Is every decision selfish?

Great Debates
1

Is every decision selfish?

I have long considered everything we do as humans to be in our own, individual self-interest. I have often debated that even the most seemingly philanthropic act of self-sacrifice is actually the path of least resistance for that person: he who devotes his life to the service of others does so because he is driven by the pursuit of a personal spiritual goal that is paramount in his decision-making and it is therefore in his own interest to act in a charitable manner.

Further, if I am correct in this evaluation, I consider it to be strong evidence that cognitive thought and the ability to form hypotheses is an evolutionary adaptation that gave our ancestors selective advantage in problem solving.

Unsurprisingly not everyone agrees with this tenet and I thought I would throw it open to the able debaters of SDMB and see if I need to have a re-think.

2

Not really. You say that[qoute]he who devotes his life to the service of others does so because he is driven by the pursuit of a personal spiritual goal that is paramount in his decision-making and it is therefore in his own interest to act in a charitable manner.
[/quote]

If by “spiritual goal” you are referring to religion, you are leaving out the numerous athiests who do good. If you are referring to just plain “feeling good” because you helped someone, you are still missing part of the picture.

When I go to the corner store and they screw up and give me too much change, I will correct them. Not because of any belief in a higher power, not because it makes me “feel good” (honestly, keeping the money would feel better)- because I am a part of society, if I follow the rules I can expect others to as well, making life better for everyone.

3

Your motivation for returning the change is because if you didn’t you know you would in someway have contravened the rules of, and let down the society in which you live, and therefore a) feel bad, and b) undermined the society that is important to you. More importantly you know that you would have let yourself down based on your own personally developed set of values.

In the end you choose to return the change because the emotional stress associated with not returning it outweighs the benefit to you of keeping the money. Even if this decision process is partially subconscious is it not still in your best self-interest?

4

How about the fireman who risks his life to help others. How about the soldier risking his life to defend his country.
These are selfless acts, and I have known atheist soldiers (I don’t personally know any firemen, but I am sure there are atheist firemen as well).

5

It is possible to find selfish motivation for any action - the fireman who rushes into a burning building may feel that that’s what he/she needs to do to prevent a loss of face in front of collegues, for example. Duty and the expectations of others play a massive role in the formation of character, and when you act so as to preserve others perception of you, it could be seen as selfish, since you are acting to avoid conflict and potential hurt…

This view of life, however, makes for a rather gloomy outlook, and it is preferable (to me) to live in a world where it is possible to act in a selfless, altruistic manner - therin lies the possiblity of love…

Grim

6

I love people because of the way they make me feel. I don’t know if that is selfish, which is commonly understood to mean that one thinks about one’s self to the exclusion of others. I think selfishness is just as bad as selflessness.

Viva eudæmonism.

7

—It is possible to find selfish motivation for any action—

I don’t think that’s even what’s going on here: rather, it’s possible to define “selfish” so broadly that it fits onto almost anything. But when it starts to incorporate even things like someone’s values, it begins to be pointless and meaningless.

I do good because I VALUE good. One might be able to trace that back to psycholgical reward mechanism (though I’m not sure: doing good doesn’t always make me anywhere near as happy as doing bad), but the fact remains that because of my values I’m often looking out for the interests of others instead of my own. Often without even thinking. So clearly at the level of approximation that it’s worth talking about, I don’t simply care about my own personal interests, but also the interests of many other people, be they collective with my own or distinct from it. Humans are like that: our interests can float free of our selves. Anytime one cares about the fate of a character on Tv they are experiencing the same thing: an empathy that renders naked self-pursuit irrelevant, at least for the time being.

8

The OP seems to be including “self interested” in the definition of “selfish”. From that standpoint, I agree that there are very few actions which could be considered truly selfless - even most self-sacrifices could be said to serve a particular self interest.

One could conceive a situation where a person willingly destroys themself in order to further a perceived “good”, with no possibility that this act will help their progeny, be known or recognized by posterity, or result in some “reward” in an afterlife (e.g. the actor is an atheist, or a theist who believes the action is a damnable one).

