Why is it bad to be selfish? Yes I know that sometimes to much selfishness can cause problems, but if you weren't at least a little bit selfish you couldn't survive. Your very survival depends on you thinking about your own needs, if you didn't you would give away all your food and starve to death. Selfish gets a bad connotation but it doesn't have to be bad. People always act in what is in their best interest whether they realize it or not. I hold doors open for people all the time, why because if I let it shut in their face I would feel like a jerk. I don't go through that thought process every time I hold a door because it has become habit but I know thats why I do it. When people hold doors for me I realize they probably do it for the same reason I am but I don't care I don't have a door slamming in my face I don't care about their intentions it was still nice of them to hold it. Everything everyone does in life is for their own interest or at least they think it is, you can't act otherwise. That isn't a bad thing there is no reason to think its bad to act in your own interest. That does not make me a cynic because I don't care, I'm not saying everyone sucks and you are all greedy scum bags. I merely saying that no one would do something if they didn't perceive some sort of benefit out of it, otherwise why do it? Why do whats right without thinking of reward? Because it makes you feel better, whether you consciously acknowledge it or not.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Does altruism really exist?
- Thread starter The Executive
- Start date
- Status
marthanoob
Smash Journeyman
It isn't.
Nearly every action any human takes after thought is selfish by the definition I would like to use, "characterized by or manifesting concern for oneself".
Zombie Lucille Ball
Smash Master
self·ish Audio Help /ˈsɛlfɪʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sel-fish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
miriam-webster's:
Selfish
Self"ish\, a. 1. Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others.
There is a big difference between your main focus being pleasing yourself in most if not all that you do and doing things that keep you healthy and alive.
–adjective 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
miriam-webster's:
Selfish
Self"ish\, a. 1. Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others.
There is a big difference between your main focus being pleasing yourself in most if not all that you do and doing things that keep you healthy and alive.
As stated by several people already, it does not exist. If you do something for seomeone else or sacrifice yourself, you are doing it to feel better about yourself inside, and to go to heaven if you are the religious type, which is all for your own benefit.
Sudsy86_
Smash Ace
Of course it does not exist. Our ultimate motivation for all actions are out of a sense of self-benefit.
For instance, if your mom was telling you to clean your room or be grounded for two weeks, while you utterly hated the idea of cleaning it, you are, of course, doing what is the best option out of all other alternatives, in your mind.
Take a fireman who goes to a burning building to attempt to rescue unfortunate civilians.
He might not want to die, but the thought of possibly saving someone's life might very well have a more significant effect on his actions than his desire to simply live does. ( a feeling of accomplishment does that to a lot of people--including myself)
It is entirely absurd for someone to choose a path that they are aware is ultimately worse for them than another alternative. When I say it is absurd I mean the actual thought that someone would really do that is absurd.
For instance, if your mom was telling you to clean your room or be grounded for two weeks, while you utterly hated the idea of cleaning it, you are, of course, doing what is the best option out of all other alternatives, in your mind.
Take a fireman who goes to a burning building to attempt to rescue unfortunate civilians.
He might not want to die, but the thought of possibly saving someone's life might very well have a more significant effect on his actions than his desire to simply live does. ( a feeling of accomplishment does that to a lot of people--including myself)
It is entirely absurd for someone to choose a path that they are aware is ultimately worse for them than another alternative. When I say it is absurd I mean the actual thought that someone would really do that is absurd.
Zombie Lucille Ball
Smash Master
Then why would someone run into a burning building? I sincerely doubt that firefighters when they're running into a burning building to possibly save lives are thinking "Wow I better do this, then I'll feel better about myself later."
Sudsy86_
Smash Ace
Who knows? They might place the welfare of others over theirs because actions based off that thinking is far more gratifying than exclusively, directly selfish acts.
Placing others' welfare over yours is still a self-satisfying choice one makes.
Placing others' welfare over yours is still a self-satisfying choice one makes.
It is entirely possible for a human being to willingly perform an act that benefits another with diminished or no benefit for the self, simply because of the will. If an action is possible (and one can imagine a possible action fitting such criteria as mentioned above), then someone can do it.
It's important to note that just because satisfaction does exist for a self-sacrificial act, that satisfaction does not negate the legitimacy of the act (unless, one might argue, the satisfaction was the sole reason for the performance of the act).
At any rate, this discussion would be greatly aided by an examination of Kant's ethics.
It's important to note that just because satisfaction does exist for a self-sacrificial act, that satisfaction does not negate the legitimacy of the act (unless, one might argue, the satisfaction was the sole reason for the performance of the act).
At any rate, this discussion would be greatly aided by an examination of Kant's ethics.
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 11,207
Has anyone here heard of the ultimatum game? Basically it's a game whereby there are two players: an offerer and an accepter. There is a sum total of say $10, the offerer can offer the accepter any amount of the $10 they choose and the accepter can either accept or deny the offer. If the offer is accepted then that player gets to keep the offer and the person who made the offer gets to keep the rest. If the accepter rejects the offer then both players get $0.
Now economics is based on the fundamental principle that everyone is selfish and as such and offer is better than $0 and so the accepter should accept anything. What was found however was that people would generally reject offers less than around 30-40% of the total sum. These result would suggest that selfishness is not the only factor taken into account when making decisions. What was more interesting was that this study was conducted a number of times including in Indonesia where the total sum up for grabs was equal to the average monthly wage of an Indonesian and yet the results didn't differ.
I think this goes to show that morally in relation to reciprocity be it positive or negative plays an important roles in the way people act and as such I think that leaves room for altruism to potentially exist.
Now economics is based on the fundamental principle that everyone is selfish and as such and offer is better than $0 and so the accepter should accept anything. What was found however was that people would generally reject offers less than around 30-40% of the total sum. These result would suggest that selfishness is not the only factor taken into account when making decisions. What was more interesting was that this study was conducted a number of times including in Indonesia where the total sum up for grabs was equal to the average monthly wage of an Indonesian and yet the results didn't differ.
I think this goes to show that morally in relation to reciprocity be it positive or negative plays an important roles in the way people act and as such I think that leaves room for altruism to potentially exist.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Ask and ye shall receive.
I advise you to look it up a bit, but here are the basics behind Kantian ethics:
They are an absolute set of ethics. Here's how each one is decided: you ask yourself if everybody did this, would it still be possible? A few examples:
Murder: If everyone murdered, could you still murder? If every single person murdered we would either be left with no humans or just one. Either way, we could no longer continue to murder. Therefore, murdering is "wrong".
Love: If everyone loved someone or everyone, we could still continue to love. Therefore, love is "right".
Lying is a weird one, but it also makes sense (at least to Kant it did), check it out:
If everyone lied, could you still lie (I'll say almost all of the time to avoid the obvious paradoxical statements)? Well, the point of lying is to hide the truth. If everyone lied almost all the time, then people would know that every time they hear something the opposite is true. The point of lying would be lost and one could never actually lie. Therefore, lying is "wrong". Opposite applied to honesty obviously...
Hope this makes sense to people.
Anyway, Kantian ethics has a clear flaw that is brought up in any relevant discussion of it: contradictory absolutes. What if one has to lie to save a loved one (you can apply the test to see that saving a loved one is the "right" thing to do in Kantian ethics)? I'm sure you can think of an example and plenty more. Kantian ethics only applies this one rule to discovering absolutes, but leaves us with no way to differentiate between them.
So ... discuss away!
-blazed
- Status