Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[Jimmy Afternoon]

Any thoughts?

[SNOWBALL]

YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.

[Jimmy Afternoon]

what if he's diving in front of the bus for religious reasons? What about acts of love?

[Phil153]

I think you'd have to argue "someone else's child" for that one to stick among the skeptics here.

And even then the Sklansky-like cynics would continue to assume the premise that he got some utility from it. The foundation of a rational mind, according to them, is maximizing utility Which means that rational, non crazy people can't be selfless, because how can you be selfless if you're maximizing your own utility? It's a stupid discussion.

[kerowo]

Depends on how big of a nit you are. If the act has to be for someone else and the person doing it has to not only not get anything material from the act but must in fact feel crappy about it, not just ambivalent, but crappy, then probably not.

A better question is how good does someone have to feel before letting them do something for you becomes creepy.

[Phil153]

Here's a better question: Define "selfless".

[Jimmy Afternoon]

Well ,that's what I'm asking. If it is not possible to make a rational decision without utility, then that's really disturbing. But I want to figure it out, regardless. Would a selfless act of love then be called an act of utility because it makes you feel good? What if it doesn't make you feel good? What if you're in love with someone who doesn't love you back and totally takes advantage of you for their own good, but you continue to do anything for that person? Where's the utility in that? Or would that make you insane?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[Phil153]

I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Main point: This topic sucks. We are trying to show that best != best.

Side point: But WHY do you DO it, then?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
But WHY do you DO it, then

[/ QUOTE ]
This comes down to the very nature of consciousness, and is ultimately an unanswerable question. It's certainly not as simple as some think.

People on this board (Sklansky included) try to shoehorn emotion based decisions into rational cost-benefit analysis, invoking some faith-based evolutionary reason (with zero evidence) when they hit a brick wall. It's as bad as creationism.

edit: I probably misunderstood your question. If you mean "why debate it", because some people (such as Sklansky) DON'T see it as a stupid question, and believe their rational analysis is all there is to it.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child?

[/ QUOTE ]
The dad would rather see himself die then the child. Depending on the definition of selfless it may or may not be.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.



[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes well happiness is secondary or tertiary or whatever. The primary thing is passing on genes, not living a rewarding life. Think for a minute or two about how dangerous and painful childbirth is, then multiply that by ten or whatever because for most of human history, women kept having kids regardless of the fact that:

1. Kids suck, A LOT
and
2. You might die in childbirth.

The only reason menopause exists is because nature doesn't like to lay too big of odds, i.e. a woman getting pregnant at 50 could die and then be unable to rear the rest of her idiot kids, so after having a certain number of kids, nature says "ok, that's enough, we're not gonna lay those kind of odds"

Living a rewarding life often contradicts your reproductive imperative. Most of humanity have lived terrible existences, and many today continue to live terrible existences. (Just a quick example: imagine a world without any kind of anaesthetic). However, their negative life EV doesn't lead them to committ suicide, and I doubt it's because of religious reasons. I think it's because of our survival instincts and our reproductive imperative.

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[Jimmy Afternoon]

My whole question is this: If there is no such thing as a selfless act, and every rational act we make must have some utility, then are we all just Machiavellian when it comes to friends and loved ones? that is, do we do things for people only to benefit ourselves or to make a deposit that we plan on withdrawing later with interest? Does a rational person live by making a cost=benefit analysis of how greedy, selfish, and manipulative he can be without losing friends and the optimal selfish effeciency? And if that's the case, then isn't what we call sociopathic behavior optimal? Thanks for any insight.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

The dad would rather see himself die then the child. Depending on the definition of selfless it may or may not be.


[/ QUOTE ]

ok change dying to "paralyzed for life and living in crippling pain" and then offer him the alternative of taking a blue pill, forgetting about his kid, and the kid dying. There will be a surprising amount of bus divers. This has nothing to do with utility, because THERE IS NO UNITARY SELF. The human body/brain is like a computer with a lot of malware on it fighting itself, and we all have a permanent frontrow seat to the show.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.blingdomofgod.com/entryimages/southpark_805_bling2.jpg

"Yeah, life is pain, life if only pain. We're all taught to believe in happy fairy tale endings . . . But there is only blackness . . . Dark, depressing loneliness that eats at your soul."

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

"Yeah, life is pain, life if only pain. We're all taught to believe in happy fairy tale endings . . . But there is only blackness . . . Dark, depressing loneliness that eats at your soul."


[/ QUOTE ]

In case it wasn't obvious, I was mainly talking about people that live on less than a dollar a day.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Yeah, life is pain, life if only pain. We're all taught to believe in happy fairy tale endings . . . But there is only blackness . . . Dark, depressing loneliness that eats at your soul."


