I used the word “self-interest” completely within the defined bounds.
Well “self-interest” isn’t really an act.
Also, “an act that satisfies the self in some regard” is a description, not necessarily an indication of primary intents and motives.
agreed that it wasn’t very clearly defined, but i think you can infer what he meant.
Evolutionary biologists would, and do, disagree with you. On what basis do you disagree with their position? More specifically, how do they fail to meet the standards of a model? Both humans and dicto are social organisms. While humans are slightly more derived, the distance isn’t that great and furthermore we’d expect to see more complex social organization within humans as compared to dicto. So if the simple social system of Dicto can have altruism, why couldn’t the more complex social structure of humans have altruism?
i’m not convinced the action you described fits the definition of altruism. it cannot have any measure of self-serving purpose. if you insist that they even HAVE a self, then I must insist that their biological drives are being met by becoming part of the stem, and it is thus self-serving as well.
That personal benefits result from altruistic behavior is true. The problem of psychological egoism is a non-starter. There is no problem. It’s just that once you latch on to a particular way of viewing the world, it can become nearly impossible to let go. To say that “every act is ultimately selfish” is like saying “we’re all just a bunch of genes”. It’s mesmerizing to click in to an ideology. It’s like falling under a spell - it becomes impossible to not see things through that particular lens.
Are trees selfish? Even if we were to say that this is anthropomorphising, it would be a very odd metaphor. Are parasites selfish? That would make more sense. Buddhist and other worldviews that value selflessness don’t suggest that we simply die off, or become blobs. Conversely, philosophies such as expressed by Ayn Rand overvalue the self, and ironically this can only result in the cultivation of personal dis-ease and psychological turmoil. Parasites will of course sometimes kill their host, thereby killing themselves in the process.
i haven’t used the word “selfish.”
Humpty, you might look up “psychological egoism” and “circular logic”. There’s a lot out there.
Wiki mentions this, which very succinctly points out the problem:
oh great, you showed me a circular argument which i didn’t make, now what?
You’re ignoring the fact that the man identified - voluntarily - his children as the highest value to himself - and chose to act accordingly.
To value something other than the self as one’s highest value that directs action - so long as it is voluntarily chosen - is a selfish, or more precisely, self-interested, action. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that someone else is doing his thinking and valuing for him…
I said “That personal benefits result from altruistic behavior is true.” I assume you would prefer to say instead that “Apparently altruistic behavior is actually always, and in all cases, carried out so as to reap personal benefit”? Or am I mistaken?
I’m not really concerned with which particular words we use. I’m trying to get at the underlying attitudes. I haven’t read through everything in this thread though, so I could very easily be misreading you. I apologize if I am.
I recognize that people can act to help or improve the lives of other people, but I recognize that on one condition: that the person acting to benefit others finds personal value in doing so. this is my position. i’m not saying “everyone is selfish and hates everyone else.” i’m not saying “people are inherently malicious.” as a matter of fact, it has been proven beyond all doubt that a normal human brain has sympathy hard-wired into it. I don’t deny sympathy or good will or doing things for others. i deny the possibility that one can act without perceiving at least some personal benefit, even if that benefit is just satisfaction at having helped someone else.
Ah, well that seems uncontroversial. 
ok 
glad we’re agreed
Not at all. I’m just failing to ignore that it was his children’s interests and not his own that he valued highest. Interests and values are not the same thing. A conflict of interests is not a conflict of values.
If it was somehow in his interest to die out of malice, to spite his surviving family - let’s say his children were on the verge of death and his wife needed him to stay around but out of some twisted malice he wanted to put her through an extra funeral and leave her alone in the world - then that would be a non-altruistic, self-interested act.
An interest is a regard for the welfare or advantage of someone/thing. That’s all. If you act to promote another’s welfare at the expense of (or at best no cost to) your own, that’s not self-interest. And certainly not simply because you find value in doing so. “You always choose what you want to choose” is a facile point of grammar.
This might be way off base, but I look at it like this–
Biological drives are self sustaining, whereas the Ego is self-serving. A biological or instinctual response is only self-serving inasmuch as it is fodder for the Ego. One who devalues the ‘self’ in the interest of another, or some larger, collective ‘self’, is re-prioritizing his Ego.
In this context, I don’t even think it accurate to speak of biological processes or more primal organisms (specifically those incapable of cognition) in terms of ‘self’. The interest for those processes and organisms is the necessity of survival, not value placement or personal preference.
Is me taking a dump self-serving? I admittedly derive relief from the act, but it doesn’t affect my perception of ‘self’. Even if my ‘self’ did not value crapping whatsoever, I’d still need to do it - even if it was somehow detrimental to my Ego. I don’t particularly value my time spent crapping, nor do i personally prefer having to crap (for the most part). I am driven by my biology. This, to me, is a self sustaining activity; not so much self-serving. My biology precedes my conception of ‘self’ – it isn’t an act of selfish interest, but of biological necessity. This would mean that any action taken before conception of the ‘self’ is not out of self-interest, but rather just curiosity, necessity, or general interest.
That is unless you are attempting to characterize our instinctual drives as self-interest, which I would argue to be technically inaccurate. These acts only begin to satisfy the ‘self’ once a ‘self’ has been established.
In short–
=D>
A follow-up:
My apologies, I went back to read the OP. Using those definitions, all choices are self-interested. I won’t be defending anything any further
Well said. The distinctions you make are essential ones.
And in my example in which no personal satisfaction is to be had by the party who knows of his impending death? His action leads to no satisfaction, or feeling of ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He is acting out of interest, but not primarily of himself.
To find value in altruism is a far cry from serving your values through altruism.
A far cry? It’s the same thing.