (a) is always true, but can be altruistic or selfish depending on the nature of the goal one has. While (b) is always selfish, but only true sometimes. Ppl mix up (a) & (b) and end up thinking: (c) it is always true that we have as our goal what would most benefit ourself This is PE.
Continued [pt 3/2]: Okay, 1 more thing. The other reason ppl usually adopt PE is that they confuse PE with "ethical/rational egoism"; i.e. the view that we can act altruistically, but that it is irrational to do so. Whether this view is right (and there are good reasons to think it isn't), it is very different from PE. PE isn't claiming that it is rational to be egoistic and irrational to be altrustic, PE is claiming that being egoist is inevitable. That it is unavoidable and arational.
@socrates123456789101 Your 3rd point: "it's very strange to say that the atheist solder who sacrifices himself for his peers is acting in his interests... You could list some weak possible selfish [motives]" I agree. PE gives an implausible account of cases like these. We might even say PE predicts they don't happen--and yet they do. So perhaps PE is testable? In fact, less dramatically, PE seems to fail a test whenever someone acts against or w/o concern for their interests (e.g. this video).
@curthor Your 1st & 2nd sentences contradict each other. If you cannot intend to act contrary to your best interests, then it isn't a matter of rational or irrational. It would simply be an arational, natural fact about us (e.g. like that we "obey" gravity). For something to not to be arational, then both rationality & irrationality need to be possible (e.g. like whether or not we obey logic). If X is rational, then not-X (or some Y that entails not-X) that is irrational is possible.
Anyway, so which of the following do you mean to be agreeing with:
(1) It is not rational or irrational to act contrary to your best interests, it is impossible. It is like "obeying" a physical law, an arational fact about us.
(2) It is possible to act contrary to your best interests, but it is irrational. It is not like "obeying" a physical law, but like obeying a logical law; e.g. modus pones.
(3) It is possible to act contrary to your best interests, but very rare.
(1) is psychological egoism an is what these two videos are about; (2) is called ethical/rational egoism and is a view unrelated to these videos; (3) is a view I don't think has a name, but is what I think you're claiming.
(1) is a widely rejected philosophical view; (2) is a philosophical view on much better footing, but that there is still good reason to reject; (3) doesn't seem like a philosophical view but of empirical psychology, which is outside my area. Maybe (3) is true.
@Wittgenquine psychological egoism is a staple of psychological thought. I can't think of any psychologists who disband this premise, except in instances where a person has an extended self identity(whether or not it is logical to have such is another story), then still their actions are 'self interest'. Interestingly, I think people with a universal sense of self outnumber the individualistic sense of self... just look at the percentage of the population that is religious.
It depends on how one defines their 'self' people with an extended sense of self (say a family unit) may act contrary to their 'self' interest... yet not... if you see what I'm saying.
@TheMathGuy But that's exactly it. Being selfless is feeling good from helping others. If I only feel good when I am playing a game, or buying a game for myself, when feel comfortable, or when I'm buying something to make myself more comfortable,etc. then I'm selfish. I don't want/don't take pleasure in helping others.
As far as "social status" or :being liked by their friends", the point of the video was to show cases of people helping others when none of those things are present.
except every single person got some sort of psychological pleasure out of their act. They felt better (i.e. got more pleasure) in committing those seemingly "unselfish" acts than they would have if they had not (or at least perceived it as such at the time the the chemical imbalances in their brain caused them to commit such acts), which is why they acted thusly, further demonstrating psychological hedonism.
You are confusing the consequent of our actions with the motive of our actions. We may 'feel good' as a consequence of our successful actions of helping others, but this does not mean that this was our motive all along. Psychological hedonism claims that pleasure is the motive of all our actions, but just showing that pleasure results from our action does not mean that this was our motive.
@johnnydrydenjr Exactly right! And you've introduced a new, related view into our discussion here: psychological hedonism (PH). This view is a narrower form of psychological egoism (PE). PE says we only act selfishly, but what is selfish depends on what counts as "is in our own interests" / "improving our own welfare". And welfare might be pleasure, fulfilled desires, etc. PE does not specify 1 view of welfare. Whereas PH does specify pleasure/pain as the only components of welfare. Thanks!
Reply cont. - Although, I should point out that 1 could view PH to be more than just a specific type of PE (i.e. PE + a hedonistic view of welfare). PH could have both a PE and a non-PE version. The non-PE version of PH would be that we can only act to increase pleasure and decrease pain, but that it doesn't have to be our own pleasure/pain. This is a very odd view that I doubt anyone has ever held. Although, one could misread Bentham&Mill and come to think they held a non-PE version of PH.
@We4get1918 If I am he, and you are he, and we are all together.... then helping him is helping me is helping you is helping one-another.... Are you separate from the universe, or one with it?
If I identify as separate from the universe... THEN, and only then, I can be selfish, and act against the inevitable progression of the universes evolution with respect to time.