[/ QUOTE ]

In case it wasn't obvious, I was mainly talking about people that live on less than a dollar a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know, I just got this flash of South Park when I was reading what you were saying.

Life in the Third World is incredibly hard, but seeing a smile on one of those kids' faces is one of the most amazing things in the world. It reminds me that just because life can be unbearable at times doesn't mean that it's not a life unworth living.

[bunny]

I think there are. Phil153's examples are good, also things you do out of duty, even if they are a pain. Sure you can (and it seems the majority here do) say "Aha, but you only follow your sense of duty because it makes you feel good." but I dont see the point of adopting that view. The fact is there are things we do because we want to and things we do because we are obligated to, concatenating them all into the category "things we do" and claiming there is no meaningful distinction just seems to lose information as far as I'm concerned.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. I DO most of those things. In fact I do one of those things quite a bit. So where exactly do you think we disagree? Maybe it is that don't fool myself into thinking that the reason I do those things is anything other than the fact that for one reason or another, I am getting some sort of satisfaction, that more than makes up for the discomfort.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. I DO most of those things. In fact I do one of those things quite a bit. So where exactly do you think we disagree? Maybe it is that don't fool myself into thinking that the reason I do those things is anything other than the fact that for one reason or another, I am getting some sort of satisfaction, that more than makes up for the discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so simple and obviously correct that its bizarre it keeps coming up.

I wonder if people confuse 'acts are not purely selfless' with 'acts are purely selfish'.

chez

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. I DO most of those things. In fact I do one of those things quite a bit. So where exactly do you think we disagree? Maybe it is that don't fool myself into thinking that the reason I do those things is anything other than the fact that for one reason or another, I am getting some sort of satisfaction, that more than makes up for the discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so simple and obviously correct that its bizarre it keeps coming up.

I wonder if people confuse 'acts are not purely selfless' with 'acts are purely selfish'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. I DO most of those things. In fact I do one of those things quite a bit. So where exactly do you think we disagree? Maybe it is that don't fool myself into thinking that the reason I do those things is anything other than the fact that for one reason or another, I am getting some sort of satisfaction, that more than makes up for the discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so simple and obviously correct that its bizarre it keeps coming up.

I wonder if people confuse 'acts are not purely selfless' with 'acts are purely selfish'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does come down to semantics as long as we get past the mystical idea that we chose to do things we don't want to.

Then it seems straightforward to understand the selflessness componant of any act as being the part that is due to our concern for others. I've seen others say that everything is selfish but they extend the concept of self to include other people - seems a bit wierd to me but amounts to the same thing.

chez

[Taraz]

I think a lot of the problem is that you guys are defining "selfish" to include things that you do for other people. While it's strictly true that it makes you happier, it sounds funny when altruistic actions are labeled selfish.

Basically, it's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. If you want to call someone selfish for donating half their earnings to charity, be my guest.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the problem is that you guys are defining "selfish" to include things that you do for other people. While it's strictly true that it makes you happier, it sounds funny when altruistic actions are labeled selfish.

Basically, it's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. If you want to call someone selfish for donating half their earnings to charity, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a dumb argument? Realizing that self-interest governs all human decisions and actions really helps you understand the world. And yes, the person who donates half their earnings to charity is being selfish. Do you think they'd do that if it didn't bring them pleasure and make them feel good about themselves? More to the point, do you think they'd do it if there was something they wanted to spend their money on that would bring them more pleasure than donating it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.



[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes well happiness is secondary or tertiary or whatever. The primary thing is passing on genes, not living a rewarding life. Think for a minute or two about how dangerous and painful childbirth is, then multiply that by ten or whatever because for most of human history, women kept having kids regardless of the fact that:

1. Kids suck, A LOT
and
2. You might die in childbirth.

The only reason menopause exists is because nature doesn't like to lay too big of odds, i.e. a woman getting pregnant at 50 could die and then be unable to rear the rest of her idiot kids, so after having a certain number of kids, nature says "ok, that's enough, we're not gonna lay those kind of odds"

Living a rewarding life often contradicts your reproductive imperative. Most of humanity have lived terrible existences, and many today continue to live terrible existences. (Just a quick example: imagine a world without any kind of anaesthetic). However, their negative life EV doesn't lead them to committ suicide, and I doubt it's because of religious reasons. I think it's because of our survival instincts and our reproductive imperative.

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, childbirth sucks, and all that, and yet we keep having kids. Why? Because sex is AWESOME. And leads to happiness. At least for men. Children lead to happiness for women. Excuse the broad strokes. You've sort of made my point for me.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.



