I’m glad someone picked up on that!
Of course, it legitimately refutes the point made at the same time.
“I am the vine and you are the branches.” Common to most Christians is the view of the church as the “mystical body of Christ.” Just as the parts of the body are joined in common well being so too are the lives of Christians interrelated. All Christians accept that they are "members of one another. “One can be damned alone, but saved by others.” Its the down playing of “holy-selfishness” that puts its own salvation before everything else. Christians are the cells in the “Mind of Christ”, which functions through them collectively. At least thats what they believe.
have any of you read of mice and men, george shows legitamate sacrifice lyoalty… id say there isnt much self interest for him that he wasnt willing to sacrifice
I have read it, but I didn’t care for it. Could you please briefly refresh my memory?
As opposed to animals, man kills for the sake of an idea, either religiously for the sake of the Church, or politically for the sake of the sovereignty of the country. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could see the whole human race as one, where each person is concerned for the well being of the other? No strings attached. No boundaries. Seems so simple and I’m sure it takes place on small levels.
Perhaps its elusiveness on a global scale can be reduced to the nature of thought and how we as individuals relate to our neighbors in whatever capacity we find our selves relating. General cooperation seems a valid approach, but in special cases one may behave in such a way where he tries to change the world around him in order to satisfy his interests or to bring his surrounding into a more meaningful state of affairs as he sees it regardless of other’s ideas. … or even involve himself with ulterior motives and pretenses in order to satisfy his predilections despite the concern of others.
Then again, compassion and empathy come naturally. It is easy to see what another person needs, or how to act in a given situation, if there is no concern about a grand self to get in the way. Perhaps the greater part of true morality is simply stopping all the harm that we normally do, rather than taking on any great and noble deeds; that is, the harm that comes from having a false sense of self.
We can live as human beings, body, brain, along with the strong influence of ideas and beliefs contained in the ’sphere of knowledge’, which is that of society, living out our lives as a complex interplay of our replicated thought structure and environment, in the knowledge that that is all there is. Then we are no longer victims of the selfish way in which the self itself becomes falsified. In this sense we can be truly free—not because we can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators that are continually passed down, but because we know that there is no one to rebel.
How? It perfectly lines up with the definition provided in the OP; furthermore, it is described as “altruistic” in the literature, so it being considered altruistic can hardly be confined to my own idiopathic understanding. How doesn’t it fit the definition of altruistic?
Why not?
How is that self-serving? It is a self-sacrificing act, as per the definition provided in the OP. Biological drives can result in altruistic behavior, that is the point!
Not necessarily. I have a biological drive to eat, which manifests into hunger – but I can choose not to eat even to the point of starvation. Some seem almost entirely mechanistic, occurring without conscious interaction; whereas some do necessitate some awareness (pain, hunger, fatigue, etc.). In the case of the former, establishment of a ‘self’ (an identity) doesn’t seem necessary; existence is the only requisite. As for the latter, our awareness which interacts with the biological drive is our means by which we analyze variables and alternatives. In either case, I would think it entirely possible that one could be driven toward self-sacrificing behavior. Point being that one can maintain a degree of self-interest while engaging in a self-sacrificing behavior, meaning the ‘self’ (even if we are reducing it to its material base) is not the primary interest.
By your definitions, any action can be perceived as self-interested. My contention is that one can be self-interested by nature, while being altruistic in action. The fact that I have a naturally invested interest in my own well-fare does not negate my ability to be selfless in action.
I think we are “crossing streams” [see Ghostbusters] a little with your working definitions because we are talking about 2 different things (in my opinion): A state of being, and the nature of an action. Being selfish doesn’t render me incapable of altruistic action any more than being afraid renders me incapable of courageous action.
Now it should get interesting…
george is a relatively sharp guy. he lived in the great depression and traveled with his friend lenny who was slow, but strong as an ox. george could leave lenny and hold a steady job and live a good life but he choses to stay with lenny and save his neck from all his bad deeds cuz lenny meant no harm. eventually lenny kills the ranchers sons wife and they run for it… george knowing they would kill lenny tried to save him but knew he couldnt tht this time he was going to be lynched and in the end shot lenny in the back of the head not because it helped george in anyway but because it helped lenny.
Dear PavlovianModel146,
Allow me to present an alternative distinction between altruistic and non-altruistic behaviour, which may support the idea of altruism not being so “sensible”, but definitely rejects the claim that it not exist at all.
The different degrees of “altruism” in your OP, I agree, are not altruistic. This could be because they stem from a perspective of constant self-awareness and active, rational thought [regarding x situation], which means that at all times a causal, sequential understanding of reality [or, at the very least, of surrounding events] is assumed. Altruistic behaviour however, more often occurs in situations where concepts of time and self are not so much in focus and, perhaps this suggests that true altruism requires unconsciously looking at things in an altogether different way?
When you say unconsciously looking, do you mean without deliberately trying to gain something?
You know, imo, consciousness is just being aware. The ability to create in yourself what is there outside yourself without any emotional attachment and without any purpose to gain something from what is perceived consciously that is sensorial. Any demand placed upon consciousness is probably a combo of genetic predisposition and what society prescribes as desirable.
Because that’s how it was defined in the OP.
Are we considering Inherent self-interest as synonymous with self-serving purpose?
How are we defining the self? That is rather critical to the discussion. Pav? For the sake of the thread, would you please provide a definition of what you mean by “self”? I saw no such definition provided in the OP. In my mind, other slime mold amoebae ought count as outside the “self”, I mean, why not?
… doesn’t ‘someone’ refer to a human organism? And, boy, humans are a tricky business.
Did he have any reason not to shoot him in the back of the head if he was to be lynched anyway? Is that not better than seeing him lynched?
I don’t know how an individual would commit an action without a focus on the self since it is the self committing the action. Do you have an example?
The Ik tribe is a good example of many individuals under extreme pressure living in a nearly purely selfish way.
its better for lenny to be shot, but it was harder on george, he was so loyal even in the end killing him. maybe if you have time reread it, it may change your views of selfishness.
Alleviation of guilt, then. He’d have felt guilty had he allowed Lenny to be lynched when he could have just shot him and made it quick. Didn’t he even have Lenny close his eyes and picture something, (if I remember right) so Lenny didn’t even know the bullet was coming?
Wait, did he know it was coming but just acted like he didn’t, was that implied?