I think the question in the OP tends to prompt a couple of followup questions: Is there any moral system or religion which demands a total disregard of self in one’s actions? Could such a system be sustainable by its proponents in the absence of specific guidance from authority, or at least direct guidance from an inflexible authoritative source? If contextually specific guidance is necessary, isn’t this a type of slavery? If only strict adherence to code is required, would this not destroy “free will”? (NOTE: It’s probably a bad idea to hijack this topic with a free will vs. determinism discussion.)

9

I don’t want my friend to get sick because that would make me feel terrible. I’d be worried, frightened, sad, and angry. These are emotions that my brain tries to avoid because they are unpleasant. So you could say that I don’t really care about my friend getting sick – I only care about avoiding the unpleasant emotional states that are associated with his sickness. Therefore, my concern for my friend is purely selfish.

But…

Couldn’t I say the same about my own sickness? I don’t want to get sick because I want to avoid all the unpleasant emotional and physical sensations that are associated with being sick. Certainly I care more about my own sickness than my friend’s because my sickness will produce much stronger negative sensations, but I don’t truly care about being sick in and of itself – I only care about how the secondary effects of the illness affect my emotional state.

So you could say I’m so selfish that I don’t even care about myself.

10

Define “shelfish.” That’s the only way this debate will go anywhere.

11

Uh…er…I mean “selfish,” of course.

Preview is my friend. I like preview! Preview wants to help me…

12

i think it is possible, xen, but wow would it be a stretch on a large scale. I can imagine that a cultish-sized group could easily live under pure altruism, given minor technology. But the key here would be that under altruism, it might be considered wrong to ask for too much. Would this necessarily need to be a doctrine? Well, it could at least be a dogmatic social contract of sorts.

I would imagine it to look like something… Amish? Honestly.

Also, I agree… the OP wants to call “self-interest” “selfish”. :shrug: Why mangle a perfectly good word? :wink:

13

So, let’s see if we follow the OP.

John Wayne Gacy tortured and killed young boys because doing so made him feel good. Hearing boys scream in agony made him feel happy inside.

Mother Teresa devoted her life to helping the poor, because that made HER feel good. Seeing hungry children eat a good meal made her feel happy inside.

Hence, killing kids and feeding/clothing kids are equally selfish acts, and there’s no reason to deem Mother Teresa better than John Wayne Gacy since both were just selfish folks doing what made them happy.

Is THAT it, or am I missing something?

14

Oh my! That one question wanders all over the philosophical landscape.

free-will vs. determinism
meaning vs. non-meaning
ability vs. action
presumption vs. assuredness
simulation vs. the simulated
truth vs. untruth
deception vs. clarity
transparency vs. non-transparency
covert vs overt
implicit vs. explicit

First, one must determine which (if any) of these terms, are real. From there; clear, agreeable definitions.

The two most important questions are (first):

Does decision exist? If so, how is it defined and how is it detected / located?
Does selfishness exist? If so, how is it defined and how is it detected / located?

My quick impression without explaining everything in detail or running through the fine lines of why I would assert these, for brevities sake. Also, as they are quick, they may not be as precisely defined as I’d prefer either, just to communicate my general opinion and point on the subject.

Decision: (that sense of free-will ----- without getting too wordy)
“I could have done it, but I didn’t.”
“I did not have to do it, but I did.”

Abstraction: (generating the property of will upon an autonomous system, bringing it into the perception of command level access and control; seperating it from the ‘self’ by observing it, observing it by being fundamentally seperated from self abstraction.).

“‘They’ did have to do that, unless… <this>.”
“'They couldn’t do that, unless…<this>.”

Selfishness: An abstraction resource, utilized to preserve and articulate meaning by securing: dominion liberty of percieved meaning execution.

Read: Perception of ‘otherness’ altruism and/or ‘self’ altruism.
Binds conception of self to the abstractions of: Meaning, purpose, choice, ego, glory, covert otherness. Abstracts natural law imbedded in covert otherness.

I would suggest, that selfishness is a simulation that through sheer complexity and implications; distracts the mind from absolutizing abstraction, and collapsing into itself. As such, it remains true that all things can be veiwed as selfish individually; yet as it approaches system cohesiveness action and purpose begin to collapse towards catatonia, as command level access does not revert to autonomous functioning after being abstracted; unless explicity programmed as such before or after the collapse. (requires authritaritism embedded in otherness to salvage the collapsed indentured system; as it has been abstracted to simile external reality with internal organ function.).

