Philosophy Topic: Psychological Egoism (2)

The eBay commercial "Belief" in which people are shown acting selflessly.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Philosophy
• Egoism
• Psychology
• Ethics

[TheMathGuy]

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).

[Wittgenquine]

@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.

[curthor]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[Wittgenquine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.