If we are, as all evidence would suggest, a part of the universe, supernatural/non-physical phenomena doesn't exists. Our choices are thus predetermined bio-chemical/physical reactions aimed at the homeostasis of the blob of energy we've come to consider our 'self. '
curthor 2 months ago
It all comes down to intention. If your intention is to serve someone else's need, with disregard(or even despite) for your own, isn't that selfless.
The feedback can be positive or negative, the intention is what drives the act.
Taken the reverse extreme: isn't there a link between the lack of a social conscious and sociopathy.
The prisoners dilimna
curthor 1 year ago
@curthor when a someone asks you for help, the kind of help that won't help you, that's when we act selflessly for the sake of "the good" which is our Lord and savior Jesus Christ
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@ineedaname777777: Selfless acts are only 2000 or so years old?
The sense in which Jesus is supposed to be a "savior" is saving you from punishment for all of your selfish acts, not saving you from performing them. Jesus didn't bring down selfless acts from the heavens like Prometheus brought down fire. The point of Jesus-as-savior is that while humans will continue to act selfishly and selflessly, that Jesus is saving humanity from damniation for their selfish acts.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
Setting aside Jesus, and focusing on "the Lord" part. Your view that when "we act selflessly" we do so for the sake of the Lord is as implausible as psychological egoism (PE). PE claims we only act for the sake of ourselves, you claim that we only act for the sake of ourselves or the Lord. Both views are very reductive about our psychology. We certainly seem to be able to act for many things. I can act for my own welfare, for my religious beliefs, for a friend's welfare, for adventure, etc.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
You also seem to be relying on is "God is good". That's a claim that even people who deny God's existence probably admit would be true of him if he exists. But that claim is ambigious between 2 other claims: (1) "X is good b/c God approves"; (2) "God approves of X b/c it is good." If (1) is true, then God is good in the sense he makes things good by approving them. If (2) is true, then God is good in that he never does bad and only apporves of things that are good.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
Assuming "God is good" is true, the problem of determining whether "God is good" is true in sense (1) or sense (2) is called the "euthyphro dilemma".
Nearly all philosohers think sense (2) is the correct answer to the euthyphro dilemma. Otherwise what God approves of and thereby makes good is strangely arbitrary and, furthermore, it means it was at least possible that good/bad could have been the other way around had God (arbitrary) decided differently.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
However, if "God is good" is true in sense (2), then it is certainly true that I can act selflessly because God approves of selfless actions. It is also true I can also act selfishly for the same reason God approves of selfless actions--namely, that selfless actions are good.
Which means, given the most likely answer to the euthyphro dilemma, even if we act selflessly for the sake of "the Good" that isn't the same thing as acting selflessly because God approves of selfless acts.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
However, I suspect you didn't actually mean your comment descriptively (e.g. "There is a chair in the room" which can be a true or false description) but expressively (e.g. "USA! USA!" which isn't true or false but a chant expressing one's approval of the USA). I suspect you were simply expressing how your motivation for selflessness comes from your motivation to act in a way God approves of. And--as an expression of your personal motivations--is not subject to the problems I've noted.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
And I can bet that every single one of those people derived some good feeling from doing what they did, or some improved social status, or were more liked by their friends, or some other benefit. And this is not meant as derogatory in any way--you don't get any "brownie points" for not deriving any pleasure out of your good deeds (though for some strange reason people insist that just doing a good deed isn't good enough--you should also be as miserable as possible while doing it).
TheMathGuy 2 years ago 4
@TheMathGuy You've never done something contrary to your best interest for someone else' benefit. People are illogical more often than they are logical, that is where John Nash's game theory breaks down.
curthor 1 year ago
@curthor You can't prove I've never done somethiing contrary to my best interest. That's why PE is more of an ideology, than a testable falsifiable theory. Second, even if we are illogical, why cant we be illogical in an altruistic rather than a selfish way? Finally, it's very strange to say that the atheist solder who sacrifices himself for his peers is acting in his interests since he is killing himself. You could list some weak possible selfish m, but listing is not proving.
socrates123456789101 5 months ago
@socrates123456789101 With your 2nd point, is premised on PE being false: "even if we are illogical, why cant we be illogical in an altruistic rather than a selfish way?" Sure, but Psychological Egoism (PE) is the claim that we cannot be altruistic--even mistakenly or illogically. PE claims we can only ever do things we think of as selfish. Ethical Egoism / Rational Egoism is the very different view that while we can try to be altruistic, it is illogical/irrational to perform altruisitic acts.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
@socrates123456789101 "You can't prove I've never done somethiing contrary to my best interest... PE [isn't] a testable falsifiable theory." I mostly agree with you. But: (1) being untestable is probably enough by itself to show that a theory is wrong. Although, this is a complicated matter; (2) more importantly, the reason ppl. are inclined to adopt PE is easily revealed as a mistake. In that way, PE can be undermined as a theory. I'll explain in my next reply... [pt 1/2]
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
Continued [pt 2/2]: The primary reason ppl are inclined to adopt PE is their confusing 2 things: (a) performing an act for a goal one has, & (b) having as one's goal what would most benefit oneself. Now, (a) is always true, but can be altruistic or selfish depending on the nature of the goal one has. While (b) is always selfish, but only true sometimes. Ppl mix up (a) & (b) and end up thinking: (c) it is always true that we have as our goal what would most benefit ourself This is PE.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
Continued [pt 3/2]: Okay, 1 more thing. The other reason ppl usually adopt PE is that they confuse PE with "ethical/rational egoism"; i.e. the view that we can act altruistically, but that it is irrational to do so. Whether this view is right (and there are good reasons to think it isn't), it is very different from PE. PE isn't claiming that it is rational to be egoistic and irrational to be altrustic, PE is claiming that being egoist is inevitable. That it is unavoidable and arational.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
@socrates123456789101 Your 3rd point: "it's very strange to say that the atheist solder who sacrifices himself for his peers is acting in his interests... You could list some weak possible selfish [motives]" I agree. PE gives an implausible account of cases like these. We might even say PE predicts they don't happen--and yet they do. So perhaps PE is testable? In fact, less dramatically, PE seems to fail a test whenever someone acts against or w/o concern for their interests (e.g. this video).
