A single minded pursuit of wealth- inshort,[size=150] materialism[/size]- does not fit into this world of limited resources. The love of money is detetsable. Wisdom calls upon us to resist selfishness. If whole societies become infected by these vices like greed and envy they may indeed achieve astonishing things but they will increasingly become incapable of solving problems of everyday existence. People do not realise this because they are dimmed by greed. Prosparity cannot be attained by cultivating such drives as greed and envy, which destroys intelligence, happiness, serenity, and there by the peacefulness of man.
I find your argument limited in that you’ve muddied the waters when making a distinction between rational self-interest and whimsical, irrational “selfish” acts. Action presupposes value. Short term actions such as cheating on a spouse may conflict with long term values such as family, respect of your children and peers. So while the impulsive act of cheating may be “selfish” by your definition - the argument cannot be made that it was in the self-interest of the individual.
The point I believe you’re overlooking (or more probably confusing) is the commonplace misconception that irrational, value conflicting, impulsive behaviour in any way approximates a truly “selfish” action - as more often than not, such actions hurt the actors self-interests in the long term.
I don’t follow your reasoning here. Surely many human beings reasoned that working cooperatively to achieve common “first order needs” such as food, water, shelter, security was superior to working independently - developing “socially” long before all of the immediate biological needs were consistently met. The anthropological record - for what it’s worth - indicates that human beings who worked cooperatively and specialized in functional areas prospered individually as respects first order needs to a much greater extent than nomadic individuals. I propose that the individuals working cooperatively - increasing their standard of living - were acting more in accordance with their self-interest than the nomadic individual who ignores social convention and attempts to take what he wants by force. It is rational and particular “selfish” in the long run for individuals to work together.
I don’t follow your reasoning. You appear to be making a rather tenuous assumption that all individuals share an identical hierarchy of values that would inevitably drive a “free” society to complete anarchy. I disagree. Nothing I’ve read, observed or experienced suggests that individuals share the same values. Loosely speaking, we might share very vague, broad categorical values - but how we go about achieving those values depends on the individual.
I firmly disagree. You’re discussing action without context to value. If some individual values their child - arguably most do, no? - then it makes rational sense to act in accordance with that value (self-interest action based on values) and feed their children.
Again - I’m sorry to reiterate it so many times - but your definition of selfish action is tantamount to a child in a candy store. I believe it’s an easy argument to make that most adults recognize the inherent conflict in values to gorge oneself like a child in a candy store - using impulse and whim as one’s only guide. Rather, such action would inevitably lead to self destruction - hence, it is irrational. Adults value health, longevity, nutrition, etc etc etc – how are any of those values achieved by impulsively acting on a biological desire to gorge on sugary treats? Accordingly, how would such an action be considered “selfish” by any definition?
Again, you’re arguing that individuals can’t value their children, or other people in general such that they would act to pursue and nurture those values by allocating resources to them - whether material or intangible such as time, encouragement, motivation, etc.
Once again - values are not universal - and value drives action. Do you disagree?
Are you proposing that an individual is incapable of valuing another person such that they would take pleasure/comfort/joy in the act of sharing their wealth (in the form of a tasty treat) ?
I disagree. I firmly believe value drives action. Accordingly, an altruistic act, as we so often hear, requires sacrifice. Within the context of this discussion, sacrifice of a value in exchange for a lesser value. A truly altruistic act would require that an individual truly believe that they were acting against their values - sacrificing that which they really want/need to satisfy the needs/wants of another. It is the quintessential religious message.
Nobody is talking about this but you. I tried to tell you that. You’re not arguing with anybody, you’re just ranting in an inappropriate thread.
I) Wholly altruistic acts are possible and found in the life-forms closely related to humans. (source) and it is one among many.
II) In light of evolution, separating humans from other life-forms can be said to be an “anthropocentric” fallacy.
From I and II, I’d disagree with the conclusion in the OP that humans cannot perform wholly altruistic acts.
Amoebas are not closely related to humans, nor are they conscious, so I am not inclined to think “altruism” is an accurate word to describe their behavior.
If the each cell in an organism did not ensure the survival of the cell next to it, the organism would not survive. There exists an unconditional, altruistic cooperation among all the cells. Each cell depends on the survival of the cell next to it for the whole organism to survive.
There lies the real possibility that if I destroy my neighbor, I will destroy myself.
you’re not using the word “altruism” in the same way it was defined in the OP.
The rich man’s distributing charity is selfishness: he will be remembered as a generous man; you will put up a statue of him.
Whatever people do, I am not against it at all. Because you think there is something more interesting than what you are doing, there is restlessness – because you have an ‘ideal way’ of doing things, a ‘perfect way’ of doing things. Why is this going on?
idk bro, lets ask jeeves
I suppose it depends on how you want to define “close” but given that good ol’ dicto is right around where multicellularity pretty much kicked off, I’d say that all multicellular life is pretty dern closely related to 'em. That is important because in studying their social behavior, we can study our own.
