All of out actions are selfish

[dtq123]

Let us consider this;

We do things because:
a. It benefits us physically (Food, Sleep, etc.)
b. It makes us feel good (Listen to music, Fighting, etc.)
c. It is the "Right" thing to do (Stop a fight, Give to homeless, etc.)

Most fights occur when reasoning for "b" and "c" conflict.

Since all of our actions are selfish, there is no true altruism.

Thus, it would be in our best interest to  show religion that no true altruism exists and that we should be nice because altruism is scarce and we need to make up for that

(This is my first post outside of intros, so yeah, hit me hard  )

[Solitary]

I agree. Even Mother Teresa was doing what she did so she could go to heaven, when she thought suffering was good because it brings you closer to God. Solitary

[stromboli]

Agreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism.

A specific form of psychological egoism is psychological hedonism, the view that the ultimate motive for all voluntary human action is the desire to experience pleasure or to avoid pain. Many discussions of psychological egoism focus on this type, but the two are not the same: theorists have explained behavior motivated by self-interest without using pleasure and pain as the final causes of behavior.[1] Psychological hedonism argues actions are caused by both a need for pleasure immediately and in the future. However, immediate gratification can be sacrificed for a chance of greater, future pleasure.[2] Further, humans are not motivated to strictly avoid pain and only pursue pleasure, but, instead, humans will endure pain to achieve the greatest net pleasure. Accordingly, all actions are tools for increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, even those defined as altruistic and those that do not cause an immediate change in satisfaction levels.

I did charity work as a Christian, from cooking turkey dinners for Thanksgiving to Angel Tree to other supportive works. But ultimately it is for feeling good about yourself.

[Solitary]

It just goes to show that sado-masochist live the ideal life. 

[stromboli]

It just goes to show that sado-masochist live the ideal life. 

[_Xenu_]

All organisms are inherently self interested, and will act accordingly. The sad truth is, Machiavelli was dead right about human nature. Everything in life is about sex, money, and death. Every decision every human has ever made, save for a few of the most deluded, was about one or more of these. This is the most fundamental problem in every human society: The Abrahamic religions evolved largely to address this. So did communism. The ultimate problem comes down to the monkey sphere, which is evolutionarily hardwired into our brains. It keeps us from caring about anyone outside of our close circle, and to always value ourselves over even them.

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm such a selfish jerk. I just coughed up some phlegm.. I'll feel good about myself and offer it to someone here, but only for the most selfish reasons.

[SGOS]

I'm guessing that almost everyone who has made a sizeable donation to an organization they appreciate is well aware of the good feeling involved in the process.  It's not hard to realize that this is a matter of self interest.  But for the person doing the giving, it probably doesn't make any difference whether you see him as a respectable philanthropist or a fool parted with his money.  The act is it's own reward.

[Hydra009]

Thus, it would be in our best interest to  show religion that no true altruism exists and that we should be nice because altruism is scarce and we need to make up for that

Actually, we should be nice because both the helper and person being helped benefit from it in the long run.  That's the how and why civilization works.  Religion - at its very best - tries to foster this state of mutual truce and cooperation.  At its worst...well, it's a very long list.  Suffice it to say that "God says so" is a pretty dodgy way to build a system of ethics and that humanity can do a lot better than that.

[stromboli]

Sizable donation=tax break. Even our altruistic nature is ultimately self serving, because what protects the herd protects you.

[PickelledEggs]

I don't fart because I enjoy it or want to fart. It just sort of happens. Sometimes I fart without even knowing it.

How is farting without knowing it selfish?

[Mr.Obvious]

I chose to become a societal assistant out of a sense of 'duty' rather than it being my 'dreamjob'. It's not that I really enjoy listening to people's problems and be confronted on a daily basis with the underbelly of society. It's not that I want to face such poverty and spend too much of my time denying starving people financial aid because my organisation simply can't provide it.
Sure, it has 'other benefits'. It's a more secure carreer-choice than becoming an actor, for one. And yes, I get a sense of accomplishment, pride and happyness when I am able to help a poor family get ahead in life. And it even makes the society I live in a better place. So of course it has benefits for me.
But it makes less money than for example going into research with my sociology degree. It would cause me personally less stress to do a job like that as well. (Social workers, over here at least, have some of the highest burn-out rates.) And it makes me lose trust and confidence in people from times to times.
But it's something I'm rather good at. And it's something that needs to be done.Yet even then, I suppose, I'm simply trying to calm the nagging feeling inside me that says I should be helping people and society.