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
@curthor Your 1st & 2nd sentences contradict each other. If you cannot intend to act contrary to your best interests, then it isn't a matter of rational or irrational. It would simply be an arational, natural fact about us (e.g. like that we "obey" gravity). For something to not to be arational, then both rationality & irrationality need to be possible (e.g. like whether or not we obey logic). If X is rational, then not-X (or some Y that entails not-X) that is irrational is possible.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
Anyway, so which of the following do you mean to be agreeing with:
(1) It is not rational or irrational to act contrary to your best interests, it is impossible. It is like "obeying" a physical law, an arational fact about us.
(2) It is possible to act contrary to your best interests, but it is irrational. It is not like "obeying" a physical law, but like obeying a logical law; e.g. modus pones.
(3) It is possible to act contrary to your best interests, but very rare.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
(1) is psychological egoism an is what these two videos are about; (2) is called ethical/rational egoism and is a view unrelated to these videos; (3) is a view I don't think has a name, but is what I think you're claiming.
(1) is a widely rejected philosophical view; (2) is a philosophical view on much better footing, but that there is still good reason to reject; (3) doesn't seem like a philosophical view but of empirical psychology, which is outside my area. Maybe (3) is true.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
@Wittgenquine psychological egoism is a staple of psychological thought. I can't think of any psychologists who disband this premise, except in instances where a person has an extended self identity(whether or not it is logical to have such is another story), then still their actions are 'self interest'. Interestingly, I think people with a universal sense of self outnumber the individualistic sense of self... just look at the percentage of the population that is religious.
curthor 2 months ago
@Wittgenquine
It depends on how one defines their 'self' people with an extended sense of self (say a family unit) may act contrary to their 'self' interest... yet not... if you see what I'm saying.
curthor 2 months ago
@Wittgenquine
My first and second sentences sum up your "part 2"... though I did have a typo, after benefit there should be a question mark.
curthor 2 months ago
@TheMathGuy But that's exactly it. Being selfless is feeling good from helping others. If I only feel good when I am playing a game, or buying a game for myself, when feel comfortable, or when I'm buying something to make myself more comfortable,etc. then I'm selfish. I don't want/don't take pleasure in helping others.
As far as "social status" or :being liked by their friends", the point of the video was to show cases of people helping others when none of those things are present.
Wittgenquine 10 months ago
except every single person got some sort of psychological pleasure out of their act. They felt better (i.e. got more pleasure) in committing those seemingly "unselfish" acts than they would have if they had not (or at least perceived it as such at the time the the chemical imbalances in their brain caused them to commit such acts), which is why they acted thusly, further demonstrating psychological hedonism.
We4get1918 2 years ago
You are confusing the consequent of our actions with the motive of our actions. We may 'feel good' as a consequence of our successful actions of helping others, but this does not mean that this was our motive all along. Psychological hedonism claims that pleasure is the motive of all our actions, but just showing that pleasure results from our action does not mean that this was our motive.
johnnydrydenjr 9 months ago
@johnnydrydenjr Exactly right! And you've introduced a new, related view into our discussion here: psychological hedonism (PH). This view is a narrower form of psychological egoism (PE). PE says we only act selfishly, but what is selfish depends on what counts as "is in our own interests" / "improving our own welfare". And welfare might be pleasure, fulfilled desires, etc. PE does not specify 1 view of welfare. Whereas PH does specify pleasure/pain as the only components of welfare. Thanks!
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
Reply cont. - Although, I should point out that 1 could view PH to be more than just a specific type of PE (i.e. PE + a hedonistic view of welfare). PH could have both a PE and a non-PE version. The non-PE version of PH would be that we can only act to increase pleasure and decrease pain, but that it doesn't have to be our own pleasure/pain. This is a very odd view that I doubt anyone has ever held. Although, one could misread Bentham&Mill and come to think they held a non-PE version of PH.
Wittgenquine 2 months ago
@We4get1918 If I am he, and you are he, and we are all together.... then helping him is helping me is helping you is helping one-another.... Are you separate from the universe, or one with it?
curthor 2 months ago