kytnism
Bluelight Crew
auto238367 said:
granted.
if those ARE infact your motives, you are right. although to be honest, none of those factors enter my mind when contemplating the situation i highlighted.
...kytnism...
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
there is no such thing as a selfless act
- Thread starter alasdairm
- Start date
granted.
if those ARE infact your motives, you are right. although to be honest, none of those factors enter my mind when contemplating the situation i highlighted.
...kytnism...
^ they may not be doing it consciously. some of these drivers may be subconscious.
alasdair
alasdair
kytnism said:fantastic post, thujone.
i believe obligatory actions are selfless. for example, your mother calls and asks that you give up a saturday night with friends to come visit and help her with something that needs doing around her home. you agree to help, even though you would be missing out on an opportunity you rather wouldnt. the only benefit forseeable is "helping out your mother" per se. you may even be a little pissed that youve had to give up an opportunity that would have been more beneficial to you; but do it regardlessly and with love.
...kytnism...
Both of you (thujone, kyt, others as well but I quoted this for convenience) are approaching the topic and the question too practically. I assume that is why most people also don't agree with the statement to begin with.
See this:
Rated E said:
It's likely that some feeling or urge guided your decision to help your mother instead of going out with friends. If you looked at the situation in terms of overt, conscious pros and cons you might think "if I go out with my friends I will have a lot of fun" and "if I go help my mother I won't have as much fun, but I will be helping my mother."
This isn't all that illuminating. What's more illuminating is the fact that "helping your mother" was important. The urge that made you think that helping your mother was the right thing to do was probably related to evolution - looking after your own family is important - their success contributed to your success, etc.
But you don't even have to resort to evolution to explain the basic idea in the original post. The fact that you acted on an urge you felt, means that the act was selfish, just like all acts.
It doesn't matter how many examples are offered of people crawling through broken glass to save school buses filled with children, the point lied much earlier in the process.
i'ma lose a shoe up yer arse soon, arie. and you know how important shoes are to me so such an act would be quite selfless.
still an unimaginable monstrocity actually.
mothers, man. it's our MOTHERS we're talking about!
what else is there to say?
alasdairm said:
still an unimaginable monstrocity actually.
mothers, man. it's our MOTHERS we're talking about!
what else is there to say?
Last edited:
kytnism
Bluelight Crew
i appreciated that post, and you breaking it down, RatedE, thankyou. :D
i have a question though.
are you saying that ALL acts, whether acknowledged or not are infact selfish?
that without motive or cause, ultimately we are all looking to benefit ourselves?
regardless of personal drive to act in a way that weve seen fit to resolve a situation (regardless of motive) we are deemed "selfish" as a collective; subconciously?
...kytnism...
i have a question though.
are you saying that ALL acts, whether acknowledged or not are infact selfish?
that without motive or cause, ultimately we are all looking to benefit ourselves?
regardless of personal drive to act in a way that weve seen fit to resolve a situation (regardless of motive) we are deemed "selfish" as a collective; subconciously?
...kytnism...
Last edited:
kytnism said:
Yes, that's what I'm saying, I guess.
But I see it as more of a semantic issue, that makes the term "selfless" incorrect. It doesn't mean I believe there is no such thing as a good deed or that nice people are any less nice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When you help somebody out, it can make you feel good and right. I don't see why anyone would argue that this wasn't the case, why would you be so worried about being seen as selfless -> doesn't that itself go against the whole idea of a selfless act?
Even in trancegirlie's post about the guy who beats himself up over being so selfless. The thing is, he still does act in those charitable ways, even if he beats himself up over it after the act. In the moment, he met the urge he had to donate the money to the lady. That doesn't make him a mean or bad person. He sounds like a nice person (maybe too nice...). It seems like we define people as nice when they are outwardly kind. I think we see this outward kindness as potentially beneficial to ourselves and thus, acknowledging niceness of others is a selfish act (oh lord).