[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes well happiness is secondary or tertiary or whatever. The primary thing is passing on genes, not living a rewarding life. Think for a minute or two about how dangerous and painful childbirth is, then multiply that by ten or whatever because for most of human history, women kept having kids regardless of the fact that:

1. Kids suck, A LOT
and
2. You might die in childbirth.

The only reason menopause exists is because nature doesn't like to lay too big of odds, i.e. a woman getting pregnant at 50 could die and then be unable to rear the rest of her idiot kids, so after having a certain number of kids, nature says "ok, that's enough, we're not gonna lay those kind of odds"

Living a rewarding life often contradicts your reproductive imperative. Most of humanity have lived terrible existences, and many today continue to live terrible existences. (Just a quick example: imagine a world without any kind of anaesthetic). However, their negative life EV doesn't lead them to committ suicide, and I doubt it's because of religious reasons. I think it's because of our survival instincts and our reproductive imperative.

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, childbirth sucks, and all that, and yet we keep having kids. Why? Because sex is AWESOME. And leads to happiness. At least for men. Children lead to happiness for women. Excuse the broad strokes. You've sort of made my point for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact that people have historically had children to help plow the fields.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.



[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes well happiness is secondary or tertiary or whatever. The primary thing is passing on genes, not living a rewarding life. Think for a minute or two about how dangerous and painful childbirth is, then multiply that by ten or whatever because for most of human history, women kept having kids regardless of the fact that:

1. Kids suck, A LOT
and
2. You might die in childbirth.

The only reason menopause exists is because nature doesn't like to lay too big of odds, i.e. a woman getting pregnant at 50 could die and then be unable to rear the rest of her idiot kids, so after having a certain number of kids, nature says "ok, that's enough, we're not gonna lay those kind of odds"

Living a rewarding life often contradicts your reproductive imperative. Most of humanity have lived terrible existences, and many today continue to live terrible existences. (Just a quick example: imagine a world without any kind of anaesthetic). However, their negative life EV doesn't lead them to committ suicide, and I doubt it's because of religious reasons. I think it's because of our survival instincts and our reproductive imperative.

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, childbirth sucks, and all that, and yet we keep having kids. Why? Because sex is AWESOME. And leads to happiness. At least for men. Children lead to happiness for women. Excuse the broad strokes. You've sort of made my point for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact that people have historically had children to help plow the fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it doesn't usually take too long for species to figure out, based on their environment, whether having as many low-quality kids as possible is preferable over having a smaller number of kids whom you can invest more in. This 'having kids to plow the fields' thing is probably just a good example of a situation where quantity was more important than quality. My guess is they still had kids because sex feels good and they didn't have any condoms.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Selfish genes create sometimes-altruistic people, who sometimes commit altruistic selfless acts. This is very standard evolutionary theory.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Why is it a dumb argument? Realizing that self-interest governs all human decisions and actions really helps you understand the world. And yes, the person who donates half their earnings to charity is being selfish. Do you think they'd do that if it didn't bring them pleasure and make them feel good about themselves? More to the point, do you think they'd do it if there was something they wanted to spend their money on that would bring them more pleasure than donating it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a dumb argument because it basically eliminates the usefulness of the words selfless and selfish. It's vacuously true that we do everything to "please ourselves" in some sense, but that doesn't really give you much explanatory power.

When I say someone is selfless I don't mean that he's a masochist. I mean that he would prefer to sacrifice something he has for the wellbeing of others. Yes he does this because it makes him feel better than being a selfish ass, but it's often implied that selfless acts therefore aren't praiseworthy. I dunno, it just seems like this argument is also often used as justification for those who don't like helping others.

There are much more interesting questions. Why do people get so much satisfaction out of helping other people? Is it an effective strategy to be "selfless"? Would society function better if people cared more about the wellbeing of others?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Selfish genes create sometimes-altruistic people, who sometimes commit altruistic selfless acts. This is very standard evolutionary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he had worded his sentence as "Is there such a thing as a truly selfless act" as opposed to "Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act" would your answer have been the same?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why is it a dumb argument? Realizing that self-interest governs all human decisions and actions really helps you understand the world. And yes, the person who donates half their earnings to charity is being selfish. Do you think they'd do that if it didn't bring them pleasure and make them feel good about themselves? More to the point, do you think they'd do it if there was something they wanted to spend their money on that would bring them more pleasure than donating it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a dumb argument because it basically eliminates the usefulness of the words selfless and selfish. It's vacuously true that we do everything to "please ourselves" in some sense, but that doesn't really give you much explanatory power.

