Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Nov 6, 2007 6:35:38 GMT -5
People do what they perceive has the most value.
Here is an example in lieu of my reasoning:
Exercising may have more value in the long-run, but each donut is good right now. And... I like good things. I perceive the short-term as having more value overall: It allows me to be lazy and to eat yummy things. The long-term possibility has less value, because it may not work... and requires effort. Despite what mom says, a little exercise might kill me!
--------------------------
This is another one of those threads where I make a statement that I've somewhat thought about and want people to engage it. It's different from those open-ended questions.
For another post like this, search for "Assumptions".
Fun times.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Nov 6, 2007 11:54:40 GMT -5
Ok, but the most value to whom? I'd argue that it's not themselves, at least not all the time. I think you're right about "the most value", but people have the ability to put themselves aside in their actions, and do what is the most valuable for others, even in cases where it's worse off for them. This is rising several levels above the percieved value of a doughnut. The "levels of happiness" idea relates to this: www.lifeprinciples.net/happinesschart.html - basically, there are 4 levels of happiness, so in the context of this conversation, it is your ability to percieve value in various actions, including taking action beyond self (at level 3).
|
|
|
Post by dangerjane on Nov 6, 2007 17:50:54 GMT -5
People always act out of self-interest. That's not bad. You can sacrifice yourself, and it's a noble action--but on some level, you're hoping for SOME kind of gain out of that, whether or not you're around to enjoy it.
Martyrs. They die for what they believe. And for some kind of glory, whether heavenly or earthly. They're anticipating some kind of glory resulting from their actions, or some self-satisfaction. Damn themselves to save someone else, and feel good about the selfless part. No one wants to be forgotten.
A sort-of thought about response, too. I took the idea of a martyr because that's the most selfless act I could think of.
It's sort of a paradox??
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Nov 6, 2007 19:51:12 GMT -5
I beg to differ--it is to themselves, as DJ points out. To mix her point with my example, I may perceive the value of my boyfriend's perceptions as greater than the value of donuts. Hence, I will choose to exercise.
((Or, I'll choose to simply not eat that donut... or to change his perception of donuts, which usually works))
This example makes me sound unhealthy...
|
|
|
Post by dangerjane on Nov 6, 2007 20:56:32 GMT -5
Yep. Even when we please others, it's for ourselves.'
Huh, maybe it's time for me to finally read the Fountainhead like my ex told me...
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Nov 7, 2007 20:15:34 GMT -5
True, but not all things are for ourselves. If you read the idea I cited, it's that we may not do things for ourselves. However, this is when we consciously choose an action, and even then we can consciously make a "best" choice that contradicts personal happiness. I don't think we are inherently selfish at all.
I think the thing to think about is situations in which it is hardest to make the argument that it is selfish. Where it could be argued that selflessness exists. Easiest places are without conscious choice - such as crying when a friend dies. Even this though, one could argue that they are doing this out of instinct, which is selfish to listen to.
I think we need to think of this completely differently. People have a self, and act from it. "selfishness" then, can be argued as always existing, because we inherently act on the self... but not for the self. Sometimes, how we act can be contradictory to a part of ourself.. in a sense, obliterating it. This is a totally different subject though.
When arguing then that we do things out of "selfishness", what I say is that we are merely arguing that we have a "self", which is not hard to do. To assume, though, that all our actions are inherently meant to be beneficial to the self is false. Everyone has different methods of making decisions, and is what the quality of selfishness actually refers to. So, self aside, the actions that come from it can be really selfish only when the actions made from decision making processes (coming from the self) favor the self, rather than others (people or outside ideas).
To simplify: all people act from the self. This does not mean they're selfish. Instead, as to weighing whether or not an action is selfish or not, consider the decision making process. People will naturally do what's "right" as is it is according to the self. Selfish actions, however, are only when the action is reasoned out favoring the self more than external people and forces. This way... everyone has a self, but they can have a selfish self, or a selfless self, or anything else (because it's never so simple on that level... of course)
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Nov 7, 2007 21:19:22 GMT -5
If you can sum everything up in a paragraph... just write the paragraph, please. That is the reason I erase 3/4 of my initial typings (even on this post).
You're saying that people aren't necessarily selfish though they always choose what has the most value to them, because it matters who it benefits more.
No one else has used the word "selfish" in this thread. We've simply said you can't take the self out of it and I've identified why we choose our actions, selfish or not.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Nov 7, 2007 21:25:54 GMT -5
Yes, but I have heard that argument come up countless times, and so I thought I'd address it to provide my own distinction. What I said basically was what dangerjane said up top, except for the fact that we don't act in "self-interest", but the decision we make about taking action comes from the self... Instead, I'd say we're "acting out of the self" (or part of it). Self-interest is when our decisions favor the self... but we can still act in the interest of others. So it's important to make the right distinction.
"Self", only, not "self-interest"
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Nov 7, 2007 21:33:31 GMT -5
If you're not responding to the topic, at least use simple signposts to highlight what you're doing. Else, by default, I assume you're responding to what we're talking about ^_-
You're still acting in what interests you--sacrificing yourself benefits you the most because you'd rather die than see others suffer.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Nov 10, 2007 18:21:47 GMT -5
I still think you can act in contradiction to another part of the core "self" we're talking about. This is how people change on an essential level: they always keep the majority of their identity, but part of them, what has always made them who they are, changes.
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Nov 10, 2007 18:52:05 GMT -5
So what?
No one has argued with you about that. And you say I repeat myself ^_-
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Nov 10, 2007 18:59:15 GMT -5
Well I'm arguing that actions exist that can be intended to fundamentally change the self. Therefore, it wouldn't be acting in self-interest to do so. I think we should rephrase it to "interest springing from the self", despite the convuluted title I tend to distance myself from the assumption that we all are essentially selfish. Gosh darn pessimistic. Not that any of you are arguing that... or are you?
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Nov 10, 2007 19:14:49 GMT -5
It absolutely would. You're acting to better yourself... is there anything based more in what interests you?
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Nov 12, 2007 3:20:05 GMT -5
OH CRAP >_> I accidentally messed up your post- sorry Kyle.
Here's what I meant to post in mine...
Well I'd argue that it interests the current you, but if you change yourself fundamentally, part of you you had to act against the interest of and shut down. That's what I was refering to.
Here's my model:
Self (can be multiple and contradictory) -> thoughts -> decisions (can be selfish) -> actions
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Nov 12, 2007 19:14:40 GMT -5
You shouldn't use your moderator-powers except for the administration they were intended for. That's advice from someone with three years of active moderator experience ^_-
You should let this go unless you're trying to use this as part of your reasoning against my statement. Since you haven't let it go, here's my retort:
What you're saying is that you can save yourself... from yourself. That's still in self-interest. It's like cutting of an poisoned limb--you're preserving the greater part of you.
If you want to say it's not like that, then argue that you're doing it because someone else wants you to, even when you don't want to. Then, I'll lump you in with the other people who think they can change someone who doesn't want to change.
Why would someone change? Because they most-value something that requires them to change.
For the record, here's my model (psychology, yay!):
self = id (impulsive wants) + ego (sense of responsibility) + superego (balancing force -- thoughts, the consciousness)
For the rest of the model, I refer to my signature:
“Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.” -attributed to Frank Outlaw
|
|