#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
Heh.. Did you really like that book? I thought it was so ridiculously preachy... he just uses ishmael to push all of his political views
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
[ QUOTE ]
so ridiculously peachy [/ QUOTE ] AMIRITE? "Subscribe to mah ideas! OMG LOL" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
Yes there are completely selfless acts, but they're rare. An example I can think of is a parent sacrificing their own life to save the life of their child.
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
[ QUOTE ]
Heh.. Did you really like that book? I thought it was so ridiculously preachy... he just uses ishmael to push all of his political views [/ QUOTE ] "Call me Ishmael" is the first line of Moby Dick. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes there are completely selfless acts, but they're rare. An example I can think of is a parent sacrificing their own life to save the life of their child. [/ QUOTE ] lol |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes there are completely selfless acts, but they're rare. An example I can think of is a parent sacrificing their own life to save the life of their child. [/ QUOTE ] You might want to check out The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
What about dying for a principle, or an idea? Martyrdom's a little abstract to be all that selfish, no?
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
Do something nice for someone that you dislike and don't let them or anyone ever know it? You won't be happy or feel good that you did it and you gain nothing.
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
WTF, Stuey, sign onto AIM!
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there really such thing as a \"self-less\" act?
It depends on what you mean by "self-less", of course.
On your definition, maybe not. It is one of the great answered questions of sociobiology. On a useful definition, yes. Example: although it is not true (as your example shows), neoclassical economists have often assumed for simplicity/approximation in models that human beings do not care about the welfare of other human beings i.e. they don't get a beneficially feeling from helping others, nor do they get an intrinsic benefit or get harmed from harming others. Another way of saying this is that something is self-interested if it only cares about itself. It is useful to distinguish between selfishness and altruism in the sense that makes somebody donating a kidney is quite altrusitic, because he is helping others, and somebody who walks past the drowning child is selfish, because he is not helping others even when it would only take a minute to save the child's life. To give both of these acts the same status and label decreases our understanding of, and ability to discuss, the world. Distinctions exist because they are useful. |
|
|