When I say someone is selfless I don't mean that he's a masochist. I mean that he would prefer to sacrifice something he has for the wellbeing of others. Yes he does this because it makes him feel better than being a selfish ass, but it's often implied that selfless acts therefore aren't praiseworthy. I dunno, it just seems like this argument is also often used as justification for those who don't like helping others.

There are much more interesting questions. Why do people get so much satisfaction out of helping other people? Is it an effective strategy to be "selfless"? Would society function better if people cared more about the wellbeing of others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Those are the questions I'm interested in, and even more importantly, "What then are the implications to these answers for policy, society and personal interactions?"

[Jimmy Afternoon]

[ QUOTE ]
My whole question is this: If there is no such thing as a selfless act, and every rational act we make must have some utility, then are we all just Machiavellian when it comes to friends and loved ones? that is, do we do things for people only to benefit ourselves or to make a deposit that we plan on withdrawing later with interest? Does a rational person live by making a cost=benefit analysis of how greedy, selfish, and manipulative he can be without losing friends and the optimal selfish effeciency? And if that's the case, then isn't what we call sociopathic behavior optimal? Thanks for any insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Butcho22]

I think they answered this in an episode of 'Friends', but I don't remember the answer.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the problem is that you guys are defining "selfish" to include things that you do for other people. While it's strictly true that it makes you happier, it sounds funny when altruistic actions are labeled selfish.

Basically, it's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. If you want to call someone selfish for donating half their earnings to charity, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what we're saying. Giving money to charity usually has a high level of non-selfishness because its something we do because we are concerned about others. However its not purely selfless because we give the money to satisfy our own concern.

It seems like you're equating 'not purely selfless' with 'purely selfish'.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the problem is that you guys are defining "selfish" to include things that you do for other people. While it's strictly true that it makes you happier, it sounds funny when altruistic actions are labeled selfish.

Basically, it's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. If you want to call someone selfish for donating half their earnings to charity, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what we're saying. Giving money to charity usually has a high level of non-selfishness because its something we do because we are concerned about others. However its not purely selfless because we give the money to satisfy our own concern.

It seems like you're equating 'not purely selfless' with 'purely selfish'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

See the next post I wrote after the one you quoted. I think it clears up what I was trying to say.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My whole question is this: If there is no such thing as a selfless act, and every rational act we make must have some utility, then are we all just Machiavellian when it comes to friends and loved ones? that is, do we do things for people only to benefit ourselves or to make a deposit that we plan on withdrawing later with interest? Does a rational person live by making a cost=benefit analysis of how greedy, selfish, and manipulative he can be without losing friends and the optimal selfish effeciency? And if that's the case, then isn't what we call sociopathic behavior optimal? Thanks for any insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this view discounts the possibility that we might just plain enjoy seeing other people happy. That could be the end in and of itself. You're not necessarily looking for reciprocation in terms of goods and services. Maybe being surrounded by people who are happy makes you happy. That's all.

When my friends are having a good time, it makes me feel good. It makes me feel better when I know that I'm the reason they are having a good time. I don't give them a present because I'm hoping they give me one back. I give them a present because I like seeing them smile.

[vbnautilus]

I think the real issue at the root of this question is how you define the "self".

Richard Dawkins has written a great book called The Selfish Gene, in which he presents the
perspective that genes are out for themselves rather than individuals. For example if you
look at seemingly altruistic acts in nature they are more likely to be done for the benefit of those
who are closely related to us genetically. You can see this as the genes' way of making sure that
copies of themselves are doing well.

If you ultimately expand your notion of "self" to recognize that we are all interconnected and independent and that the welfare of each individual impacts the welfare of all the others, then there is no difference between benefiting yourself and benefitting others.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a terrible refutation. His whole argument basically comes down to the fact that no one trusts or understands the hypothetical. "People want to actually DO things, not just have the experience of doing them" is a silly objection, since the experiment stipulates you cannot tell the difference. Basically, its a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how this machine could be that convincing, so we think there is some actual difference between experiencing things and having things actually happen.

Underwhelming.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a terrible refutation. His whole argument basically comes down to the fact that no one trusts or understands the hypothetical. "People want to actually DO things, not just have the experience of doing them" is a silly objection, since the experiment stipulates you cannot tell the difference. Basically, its a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how this machine could be that convincing, so we think there is some actual difference between experiencing things and having things actually happen.

Underwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another thought: His argument is basically dualist handwaving.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that no act can be selfless? I would think that any act not performed from the motivation to further one's own self-interest would qualify as a selfless, or unselfish, act. If that is the case, then even if it were true that "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from," that would not mean that the act cannot be selfless.