-Justhink

15

Wow. A post by Justhink that was on topic. Now we just need him to post in English.
And, fundamentally, everyone acts in their own interest. However, some people realize that it’s a good idea to restrain their short-term desires to make them happier in the long run. This is how society forms. And to answer the psycho vs. Theresa (whom I personally dislike), one person’s actions are in the best interest of all. And given that children have no useful purpose, that the world is having a population crisis, and that Mother Theresa was vehemently against birth control…
Actually, she was still better for the nebulous concept of Humanity than the psycho, because people breed too quickly for one stalker to seriously impact the number of children, and helping people, even in a mostly ineffectual manner, sets a good example. Plus, the psycho is a lunatic who should have been tried and killed with as much expediency as a fair trial would allow, while Theresa at least believed she was making the world a better place.

16

Most decisions are indeed selfish.
Even those people who perform “selfless acts” like firefighters, Mother Theresa, etc. appear selfless while being selfish.
Why? Because some people thrive on the adulation of others.
They want to do something heroic in order to receive the praise of others. Doing anything for personal satisfaction or gain is indeed selfish.

I work hard so I have money so I can keep my wife happy, and in return I get loving from her.
I have 3 kids so one day they can grow up and make me proud, and continue my “dynasty”.

The beauty of being selfish is that doing things for yourself often benefits others.

But! Not all decisions are selfish. How many of you have given money to family members purely out of pity, with no hope of anything in return? I know I have, and this can’t be considered selfish because there is no positive return, not even emotionally.

17

BamBam, I’m not closed to the idea that some decisions may not be selfish (in fact I’m hoping someone will convince me). However, I have yet to hear an example that cannot be rationalised as such.

You could maintain that your decision to act in a charitable manner to your family member was still a function of your personal psychological reward mechanism (to borrow a very apt phrase from Apos). To you, at the time you made the decision, parting with your cash was better than the consequences if you hadn’t (potential feelings of guilt, pressure from other family members either to help or get the needy one off your back, undermining your image as a dutiable and generous dynastic head!). You bought yourself a more acceptable emotional state and in that respect it was in your self-interest…

18

Actually, Mr. Sleepwalker, the whole money-to-relatives thing makes me feel worse, and sick to the stomach.
It’s almost a self-destructive motive.

To deny them money, and make them stand on their own two feet, is A) more selfish and B) better for them in the long run.

19

Hey BamBam, whatever makes you tick…

I’ll buy you a beer in a totally selfless act of consolation that has nothing to do with my own self-interest (ahem).

20

Somnambulist

I think that, for most (maybe all?) people there is at least an element of self-interest in everything they do. The only situation in which this would not be so would be something like xenophon’s example, and while I can conceive of a person behaving with that little regard for themself, I can’t think of any instance in human history where it’s known to have happened.

On the other hand, that’s not to say that this element of self-interest is the only or even the major element in any decision. If I decide to give a large sum of money to charity, this action contains:

Self-interest elements - it will make me feel good to have done that.
Altruistic elements - I feel good on behalf of other people who will be helped by that money.
Anti-self-interested elements - I will be unable to use that money to buy stuff I might have enjoyed.

Which element of the decision outweighs which? Who can tell.

I think that most ethical systems work, not by trying to eliminate the natural self-interest of people, but by trying to channel it - if an altruistic action makes you feel good, it’s more likely that you’ll do it. Everyone wins in that sort of situation (Buddhism may be an exception though? That seems to have more of an emphasis on annihilating ones own personal desires. I’d defer to someone who actually knows something about it, though…)
As for your second point (about evolution and problem-solving) … I’m not sure I get the connection here? It seems to me that the sorts of ‘self-interest’ we’re talking about are not the same as ‘evolutionary self interest’ (propagating the genes). I can think of lots of examples of people acting against their evolutionary self interest (every monk or nun who ever existed, for starters) even if not against what you might call their emotional self-interest (the ‘good feeling’ of having done the right thing, or the possibility of some future personal reward)