What does consciousness have to do with it?
We’re more closely related to Black Widows than amoebas, that doesn’t mean we should use them to examine our social structure. Should all wives suddenly kill their husbands to feed their children, just because we share some genes with some spiders? I don’t think it works that way.
excellent point!
The eukaryotic cell is built up of other cells; it is a community of interacting microbes. Partnership between cells are the very roots of our being. They are the basis of the continually outward expantion of life on earth.
Nor does anyone. It is not a question of what we should do, its a question of what humans are capable of doing.
Sure, women are capable of killing their husbands and feeding the meat to the children. So what?
Brevel’s got it.
i guess being vague is a good way to get out of being wrong.
First step, xun: fully describe the actions of the amoebas that you’re calling “altruistic.” Your source article was very short and full of jargon. What do they do that’s “wholly altruistic”?
To Your First Paragraph:
The point that you make about cheating on your spouse not being made in the self-interest of the individual comes down, almost entirely, to the individual in question doing the cheating. For example, all of the long term values you just mentioned might not be worth a damn to some individuals. The individual doing the cheating might not have any children, and is cheating on his wife in a certain context in which him getting caught is very unlikely, out of town on business, for example.
Anytime that you try to determine which action is most in your self-interest when you have two opposing actions to choose from you essentially do a cost/benefit analysis. If the risk of your wife finding out you cheated on her is perceived to be next to nothing, then it is something that an individual may well do unless there is something internally that greatly deters the individual from taking the action.
To Your Second Paragraph:
That’s exactly why I spoke of Unintended and Unknown Consequences. The mere fact that a selfish action doesn’t end up being in an individual’s best interests does not prohibit it from being construed as a selfish action, especially when speaking in the long-term. The question of whether or not an action is selfish should largely be based upon whether or not a person believes that they are acting in a way consistent with satisfying their interests and only their interests. To use the cheating on one’s wife while out of town example again, it’s a completely selfish action even if the wife finds out because the guy was satisfying his short-term self-interests and did not believe that he would be caught. In the event that a wife finds out and it leads to the couple being divorced, it does nothing to change the reason why the guy committed the action or what he thought the result would be.
In this scenario, I believe you may be confusing my definitions of self-interest and selfishness. It would be a very rare occurrence to see a purely selfish person, group or species survive for any great amount of time for exactly the reasons that you have mentioned. However, when you speak of individuals working together to achieve a common goal, you’re not necessarily referring to a selfish act, but merely an act taken in accordance with self-interest because cooperation expressly requires taking into consideration the needs and desires of those outside of the self.
The nomadic individual, in particular, shuns the group and wants to acquire things by force rather than by socializing himself and working in cohesion with the group. When attempting to take things by force, it is explicit that the individual is seeking to further his own wants/needs in a manner that works to the direct detriment to the wants/needs of another. It is difficult to view such an action as anything but selfish, even if it fails in the long-term.
I didn’t say that the above has any actual chance of happening, I merely stated what the result would be if that happened. It’s obvious that not every individual (first-order needs met or not) is going to act in a purely selfish way.
I am discussing action without context to value because the discussion does not reflect every single individual’s actual values. I am talking if no interest whatsoever is placed on anyone other than the self, which is nearly an impossible scenario, even on an individual basis.
Obviously, for an adult to try to eat all the candy would not constitute a selfish action because the fact that the adult would get sick is a known consequence to them. Such an action can hardly even be considered self-serving.
I agree that values are not Universal, once again, the word, ‘if’ that I used above was to indicate that for the purposes of the example, everyone acts in the most selfish possible way and does not value anyone other than themselves.
As far as acting in accordance with one’s values is concerned, that is definitely self-serving, but the fact that acting in accordance with one’s values often entails deliberately acting in a manner specifically designed to benefit another person prohibits it from being a purely sefish act.
That is not at all what I am suggesting. As I’ve mentioned, sharing strengthens social bonds and is self-serving in that regard, but it is not selfish. Either of the two acts are self-serving, but one is selfish and the other isn’t.
An Altruistic act may require that something be sacrificed, but as I have pointed out, experiencing a positive emotion or the alleviation (or complete absence of) a negative emotion is often the result of an Altruistic act. It’s for that reason that I made a distinction between primary and secondary motivators, however, if the action satisfies these other motivators, then the action taken is still self-serving. It is possible to commit an action of greater utility to someone other than yourself than the utility that you, yourself, experience from committing the action, but that doesn’t mean you don’t get any utility from it.
In many cases, the so-called, “Altruistic,” action merely furthers certain needs that the actor has fulfilled that the person who is being acted upon does not have fulfilled. The actor furthers its own interests in committing such an action, though, as higher-order desires are met.
you’re not using the definition of Altruism that the OP stated.
hey look, i can quote myself too