What would make the claim that we are always motivated by our own rational self-interest false on your view?

I don't see this as a semantical issue.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a dumb argument because it basically eliminates the usefulness of the words selfless and selfish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why eliminating the usefulness of an already unuseful word is dumb.

[ QUOTE ]
It's vacuously true that we do everything to "please ourselves" in some sense, but that doesn't really give you much explanatory power.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's this "vacuously true" business? It's true or it isn't. And there isn't an insignificant difference between recognizing a fundamental self-interest in peoples' actions and thinking that there's self-interest and then this other thing called "selflessness."

[ QUOTE ]
When I say someone is selfless I don't mean that he's a masochist. I mean that he would prefer to sacrifice something he has for the wellbeing of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it makes him feel good.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes he does this because it makes him feel better than being a selfish ass, but it's often implied that selfless acts therefore aren't praiseworthy. I dunno, it just seems like this argument is also often used as justification for those who don't like helping others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that. Donating money is praiseworthy. But what's praiseworthy is being the kind of person who gets more pleasure out of helping people than, say, buying Ferraris, rather than the act of donating the money itself.

[ QUOTE ]
There are much more interesting questions. Why do people get so much satisfaction out of helping other people? Is it an effective strategy to be "selfless"? Would society function better if people cared more about the wellbeing of others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, those are better questions. They deserve their own thread, like this question of "is there truly such a thing as a selfless act."

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a terrible refutation. His whole argument basically comes down to the fact that no one trusts or understands the hypothetical. "People want to actually DO things, not just have the experience of doing them" is a silly objection, since the experiment stipulates you cannot tell the difference. Basically, its a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how this machine could be that convincing, so we think there is some actual difference between experiencing things and having things actually happen.

Underwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily convinced by the argument, but I don't quite get your reaction. There is a difference between actually doing things, and simply having the experience as of having done them. If some people see value in actually doing things, and actually doing them does not result in more pleasure, why wouldn't this support the claim that it's not just pleasure that we seek or value?

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that no act can be selfless? I would think that any act not performed from the motivation to further one's own self-interest would qualify as a selfless, or unselfish, act. If that is the case, then even if it were true that "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from," that would not mean that the act cannot be selfless.

What would make the claim that we are always motivated by our own rational self-interest false on your view?

I don't see this as a semantical issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing would make it false in my view. And I think it is semantics inasmuch as it depends on one's definition of "self-interest, which your post makes clear.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a terrible refutation. His whole argument basically comes down to the fact that no one trusts or understands the hypothetical. "People want to actually DO things, not just have the experience of doing them" is a silly objection, since the experiment stipulates you cannot tell the difference. Basically, its a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how this machine could be that convincing, so we think there is some actual difference between experiencing things and having things actually happen.

Underwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily convinced by the argument, but I don't quite get your reaction. There is a difference between actually doing things, and simply having the experience as of having done them. If some people see value in actually doing things, and actually doing them does not result in more pleasure, why wouldn't this support the claim that it's not just pleasure that we seek or value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so what his argument is saying is, you have two options to choose from:

1) You get to experience X
2) You get to experience X plus some additional, nebulous Y that represents 'something actually happening' or at least 'the idea in your mind that something is actually happening.'

And then he is surprised that people pick 2)? His argument is sort of begging its own question, i.e. that this Y is somehow not a part of the X. But our whole point is that it IS a part of the X. His machine doesn't allow us some key part of happiness, while still claiming it gives us all the happiness we could want. If it was a perfect hedonism machine, it would give us the satisfaction of having actually accomplished something in the real world.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the problem is that you guys are defining "selfish" to include things that you do for other people. While it's strictly true that it makes you happier, it sounds funny when altruistic actions are labeled selfish.

Basically, it's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. If you want to call someone selfish for donating half their earnings to charity, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what we're saying. Giving money to charity usually has a high level of non-selfishness because its something we do because we are concerned about others. However its not purely selfless because we give the money to satisfy our own concern.

It seems like you're equating 'not purely selfless' with 'purely selfish'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

See the next post I wrote after the one you quoted. I think it clears up what I was trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a dumb argument because it basically eliminates the usefulness of the words selfless and selfish. It's vacuously true that we do everything to "please ourselves" in some sense, but that doesn't really give you much explanatory power.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be dumb but its not correct. Very selfish people don't give a rat's arse about others. That's what we mean when we call someone selfish. More selfless people are more concerned about others. The explanatory power of this approach seems perfect (which is very rare so we should cherish it).

