Every act is an egoistic act

[Mortensen]

Anyone disagree?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyone disagree?

Hi, yes!

But I wonder what you mean by "egoistic act".


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Mortensen]

I mean that every knowingly act (not like snorring and so) is done to promote your selves. If it is not for your selves, you woudnt do it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean that every knowingly act (not like snorring and so) is done to promote your selves. If it is not for your selves, you woudnt do it.

What does "promoting your self" mean? Promote in what way?


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Mortensen]

Betyder at fremma seg selv.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Betyder at fremma seg selv.

English is my native language, and I'm not yet fluent in Swedish. Please explain in English.

I'm asking these questions for a philosophical reason that I'll make known soon.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Mortensen]

English is my native language, and I'm not yet fluent in Swedish. Please explain in English.

I'm asking these questions for a philosophical reason that I'll make known soon.


eudaimonia,

M.

I see... I just thought your english was bad... sorry

I mean that every action is done for your selves, you don't do anything for others alone. Serving others is a result of serving youselves. u see?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean that every action is done for your selves, you don't do anything for others alone. Serving others is a result of serving youselves. u see?

I agree that one could do something to benefit someone else because one believes it benefits oneself to act in this way (this is, in fact, my own egoistic justification of benevolence), but I don't see why this must be the case for everyone. IOW, I don't think that purely other-regarding, or even self-destructive behavior, is impossible.

What I find is that psychological egoism (the idea that all people act in a self-interested fashion all the time) rests on a weak truism -- that people do what they in fact want to do (the truism), and this "wanting" is taken as evidence of self-interest (the weak part). Wanting something doesn't mean that it actually benefits oneself, or even that it is intended to benefit oneself. Doing what one "wants" doesn't in and of itself say anything about who the beneficiary of the action is.

I can't think of any reason why it would be that human psychology would force people to always act in a self-benefitting way, so I don't believe in psychological egoism. (I am a variety of ethical egoist, but that's a different subject altogether.)


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Mortensen]

Hmm... My english is not so great so don't blame me if I didn't get it right. You disagree at some point? Do you have an example to an act that is not to promote your selves? Doing something that does not have a reason to please yourselves? (If I got it all wrong, please give me an easier version )

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hmm... My english is not so great so don't blame me if I didn't get it right. You disagree at some point? Do you have an example to an act that is not to promote your selves? Doing something that does not have a reason to please yourselves?

Yes, people taught that one has a duty to be "self-sacrificing" often do things for others that do not please themselves. An ex-girlfriend of mine is a good example. She would do things for her relatives all the time because she was trained to be a "good (self-sacrificing) girl". She often felt burnt out because of all she did. She did not end up "promoting her self" in any way that I can identify -- not even pleasure. Her sense of duty was a burden to her instead.

(Please note that I'm not saying that being helpful to others is draining in all cases -- only that it can be. I believe in being helpful in moderation, i.e. wisely "lagom".)

This is such a common phenomenon it's a wonder that it isn't more widely recognized.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Saeph]

Yes, people taught that one has a duty to be "self-sacrificing" often do things for others that do not please themselves. An ex-girlfriend of mine is a good example. She would do things for her relatives all the time because she was trained to be a "good (self-sacrificing) girl". She often felt burnt out because of all she did. She did not end up "promoting her self" in any way that I can identify -- not even pleasure. Her sense of duty was a burden to her instead.

(Please note that I'm not saying that being helpful to others is draining in all cases -- only that it can be. I believe in being helpful in moderation, i.e. wisely "lagom".)

This is such a common phenomenon it's a wonder that it isn't more widely recognized.


eudaimonia,

M.

Well, like you said she used to be trained to be a "good girl". This behaviour to her parents and relatives is an egoistic act too, because if she didn't do all those things for her relatives, she would feel very uncomfortable about it. You only got to analyse all acts of every human being, and you will recognise the egoistic act, the use of it for the person who does it, behind.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, like you said she used to be trained to be a "good girl". This behaviour to her parents and relatives is an egoistic act too, because if she didn't do all those things for her relatives, she would feel very uncomfortable about it. You only got to analyse all acts of every human being, and you will recognise the egoistic act, the use of it for the person who does it, behind.

"Avoiding discomfort" wasn't her motive. She acted in the way she thought was morally correct, and that was to sacrifice her interests for others. It was others she thought about, not herself or her pleasure. She was self-disregarding as a habit. She could not reasonably be described as "promoting her self". She was very un-self-promoting.

It is possible to be "cynical" and assume that everyone has their own pleasure in mind when they act -- and one can always come up with some explanation for an action to give form to that assumption -- however, in examining other people I do not find that this always holds true. The assumption is often mistaken.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Mortensen]

Then why did she do it? If she was "raised" to behave that way, as in this wasn't her choice? She did what she did because the consequenses of doing it was smaller than the consequenses of not doing it, as for her selves. If you for example are about to hurt another person to ease your own hard feelings, neither the hurting, the feelings before or the feelings after is any "good" but you do what you think is the best for your own good compared to the alternatives you have.

 

[dhuisjen2]

Time to toss another Nordic flag into the mix here! (And BTW, FWDIM my native language is English.)

In most senses I agree with your starting premise, but with my own qualifier: I believe that there are effectively 5 separate classifications for psychologically satisfying actions:
COMPARISON: Things we do in order to feel as good as or better than someone else.
COMFORT: Things we do to satisfy physical urges -- to increase pleasure and decrease pain.
CONTROL: Things we do in order to increase our sense of power over our environment and freedom to act therein.
CONFIDENCE: Things we do to prove to ourselves that we are in some way "good".
CONNECTION: Things we do because we feel that we are (or want to be) part of something that goes beyond our individual human limitations.

I'm in a long process of writing a book on ethics for my teenage son on this premise, and I would say that the "proper Christian" approach would be to prioritize these motivations in reverse order from how they are presented.

Does this make sense? I'm quite open to critique here.

 

[morningstar2651]

Anyone disagree?

I disagree.

It could be argued that someone acts altruisticly because they want to prevent theirself from feeling bad about not helping someone.

However, the guilt they feel from a failure to help someone is caused by their altruism.

 

[levi501]

For the most part I agree with the OP.
Although I do believe there are irrational acts.
Jumping on a grenade for instance.

 

[levi501]

However, the guilt they feel from a failure to help someone is caused by their altruism.

true, but it's still self-serving to try and avoid this guilt.

 

[Eudaimonist]

true, but it's still self-serving to try and avoid this guilt.

He wasn't saying this was the motivation for the altruistic act, but that the guilt would be caused by one's altruistic beliefs if one failed to live up to them.

Just because the possibility of guilt exists, that doesn't mean that one acts with the motivation of guilt-avoidance.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[elman]

I mean that every knowingly act (not like snorring and so) is done to promote your selves. If it is not for your selves, you woudnt do it.

So dying to save someone is an egoistic act? This world would be one horrible place if nobody loved anyone else. To love someone one acts in their benefit rather than in your own interest. It happens all the time all around you.

 

[Blackguard_]

So dying to save someone is an egoistic act?

It can be. Jumping on a grenade to save my comrades would be quite the reputation boost wouldn't it?

This is sort of the problem with psychological egoism, you can make up a selfish reason for any action, it is an unfalsifiable theory. Was that your point OP?