Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[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.