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, it just seems like this argument is also often used as justification for those who don't like helping others.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dead on which is why it helps to clarify what's going on. They try to weasel between an argument that's basically correct and a misunderstanding of it. They don't help others because they are selfish but they want the benefits that other less selfish people get (or actually aren't so selfish and are trying to rationalise their 'greedy' actions) so they incorrectly argue that everyones purely selfish.

[ QUOTE ]
There are much more interesting questions. Why do people get so much satisfaction out of helping other people? Is it an effective strategy to be "selfless"? Would society function better if people cared more about the wellbeing of others?

[/ QUOTE ]
because we are moral and we're moral because its an evolved trait to implement co-operation (which is a very effective stratagy).

It's tough to know what's best for society but I'd conjecture that a degree of morality is essential and a wide variance on the degree of morality is optimal.

chez

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a terrible refutation. His whole argument basically comes down to the fact that no one trusts or understands the hypothetical. "People want to actually DO things, not just have the experience of doing them" is a silly objection, since the experiment stipulates you cannot tell the difference. Basically, its a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how this machine could be that convincing, so we think there is some actual difference between experiencing things and having things actually happen.

Underwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily convinced by the argument, but I don't quite get your reaction. There is a difference between actually doing things, and simply having the experience as of having done them. If some people see value in actually doing things, and actually doing them does not result in more pleasure, why wouldn't this support the claim that it's not just pleasure that we seek or value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the problem I see with this thought experiment (which, btw, is more commonly known as The Matrix) is that it's easily refuted by saying that we get more pleasure out of knowing our experiences are real than the hypothetical pleasure we might get being plugged into a machine. It's still pleasure, just a different kind--call it a "meta-pleasure."

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact that people have historically had children to help plow the fields.



[/ QUOTE ]

ummm no
the post agricultural revolution is a small fraction of human history

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that no act can be selfless? I would think that any act not performed from the motivation to further one's own self-interest would qualify as a selfless, or unselfish, act. If that is the case, then even if it were true that "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from," that would not mean that the act cannot be selfless.

What would make the claim that we are always motivated by our own rational self-interest false on your view?

I don't see this as a semantical issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing would make it false in my view. And I think it is semantics inasmuch as it depends on one's definition of "self-interest, which your post makes clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to see what value an empirical claim has if nothing can make it false. Why should I take an empirical claim about what motivates human behavior seriously if nothing can show it to be false?

Everything is a matter of semantics in the sense you have defined. That doesn't mean there is no substantive disagreement. I may define the word "tail" to mean the same thing as the word "leg," but that does not mean that dogs have five legs. Humans are either always motivated to act from considerations of rational self-interest, or they are not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a terrible refutation. His whole argument basically comes down to the fact that no one trusts or understands the hypothetical. "People want to actually DO things, not just have the experience of doing them" is a silly objection, since the experiment stipulates you cannot tell the difference. Basically, its a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how this machine could be that convincing, so we think there is some actual difference between experiencing things and having things actually happen.

Underwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily convinced by the argument, but I don't quite get your reaction. There is a difference between actually doing things, and simply having the experience as of having done them. If some people see value in actually doing things, and actually doing them does not result in more pleasure, why wouldn't this support the claim that it's not just pleasure that we seek or value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the problem I see with this thought experiment (which, btw, is more commonly known as The Matrix) is that it's easily refuted by saying that we get more pleasure out of knowing our experiences are real than the hypothetical pleasure we might get being plugged into a machine. It's still pleasure, just a different kind--call it a "meta-pleasure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, thats a succinct way of saying what I was trying to get at.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that no act can be selfless? I would think that any act not performed from the motivation to further one's own self-interest would qualify as a selfless, or unselfish, act. If that is the case, then even if it were true that "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from," that would not mean that the act cannot be selfless.

What would make the claim that we are always motivated by our own rational self-interest false on your view?

I don't see this as a semantical issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing would make it false in my view. And I think it is semantics inasmuch as it depends on one's definition of "self-interest, which your post makes clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to see what value an empirical claim has if nothing can make it false. Why should I take an empirical claim about what motivates human behavior seriously if nothing can show it to be false?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, okay, the obvious answer is that I would concede my position's falsehood if you could show me one example of someone ever doing something expressly counter to their own self-interest. But then, aren't we back to a definitional disagreement?

Also, getting back to this...

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that any act not performed from the motivation to further one's own self-interest would qualify as a selfless, or unselfish, act. If that is the case, then even if it were true that "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from," that would not mean that the act cannot be selfless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the pleasure/satisfaction/utility is the motivation for taking an action, then the action is inherently non-selfless, at least as dictionary defined:

self·less
adj. Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself; unselfish

I don't see how you can have it both ways here.


