All of out actions are selfish

[Mike Cl]

Damn it... I should have kept that 500 note that the merchant accidentally gave me instead of 100 for my change...

I have wrestled with that concept--not that  amount, but when a store clerk gives me too much in change, do I chortle and keep it?  The clerk would never know it was a mistake that I benefited from, so why worry about it, even though the clerk would have to pay it to the store?  After much thought and discussion with my wife, I now always give it back.  Why?  Because I have to live with myself and my sense of fairness tells me that that is the right thing to do.  So, because I am one selfish son-of-a bitch, I give it back so my brain won't hurt.

[Mr.Obvious]

I always give it back too, it's an automatism for me. When people ask me why I'm so honest, I just tell them that I'd want them to be honest if the tables were turned.

[Mike Cl]

yeah, I kind of agree but then again when you take most parents for example who would risk their lives for their children , how is that selfish?. I mean sure you can use the "right thing to do" example but still I wouldn't call that selfish.

I think part of the issue is with the word 'selfish' itself.  It is almost always given a negative spin, so when one is accused of being selfish it is never in a good light.  If selfish=your own best interest, it is easier to deal with and understand.  So, my willingness to die to protect my children stems from my own best interest.  I want my gene's to go forward.  And if my child were to die and I could have saved her, but I did nothing---then I may as well be dead for I'd never, never forgive myself.  And life after that would be hell. 

[PickelledEggs]

Pickles, it isn't selfish.  It is simply something you cannot control.  If you cannot control something, it is neither selfish or unselfish--it just is.

Exactly my point.

There are plenty of things that involuntarily happen. They just are.

On a related note, since dtq is telling me now that it's about "choices" I will expand on Jmpty's point. Plenty of animals sacrifice their life for the greater good of the species and for their young, we are no different. Humans sacrifice themselves for their children, their loved ones. And while the promise of a nicer afterlife would be considered selfish, there are plenty of people that would sacrifice themselves and die for their children, die for their loved ones, and even die for a complete stranger that do not believe in the afterlife.

None of that would be considered selfish. It is the definition of selfless-ness

[Mike Cl]

Exactly my point.

There are plenty of things that involuntarily happen. They just are.

On a related note, since dtq is telling me now that it's about "choices" I will expand on Jmpty's point. Plenty of animals sacrifice their life for the greater good of the species and for their young, we are no different. Humans sacrifice themselves for their children, their loved ones. And while the promise of a nicer afterlife would be considered selfish, there are plenty of people that would sacrifice themselves and die for their children, die for their loved ones, and even die for a complete stranger that do not believe in the afterlife.

None of that would be considered selfish. It is the definition of selfless-ness

I don't believe in an afterlife, so the willingness I have of dying for my child has nothing to do with that concept.  What it has to do with, is the universe as I've constructed it in my head.  Would I die for a complete stranger?  Depends upon the situation.  What would be the 'right' thing for me to do would come into play.  If I died for this person, how would it affect those I love?  If I did not die for this person, how would it effect me?  Could I live with myself--or not?  If there was no precised benefit of dying then I would not do so.  It all depends upon what my moral universe looks like.

[dtq123]

I believe I have said the following before:

It is the "Right" thing to do (Stop a fight, Give to homeless, etc.)

Our satisfaction from doing such actions comes from our own moral judgment, and we do what we can to satisfy it. It had nothing to do with the afterlife

[Aletheia]

yeah, I kind of agree but then again when you take most parents for example who would risk their lives for their children , how is that selfish?. I mean sure you can use the "right thing to do" example but still I wouldn't call that selfish.

Many of the behaviors of animals, humans included, stem from protecting creatures with similar genes- most notably offspring. It's selfish from the perspective of the genes.

A person may rationalize why they choose to risk their lives for the offspring, but some things are hard-wired instincts passed along due to successful inheritance of the trait.

Much of our "morality" stems from selfishness from the perspective of the genes and eons of trial and error in shaping the most efficient group dynamics.

For example, we hold the door for other people because we have an instinct to reduce the necessary work of the next person. This is tempered by how much work we are willing to expend. If the person is too far away, we normally won't bother. This instinct to be helpful to a point originates in group dynamics and cooperation. If everyone in the group does a little extra work to help the next person, then the entire group benefits from more efficient movement. Basically, nominal expenditure of energy in order to achieve more fluidity of movement of the group which makes everything easier for everyone.

