Doing things for yourself isn’t selfish. Doing things strictly for yourself with no regard to others - that is selfish. The argument that even when you are taking others into consideration you’re still being selfish since you’re doing it because you want to doesn’t hold up. You’re always fulfilling your own will, I’m not denying that. What makes fulfilling your own will selfish or unselfish is whether or not it’s in accordance with agreement of all whom it effects.
It’s a simple matter of morality. Being selfish is always at an expense of others’ contentment. Wouldn’t you agree that doing things that make people unhappy is immoral/bad?
There is an exception: acts that aren’t either selfless or selfish. (This is logically impossible at first glance, but let me explain.) If you’re doing things for your own good, yet it’s something that doesn’t directly affect anyone but yourself, then it’s not selfish or selfless. It isn’t selfish, because there’s no one to regard but yourself, and it isn’t selfless, because it is strictly for your own benefit. The detour around logical impulse lies in that “selfishness” and “selflessness” are not actually opposites of one another. Let me know if you want me to make myself clear.
If a person knew precisely that their kindness would have NO benefit whatsoever (not to themselves or others) than in most arguments the person would not be obliged to continue them. If one takes the mandate of an absolute morality (such as divine command theory of ethics) then the person would be obliged to perform the acts regardless of outcome.
And a person is not necessarily ‘good’ to appear good or to be a martyr. The concept of a ‘good’, or more accurately ‘morally required’, act because of the effect it has on other people. Good acts are beneficial to the species as a whole: I pull a child out of a burning building it benefits the individual with survival, which is considered beneficial for the survival of both the individual and society. Even at personal risk to myself it is morally encouraged (or for some arguments required) for me to rush into the blaze to save another life.
But you argument hinges on the idea of a good action being non-beneficial to the person performing it which is rarely the case in a meaningful way. I give $1000 to a homeless shelter: this reduces my chances of survival technically (I would have more resources at my disposal) but it would still be a good act and would have a much larger influence on those I helped in a positive manner than myself in a negative manner.
Do you seriously believe this is true?
Evolution is a species process, not an individual process. The individual is insignificant in evolutionary terms, the species is what matters. Evolution is driven by nothing but the continued survival of a species, only when a species continues to propogate does evolution occur. The individual with a species is meaningless in evolutionary terms, it is only a species that evolves while the individual is static by evolutionary standards.
no…
i don’t wanna bennefit ‘‘the self’’
i wanna bennefit ‘‘the will’’…
thats why kindness and altruism are good if and only if they are directed towards worthy individuals or causes…whorthy meaning that they promote the will…such as capitalism…or art.
When I was living the life of Christianity, I was always feeling guilty of something. I carried all kinds of burdens around. In church the teach you to give your burden to God. It feels better not having a burden in the first place, even if your life seems more lonely. It is very nice to feel completely in control and ask, “should I do this” only because it’s your own knownledge, and not a reason you don’t understand why you can’t do out of moderation. I feel good to get pissed off and curse, it makes me feel better. I enjoy getting caught up in things and idolizing them.
Its so late and I can hardly think straight but I will say this.
Being a good person based on religion, will very much hurt you when you rebel. If you’re used to controlling your own life, you can handle more out of wisdom. When you lose a religious belief in a power, you almost ‘go crazy’ and it could be harmful. Maybe some people need a higher power like a parent, and some don’t think they can live without one (as I was told I couldn’t and I can, at least so far).
People would live according to what brought them the most joy and fulfillment out of life. If there was no government right now, no laws, I guarentee you people would be doing everything they desired, and from there it would only get worse because they would desire more and more. You have to have a cut off, or a line.
Religion teaches to draw the line to an extreme level, when done so a person will fail, but won’t fall as far. The government can’t do that and so people can fall into breaking laws.
Anyway, my point is I don’t think most people would unless something was in it for them.