[ QUOTE ]
ummm no
the post agricultural revolution is a small fraction of human history

[/ QUOTE ]

Conceded.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


Ok, so what his argument is saying is, you have two options to choose from:

1) You get to experience X
2) You get to experience X plus some additional, nebulous Y that represents 'something actually happening' or at least 'the idea in your mind that something is actually happening.'

And then he is surprised that people pick 2)? His argument is sort of begging its own question, i.e. that this Y is somehow not a part of the X. But our whole point is that it IS a part of the X. His machine doesn't allow us some key part of happiness, while still claiming it gives us all the happiness we could want. If it was a perfect hedonism machine, it would give us the satisfaction of having actually accomplished something in the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two choices are:
(1) Having the experience of actually doing Y
versus
(2) Having the experience as of doing Y, but not actually doing Y.

In both cases you have the idea in your mind that you're actually doing Y, but you're mistaken about this in option (2).

We get from both (1) and (2) the belief that we have actually done Y, and whatever feeling of accomplishment goes with it.

By supposition, you will never know the difference, and your qualitative experiences will be identical in each case, including how much pleasure you gain.

The experiment takes place outside the machine, so to speak. Nozick argues that some people would value option (1) over option (2), despite the fact that the pleasure produced from each option (and from the belief that you have really done Y) is the same.

Here is another question. Would you have a preference between the following two options:

(1) Your life goes on from here normally, with all your friends and family being exactly who you think they are, or
(2) Unbeknownst to you, all your friends and family members are replaced by exact duplicates, and your life goes on from here as if they were all still your real friends and family, and your qualitative/phenomenological experiences are identical in each case.

Do you have any preference for (1) or (2)?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]
We did this on SMP ages ago (though didn't know Nozick had done it as well). I like the simple 'many wouldn't volunteer for a lobotomy even if they knew that afterwoods they would be very happy'

but that's not a refutation of no selfless acts. It is (possibly imperfect) refutation of certain forms of utilitarianism (any forms that rely on happiness being a single orderable quantity).

chez

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

Actually, the problem I see with this thought experiment (which, btw, is more commonly known as The Matrix) is that it's easily refuted by saying that we get more pleasure out of knowing our experiences are real than the hypothetical pleasure we might get being plugged into a machine. It's still pleasure, just a different kind--call it a "meta-pleasure."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting objection. I don't think that Nozick's argument is easily refuted by it.

What is the justification for thinking that there will be a difference in the pleasure that we experience between the two options?

Why do you think that what we value about actually doing things versus just having the experience as of doing things should be characterized as a pleasure? Since we have the belief in each case that we have actually done the things that we think we have done, why wouldn't that be enough to account for whatever pleasure we gain from the experience (including thinking that the experience is veridical), so that what is left over is not a pleasure, but simply the fact that we attach value to having actually done things versus not having done them--beyond any pleasure that we gain from the experience?

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]
We did this on SMP ages ago (though didn't know Nozick had done it as well). I like the simple 'many wouldn't volunteer for a lobotomy even if they knew that afterwoods they would be very happy'

but that's not a refutation of no selfless acts. It is (possibly imperfect) refutation of certain forms of utilitarianism (any forms that rely on happiness being a single orderable quantity).

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I was taking happiness to be by supposition what is in our rational self-interest. It can be other things, like pleasure, desire-satisfaction, etc.

So, whatever one takes to be the currency of rational self-interest (pleasure, happiness, desire-satisfaction, etc), the point would be that just because one gains in that currency from an act does not mean that the motivation for performing the act was to gain in that currency.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]
We did this on SMP ages ago (though didn't know Nozick had done it as well). I like the simple 'many wouldn't volunteer for a lobotomy even if they knew that afterwoods they would be very happy'

but that's not a refutation of no selfless acts. It is (possibly imperfect) refutation of certain forms of utilitarianism (any forms that rely on happiness being a single orderable quantity).

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I was taking happiness to be by supposition what is in our rational self-interest. It can be other things, like pleasure, desire-satisfaction, etc.

So, whatever one takes to be the currency of rational self-interest (pleasure, happiness, desire-satisfaction, etc), the point would be that just because one gains in that currency from an act does not mean that the motivation for performing the act was to gain in that currency.

[/ QUOTE ]
as long as it's not a single orderable currency then it doesn't matter, however the motivation for all acts comes from our self although it may be about others.

chez

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that no act can be selfless? I would think that any act not performed from the motivation to further one's own self-interest would qualify as a selfless, or unselfish, act. If that is the case, then even if it were true that "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from," that would not mean that the act cannot be selfless.

