Fallacy of the Selfless Act

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Listen to Heff, he knows what he's talking about. It is irrelevant whether or not these acts you speak of are selfish or not. What is relevant is their positive affect on society.

edit on 20-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

I fully agree.

But, I was never disputing that.

Wow, cant believe this thread. I do selfless things everyday. I just signed on to patroll my community, I help old ladies when they cant reach stuff on the top shelf, I pick up things if a lady drops it, I save frogs and insects from certain death, I help wherever I can.

'do gooders'? Since when is doing good bad. Quite frankly OP, I think youre full of #. Helping people/animals is just being a good human being. One that is not hell bent on looking after his own ass, but one that knows that any any kind act, no matter how small, is adding to the good of this world.

And I'm proud of that.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by defuntion


All right, I think we are on the same page here. I've thought about real selfless acts before - like being a slave, for example, and I think they can be quite real, but are definitely not healthy.

It would be wise to remember that... I believe a moral society is one where you get returns on your investments.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by darkbake

 

So yes, selfish. But it is working together on a team to be more selfish together. And that deserves a label of its own, right?

edit on 20-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your posts and insight.

I am not so sure it gets its own label. At least not for the sake of my argument..
But, I do agree with your ultimate conclusion. Selfish.

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
'do gooders'? Since when is doing good bad. Quite frankly OP, I think youre full of #. Helping people/animals is just being a good human being. One that is not hell bent on looking after his own ass, but one that knows that any any kind act, no matter how small, is adding to the good of this world.

And I'm proud of that.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Hi Monkeygod.
Thanks for your reply.
I never said doing good was a bad thing. And, me, full of #? Maybe...

Helping people/animals makes me feel good. How about you? Do you feel it is a pain in the butt, or does it feel good on some level?
You selfish devil...

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by defuntion

 

I believe a moral society is one where you get returns on your investments.

edit on 20-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

We are definitely on the same page darkbake.

Regards.

reply to post by defuntion


Then prove to me how selfless acts are about indoctineration.

reply to post by Rubicant13


Thank you. That was what I was going to say.

I don't believe in karma. I don't expect anything to come back to me. If I give a hungry person a dollar, I don't expect karma to pay me back, I don't revel in that it feels good, I don't expect anything back from it. I want that person to eat, and it benefits society as a whole.
I will give gifts without any consideration of that person owing me anything, and I don't expect anything in return.
There are different levels of kindness.

reply to post by defuntion


Well, obviously I cannot state categorically that no thoughts of personal glory passed through the mind of those undertaking such actions but I know where my money would be. I could suggest that the selfish nature of man is due to undetectable Nth dimension ninja pixies stealthily injecting us with a 'selfish serum' while we sleep. Prove I'm wrong. I don't think the burden of proof rests with me here.

I suggested in my first post:

Because ultimately the argument has no other legs on which to stand the justification for every act eventually dribbles down to the ineffectual suggestion of all acts of an altruistic nature must then be motivated through a subconscious desire to serve the self.

and here we are. How can anyone argue against "Ahh, but at some level, one you don't realise, lies self-serving motivation." 'Well I can't see it.' "Yea, 's very deep. Hidden."

Even when people state from direct experience that, for example, the choice of having a pet put down for it's own benefit was a painful choice and one they would rather not have had to make (a friend of mind still, years later, berates himself for waiting too long and letting his pet suffer more than was necessary because he was just too attached) that accusation - the only one left is dragged out. Empirical understanding, observation gained through consideration after direct experience of the individual concerned vs. a hypothesis where the defence is that it is essentially invisible. It may well be a question that we are unable to 'prove' either way presently but we can try our best to understand and search for the answer and with that in mind, as I said in my first post, retreating back to the stale, unassailable argument that all acts of an altruistic nature are motivated through a subconscious desire to serve the self seems to me a weak get out adopted when it's realised there's no other escape route, which is usually pretty quickly.

reply to post by defuntion


The soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friends. He sure as hell didn't do it cuz it makes him feel good.