Rated E said:
alright, i'm back, no more jokes, i promise.
this is where you are getting it wrong.
no one here is saying that helping others out does not make them feel good afterwards if they think about it. what i disagree with is wehn you're saying that people help other FOR that good feeling. this is rubbish. you cannot comment on the motives of others, and speaking for myself, i do not consider such things. if i want to feel good about myself, i can do it in many other, much easier ways than get out of my way to help someone out.
another error here is your question over why some of us are "so worried about being seen as selfless". well, i don't give a rats arse about how i am seen by anyone, let alone a bunch of internet names. this is about how we ARE, not how we APPEAR.
all my comments are not to impress any of you. hell, i'm disagreeing with the majority. i am simply commenting on what motivates me, and as such your blanket proclamation that every action of every body is selfish in motivation is utterly false.
I'm not really saying that people do it FOR the good feeling. More that they do it BECAUSE of the good feeling.
Or maybe there's no good feeling afterwards. Maybe they did it for a bad feeling or a neutral feeling, it's irrelevant. They did it because they had an instinct, an urge or a decision to act, so the act is not selfless, because it serves them in some way.
Or maybe there's no good feeling afterwards. Maybe they did it for a bad feeling or a neutral feeling, it's irrelevant. They did it because they had an instinct, an urge or a decision to act, so the act is not selfless, because it serves them in some way.
Yes. But like I said, you don't even need to go that far. I'm only using evolutionary explanations because I like them and it fleshes the idea out. But the idea itself is a semantic matter. That being that, when performing any act, it is initiated by some internal process. Otherwise it would not be that person performing the act. So with that in mind, no act is selfless, because the act has been performed to carry out the will of the internal process.
But to address the extra effort of helping the other person. It's not necessary to actually weigh up the extra cost of helping. Evolutionary, helping others can helpful to you, so we (or some of us) have an instinct that helping others is the right way to act in whatever situation it is that brings on that urge.
Maybe you've been taught to help others, in which case helping others is a learnt behaviour (a conditioned response).
But to address the extra effort of helping the other person. It's not necessary to actually weigh up the extra cost of helping. Evolutionary, helping others can helpful to you, so we (or some of us) have an instinct that helping others is the right way to act in whatever situation it is that brings on that urge.
Maybe you've been taught to help others, in which case helping others is a learnt behaviour (a conditioned response).
stop being selective of what traits would evolutionarily suit your needs.
it take more energy to provide that assistance than what is received when dwelling on it later (feeling good about yourself). it doesn't make sense to spend that energy.
but anyway, you allude to a reluctance to acknowledge any semblance of choice. is this what this is all about?
it take more energy to provide that assistance than what is received when dwelling on it later (feeling good about yourself). it doesn't make sense to spend that energy.
but anyway, you allude to a reluctance to acknowledge any semblance of choice. is this what this is all about?
Impacto Profundo said:
I don't recall evolution advantageous behaviours being strictly or even predominately to do with the energy expenditure of the behaviours. I would think that it's the results that the behaviours bring that determine whether it will be evolutionary advantageous or not. Helping others who could be considered allies in some way, or helping others when they don't pose a forseeable threat could very well be more advantageous than not. Of course, time tells whether it eventuates into advantage or not, but the urge itself acts on the principle that it could be or should be.
Impacto Profundo said:
Like I said, this is a matter of semantics. It doesn't matter what choice is made, acting on that choice (whatever it is) is not selfless. You could help someone, it's not a selfless act, you could not help them, it's not a selfless act.
in an animalistic sense, our base instincts are for self preservation and propagation, but as evolved humans, we have the ability to see this and work in contrary to our animalistic natures. we can do things quite harmful, let alone inconvenient to ourselves for a greater moralistic purpose.
we can choose the degree of selfishness/selflessness we apply at any given moment, and acts in both contrasting extremes do exist.
we can choose the degree of selfishness/selflessness we apply at any given moment, and acts in both contrasting extremes do exist.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
human beings have empathy.
this entails that we gain personal satisfaction when we choose to help others.
this entails that all acts are somewhat 'selfish'.
Okay, but so what?
this entails that we gain personal satisfaction when we choose to help others.
this entails that all acts are somewhat 'selfish'.
Okay, but so what?
^ that's the question
alasdair
alasdair