What would make the claim that we are always motivated by our own rational self-interest false on your view?

I don't see this as a semantical issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing would make it false in my view. And I think it is semantics inasmuch as it depends on one's definition of "self-interest, which your post makes clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to see what value an empirical claim has if nothing can make it false. Why should I take an empirical claim about what motivates human behavior seriously if nothing can show it to be false?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, okay, the obvious answer is that I would concede my position's falsehood if you could show me one example of someone ever doing something expressly counter to their own self-interest. But then, aren't we back to a definitional disagreement?

Also, getting back to this...

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that any act not performed from the motivation to further one's own self-interest would qualify as a selfless, or unselfish, act. If that is the case, then even if it were true that "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from," that would not mean that the act cannot be selfless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the pleasure/satisfaction/utility is the motivation for taking an action, then the action is inherently non-selfless...



[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And what I'm saying is that showing that one gains pleasure/satisfaction/utility from an act does not show that the motivation for the act is to gain pleasure/satisfaction/utility.

The psychological egoist must show not only that all acts result in a gain in pleasure/satisfaction/utility (a claim which I think is false, anyway), but then must also show that the motivation for every act is to gain in pleasure/satisfaction/utility. These are two distinct steps in the argument, each of which requires justification. So what do you think the justification is for step 2?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The psychological egoist must show not only that all acts result in a gain in pleasure/satisfaction/utility (a claim which I think is false, anyway), but then must also show that the motivation for every act is to gain in pleasure/satisfaction/utility.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you're using some precise definition of psychological egoism but with regards to the op:

Firstly there's no reason why you have to actualy gain from the act, even if perfectly rational its only an expected gain given the current information.

The second point is correct as long as there's no ordering so its not a simple maximisation function. The Nozick/labotomy examples only work when the maximisation function exists.

chez

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Selfish genes create sometimes-altruistic people, who sometimes commit altruistic selfless acts. This is very standard evolutionary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he had worded his sentence as "Is there such a thing as a truly selfless act" as opposed to "Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act" would your answer have been the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"><u>Yes! Selfish genes create sometimes-altruistic people, who sometimes commit altruistic selfless acts! This is very standard evolutionary theory!</u> </font>

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's a dumb argument because it basically eliminates the usefulness of the words selfless and selfish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why eliminating the usefulness of an already unuseful word is dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it isn't a useless word. It means something when you say that someone is selfless. People use the word all the time.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's vacuously true that we do everything to "please ourselves" in some sense, but that doesn't really give you much explanatory power.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's this "vacuously true" business? It's true or it isn't. And there isn't an insignificant difference between recognizing a fundamental self-interest in peoples' actions and thinking that there's self-interest and then this other thing called "selflessness."

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean that it doesn't get you anywhere. It doesn't really explain anything. So instead of people being selfless, they just enjoy helping other people more than accumulating personal wealth/prestige/etc. I don't understand how that explains anything.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say someone is selfless I don't mean that he's a masochist. I mean that he would prefer to sacrifice something he has for the wellbeing of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it makes him feel good.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so this leads to what conclusion? Isn't that the definition of preference? It's something you choose because you like it better than the alternative. I just don't understand why it's an interesting question at all.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Selfish genes create sometimes-altruistic people, who sometimes commit altruistic selfless acts. This is very standard evolutionary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he had worded his sentence as "Is there such a thing as a truly selfless act" as opposed to "Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act" would your answer have been the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"><u>Yes! Selfish genes create sometimes-altruistic people, who sometimes commit altruistic selfless acts! This is very standard evolutionary theory!</u> </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. And what I'm saying is that showing that one gains pleasure/satisfaction/utility from an act does not show that the motivation for the act is to gain pleasure/satisfaction/utility.

The psychological egoist must show not only that all acts result in a gain in pleasure/satisfaction/utility (a claim which I think is false, anyway), but then must also show that the motivation for every act is to gain in pleasure/satisfaction/utility. These are two distinct steps in the argument, each of which requires justification. So what do you think the justification is for step 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

As Chezlaw said, I don't see why step one is necessary for the purpose of this argument--I might take an action because of the expectation of pleasure only to be disappointed, and this happens all the time. I don't know how I can show that step two is true. It seems like you either believe it be so or you don't. I certainly don't think you can disprove it--Nozick's thought experiment is pretty weak, IMO.



[ QUOTE ]
And so this leads to what conclusion? Isn't that the definition of preference? It's something you choose because you like it better than the alternative. I just don't understand why it's an interesting question at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, duly noted. I get what you're saying, but I personally think it's an interesting question.