So.... giving your life to save another wouldn't be considered a selfless act?

Seems to me that it would be....

This is a very pessimistic thread.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by defuntion

 

Then prove to me how selfless acts are about indoctineration.

Hi Nixie_nox. Thanks for the reply.

Well, I don't believe that there are truly selfless acts, but in the examples I gave (the groups I mentioned in the OP) the acts that these groups want you and me to perceive as "selfless" serve as indoctrination tools.
Why? Because they feed on an individual's selfish desire in one way or another in order to gain members.

Example: Religion. (Not to pick on religion, it's just a basic example of the logic I am talking about)
You may be told; Do not sin. Don't do bad things like killing people. Or, you will go to hell. Do good things, so you can go to Heaven (reward).
In this basic example, we are being promised the ultimate reward, but to get it, you have to join the group..

Sorry for the overly simplistic example, it isn't meant to offend anyone.

But, do you see what I mean?

reply to post by JAK


Hi Jak.

I am going to look into the ninja fairies. I loved that line btw.

I made the claim, so the burden of proof is on me. Understood, but I do not think that my claim is by any means outlandish...

Would you agree that avoiding a negative (something tragic maybe) is the same as a positive?

Is the absence of bad good? Removing a threat to our happiness is a way of maintaining happiness, so it may be seen as selfish.

Just because we choose not to acknowledge an underlying motive does not make it hidden.
I believe it is in plain sight, but acknowledging it does not serve us, so....

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by defuntion

 

The soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friends. He sure as hell didn't do it cuz it makes him feel good.

Hey, network dude.

I realize that in defending my position, especially against arguments like yours, I am going to sound like a jerk. I assure you I am not. I'm a nice enough guy. I promise.

But, I would argue that the soldier in your example thought that living a life where he did not save his/her freinds when he/she had the chance was something that he/she could not bare. Therefore, selfishly, jumping on the grenade.

I am prepared to be flamed for that.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Hey Blarneystoner.

Thanks for the reply.

I don't mean to be a pessimist. This isn't really about the validation of the act though.
An act of good is good regardless of the motivation.

Originally posted by defuntion
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Hey Blarneystoner.

Thanks for the reply.

I don't mean to be a pessimist. This isn't really about the validation of the act though.
An act of good is good regardless of the motivation.

I guess I misunderstood. I thought that what you were saying was that all acts of kindness have some self serving motivation behind them. But it's my thought that, an act of giving one's life for another couldn't possibly be self serving.

Originally posted by defuntion

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by defuntion

 

The soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friends. He sure as hell didn't do it cuz it makes him feel good.

Hey, network dude.

I realize that in defending my position, especially against arguments like yours, I am going to sound like a jerk. I assure you I am not. I'm a nice enough guy. I promise.

But, I would argue that the soldier in your example thought that living a life where he did not save his/her freinds when he/she had the chance was something that he/she could not bare. Therefore, selfishly, jumping on the grenade.

I am prepared to be flamed for that.

Tell me how much thought you would have at the moment a grenade is thrown into a group of soldiers? I don't think you would have time to finish this sentence. "OH SHI......" let alone contemplate the and's if's or but's of the repercussions of your actions or inaction's. You are either a guy who would rather die to save a life, or you are not. Selfless act defined. (IMHO)

reply to post by JAK


Actually the act of being hero has an evolutionary advantage. While a person maybe sacrificing their own life (those who die) or gain hero status, actually benefits them and their families. It raises them to a position of respect in society, they benefit from it, their families benefit from it. Biologically speaking, they get more resources, they get more and better mates.

Essentially, it is like being promoted by shortcut without having to kill somebody.

So being a hero, has a biological advantage.

reply to post by defuntion


Are you looking at this as more of charity by group? As oppossed to individual?

reply to post by network dude


See my reply to JAK.