This is true for why society as a whole considers indiscriminate murderers to be bad. Everyone in society wants to live, so in order to achieve a common goal, they work together to remove indiscriminate murderers. When everyone selfishly wants the same thing, then it is much easier to get everyone to chip in. Whether or not murder is evil is irrelevant - removing the murderer appeals to everyone's innately selfish desire to live.

Most of our seemingly selfless behaviors can be traced back to very selfish origins.

[Mike Cl]

On the weekends I like to watch Book Notes TV on Cspan.  I remember an author talking about his book dealing with group dynamics--why did I not write down this guy's name???  Anyway, he indicated that within the group, the most successful tend to be the most selfish.  However, the most successful groups, as measured against competing groups, were those that were the most selfless.  That does create some interesting tension within any group.  So, how much do I want to become the kingpin of the my country and how much do I want my country to become the kingpin of the world?  I know how the Koch brothers come down on this issue.

Did anybody else see this presentation?  If so, does anybody know this guy's name? 

[GSOgymrat]

Most of our seemingly selfless behaviors can be traced back to very selfish origins.

The primary problem I have with explaining all human behavior as selfish is it's overly simplistic, circular and not very useful. Psychological egoism answers it's own question: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment." Why do people have children?-- for personal satisfaction. Why do people create art?-- for personal satisfaction. Why do people want to send humans to Mars?-- for personal satisfaction. Why are some people willing to go to Mars knowing they will die within six months of arrival?-- for personal satisfaction. This perspective has little to offer other than discouraging further inquiry.

[dtq123]

The primary problem I have with explaining all human behavior as selfish is it's overly simplistic, circular and not very useful. Psychological egoism answers it's own question...This perspective has little to offer other than discouraging further inquiry.

That's my point to an extent.

We should value the illusion of altruism because of the fact that it can't exist, similar to how a perfect moral code can't exist, but reaching for it enhances the lives of everyone?.

Selfishness is not the only trait that belongs to us, and isn't the only trait about us either. We just need that this is core to all sentience as we know it now, and might help us understand certain actions based on benefits.

[aitm]

while history has plenty of examples of people who will only sacrifice for the sake of their ulterior motive, those examples are overrun by the stories of those willing to die at the "drop of the hat" for people they don't even know.

[dtq123]

while history has plenty of examples of people who will only sacrifice for the sake of their ulterior motive, those examples are overrun by the stories of those willing to die at the "drop of the hat" for people they don't even know.

Our own moral compass makes it appear to be altruistic, but it just satisfies our desire to do good.

Being "good" makes us feel better in what we do, kind of like a justification for actions.

We all want different things, and those willing to die knew of the consequences, but were out-weighed by their own moral desires.

This is perhaps the most "Altruistic selfishness"

[Berati]

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  )

A) you will never really know someone else's motives. All you can do is guess.

B) it makes no difference what someone's internal motives are. It's the results that count.

The discussion appears to me to be as fruitless as discussions on Freewill. It's a philosophical question to which you can insert whatever answer you want.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Could you please explain your position? My whole argument is "All of our choices are selfish," and thus my entire argument is a generalization.

And you think sweeping generalizations aren't inherently fallacious?

[Mike Cl]

A) you will never really know someone else's motives. All you can do is guess.

B) it makes no difference what someone's internal motives are. It's the results that count.

The discussion appears to me to be as fruitless as discussions on Freewill. It's a philosophical question to which you can insert whatever answer you want.

Fruitless in that each of us creates our own universe and it is from this internal universal lens that we view the 'real' world.  We are each unique.  With that in mind, I would say that selfless acts would be one's concerted effort to figure out what another person's view is and then to try and meet and satisfy that view--as best one can.  Doing what one considers selfless acts is worthy to strive for, even if one is kidding one's self and one knows it.  It is like smiling.  It has been shown that even when one feels terrible, forcing a smile will make you feel better.  Pay-it-forward is a good thing to do--even if it is done for 'selfish' reasons.  Makes the 'group' stronger.