It comes down to this: I'm sure that every choice we make is up to a point serving our own interests. But that doesn't mean all our choices are equally selfish. It's not as selfish to donate a million dollars to a good cause, as it is to keep it. It's not as selfish to share a six-pack as it is to down one on your own. It's not as selfish to enlist in the army because you feel you must protect your country as it is because you see it as a good way to advance your studies and career-path. And if there is gradience in the level of 'selfishness' in each choice, it becomes possible to say that one choice is the least selfish of them all, meaning that it can't be 'the selfish choice'.

I dunno. Typed in a hurry. Got to get going.

[stromboli]

But ultimately, at some point, we gain by our actions. I have done things as a sense of duty in my life that I didn't care for, but there was something gained, a sense of grim self worth or the sense I did something beyond what was required, and in some way grew from it.

I worked after my children were born in a variety of capacities as a DOD employee and frankly most of it was repetitive, boring work. But it was for my family. I gained from the awareness of knowing I was doing something for their future, ultimately getting their respect for what I did for them. I believe it still comes back to personal gain at some point, no matter how we perceive it in the short term.

[Aletheia]

Yep, I have resorted to Machiavellianism in order to figure out what was truly the prize at the end of the puzzle for me and others involved. Most of the time this is unavoidable in the work place and in all matters dealing with money. Other times, I tend to do things to generally feel good about myself or to diminish the guilt I may feel for not doing the "right thing" in accordance to my personal standards.

Many of my interactions with other people and much of my thought process focuses on perceived transactions. I make the general assumption that everybody wants something and everyone can usually be bought - whether with money, favors, appeal to morality, flattery... etc. If I want something then I will offer what I consider a fair trade and if the trade is not accepted, then I will sweeten the deal up to a point. Depending on how badly I want/need the item, favor... etc, will dictate my determination and tendency to manipulate the situation to increase the likelihood of success. However, I have no desire to scam other people because that doesn't serve self-interest. Being negatively viewed by others while I am bartering for something I want or need serves no purpose and decreases the likelihood of success of future transactions with a person and anyone who happens to know them. Destruction of goodwill is very bad when you're a bartering favors.

Even with friends, I try to maintain a balance between our favors and transactions. If a person knows you repay favors, keep track of your own debts while forgiving the trivial debts of others in preference for more important things, and you keep your promises, then the friendship is normally more secure and the person is more inclined to reciprocate the same behavior. If they are not inclined to reciprocate, then mainly goodwill and a reputation of dependability is earned which may prove to be a useful currency for others related in some way to the friendship.

Much of my "selfishness" isn't parasitic, but at best aligns with mutualism and at worst aligns with commensalism. However, I do have moments in which I am compelled by a seemingly altruistic instinct - especially in times of danger. I have put my self in harm's way on countless occasions with no obvious benefit to myself. During a few of these occasions, I've actually felt worse for having done so because of the needless complications as a result. Other times, I am more or less happy with the result.

[Sal1981]

This reminds me of a discussion on RuneScape's Offical Forums - they have opened up a charity donation to Oxfam, where you can use Bonds to donate and then JaGeX (owners of RuneScape) would give something like $4.5 to Oxfam for every bond donated. RuneScape bonds can be used like in-game currency, but they can also be bought for ingame wealth from bond purchasers. A Bond can be used for a 2-week in-game membership but also sold on the game's auction house the Grand Exchange and they sell for anything between 7m-11m (virtual) gold coins.

It's a good arrangement; IRL rich kids get their virtual currency for IRL money ($5 per Bond) which they can sell for in-game money (gold coins) and people in RuneScape can use their in-game "wealth" to buy membership for.

---

Anyways, back to the Oxfam charity donations; a discussion arose about incentive for donation to Oxfam, because you got cosmetic stuff and other stuff for donating as a token reward for donating to Oxfam. This, for some stupid reason, gave people the impression that people would not donate "out of the goodness of their heart" or some bullshit, but for the cosmetic rewards for donating. I think it is a win-win situation (you scratch my back, I scratch yours), because not only does it make people who otherwise would not donate, make them donate exactly because they want the cosmetic rewards and other shit that you got for donating.

I didn't give a rats ass what motive you have for donating to a charity, as long as the money goes to help people, and if you do I don't care if you think that makes you a better person, or because you want a stupid cosmetic hat in a game, it's the end to the means that matter, in this case.

BTW; this was the perfect opportunity for me to quit (I was basically just waiting for a reason to) so I sold all my ingame items and bought  ~280 bonds from the Grand Exchange which I donated to Oxfam. Aren't I such a special snowflake?