Come on kind people are not stupid. We can look at the world and see that kind people do not get anywhere personally. We know that martyrs have lives of pain and suffering. and yet people keep on caring, people keep wanting to help their fellow man. Why? because many people are not as selfish as the steriotype that we have over human kind. Many people put others lives and causes bigger than themselves first. But this seems illogical, no other animal does this, except in the case of their own children to carry on their legacy. These people do it for complete strangers. Perhaps they are stupid. Or mabey they just see the bigger picture, instead of examining a small part of it like everyone else
Up to the person. Though, I wonder, what would you want somebody else to do? And, how can you be sure that morality won’t benefit you? What are the consequences if you’re wrong.
People risk their lives do it to protect and enforce their ideals, they see it as the best choice they can make for them selves.
People can’t act selflessly.
They cant act for the benefit of others but the self always comes first.
If i could give my life to assure the human race was to take the way of the rationalist and be safe from annihilation for at least another 1000 years i’d give it no doubt.
But i can’t make the conscience decision to suffer to any degree for the benefit of someones ideal that go completely against mine.
I want to answer before I read any of the others first. Kindness is not martyrdom or nobility as I see it.
I have lost so very much in my life. Struggled the last few. Sometimes not sure I would make it. But through it all I have also been shown so many wonderful things. I have met new people, learned more about myself,saw more of the world, each day even though some were hard I experienced life. In that life has still been good to me. Who am I not to give back? I have been shown kindness is so many ways so I gladly return it to others. Even if it meant I wouldnt survive.
No. No one is ‘obliged’ to significantly risk his or her well-being for anyone else’s. We might risk our lives trying to save the life of a family member or even a close friend, but I wouldn’t even call that an obligation. Running that sort of personal risk seems to be based more on sheer emotion or even instinct than it does on any sort of reasoning process.
At one point I tried to be a moral man, following the rules in everything I did, and trying to be virtuous like a saint but in every instant nothing good came out of it with myself being constantly used, exploited or degraded at every point of my life.
I then discovered philosophical cynicism and later on nihilism where I came to the conclusion that I am under no obligation of being moral if it involves my own self in a constant state of mutilation. Ever since I changed my whole world ideology around I feel more free than I ever have before.
And sucks to everyone around you. Some would call this enlightenment, others say it is egotistical ignorance.
Some moral theories are based out of nothing more than empathy for others. Obviously if your only concern is yourself and could not care about anything beyond basic pain or pleasure then morality can’t have much value for you. But some find pleasure in having small children around, not just as food.
It can’t be “good” if nothing happened. As soon as something becomes “good” it means something must have happened. There has to be context.
For example, let’s do a test.
Grab a flip-able object (a coin).
Pick a side (heads or tails).
(are you still with me?)
Flip the coin, catch it, and slap it down on the back of your hand.
Read what side came up.
Ok, end of experiment.
Did any “good” happen? No. Was it a complete wast of time? Pretty much.
The question “why do something if it doesn’t matter?” makes sense here: flipping the coin didn’t matter because it was intentionally designed to be meaningless.
But if somehow the result of that coin flip made something “good” happen, then it wasn’t pointless. Something did happen.
So the choice is yours: if you flipped the coin as I asked, was it "meaningless"or “good”? Did you learn anything?
I think he probably means “Why behave in accordance with a particular moral code if there is no reward for that behavior?”
I would say there is no reason to do so. It seems to me to be the case that we all “act good” only because we expect some sort of reward to result from it. By “acting good” either we expect to go to heaven or we expect to earn God’s approval or society’s or we expect it will gain us the admiration of other people or we believe our parents would approve and we want to please our parents or we expect to feel good about ourselves or something.
If we don’t expect some kind of happiness to ensue from our act then there is no motivation to act in a moral way (whatever the moral code).
If a person isn’t doing something just for the sake of doing something good, then they are just succumbing to either bribery, fear, or both. If the question is “why do something to accept a bribe when the bribe never comes?” then there was no bribe. If the question is “why do things out of fear of punishment when there is never any punishment?” then there is no reason for fear.
So I don’t get the question: Either you do “things” because you want to, or you do them out of greed or fear. If you do something neither because you want to, or your getting something for it, or you are avoiding some kind of penalty, then yes, what the heck are you doing it for?
Name a thing that is not done for personal enjoyment, greed or fear.
And by the way, I am not saintly at all. I have fought many battles for what I believe.