Every act is an egoistic act

[GaelSong]

I agree, we do things for selfish motives. Doing something just because there is a need for it to be done without glorifying ourselves is very difficult to master. I was recently accused of trying to be a 'good samaritan' and I think that person was spot on. How does a person detach from personalising good deeds? Interesting question.

 

[nadroj1985]

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

This is true, actually, though I still think all acts are motivated by one's self-interest. The problem is defining "self" in that equation. But, it seems to me that you could say that asserting that altruism is possible is just as unfalsifiable.

I generally find that when the debate is between two unfalsifiable theories, it often turns out that which way you view it makes little difference -- except, of course, when you emotionalize the views. This happens A LOT when someone criticizes psychological egoism by saying, "so nobody can do anything for anyone else? We're all just a bunch of selfish little brats? Was Mother Teresa a selfish little brat? Why do you hate freedom and want to punt puppies? etc. etc." This doesn't get at the point of the psychological egoist at all -- many psychological egoists see the good life not as satisfaction of one's immediate pleasures (the typical view of "selfishness") but as a finding of ways to benefit oneself such that one benefits everyone around them.

Which, ironically, is more or less what non-psychological egoists would have us do anyway. Which means that the two views end up making not a whole lot of ethical difference in the grand scheme of things. It's not completely that simple, but I still think it's an important point.

 

[dhuisjen2]

To me the problems is with Christians who try to stomp out all forms of egoism, including psychological egoism, and end up acting like the dog viciously attacking its own tail.

What's wrong with doing things that feel good, all else being equal?
What's wrong with working on feeling good about yourself?
What's wrong with wanting to believe that you're part of a higher cause?

Rather than futally trying to say, "Oh I don't do that," or taking such hypocritical denial among others seriously, or even taking "trying to be a Good Samaritan" as a valid accusation; why don't we focus on trying to love properly (according to the "twin commandment of love") and on discovering what sort of "abundant life" Jesus came to give us (John 10:10)?!?!

For my theoretical perspectives on this matter, se my previous post on this thread.

Blessings, David

 

[elman]

I agree, we do things for selfish motives. Doing something just because there is a need for it to be done without glorifying ourselves is very difficult to master. I was recently accused of trying to be a 'good samaritan' and I think that person was spot on. How does a person detach from personalising good deeds? Interesting question.

There is nothing wrong and everything right with trying to be a good samaritan. What is wrong is not trying to be one.

 

[elman]

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?

Why does the dead guy care about his reputation?

 

[Blackguard_]

Why does the dead guy care about his reputation?

1. I do not agree with psychological egoism.

2. Not many people want to be forgotten after they die. Heroic deaths are remembered a lot longer than "some slob who died in bed at 83". He simply decided posthumous fame and glory would be better than a life and death of obscurity.

You don't think egoism could include how you die?

 

[elman]

1. I do not agree with psychological egoism.

2. Not many people want to be forgotten after they die. Heroic deaths are remembered a lot longer than "some slob who died in bed at 83". He simply decided posthumous fame and glory would be better than a life and death of obscurity.

You don't think egoism could include how you die?

No I don't, but then again I don't think egoism is what motivates everything we do.

 

[Catholicism]

Anyone disagree?

Yes

 

[Blackguard_]

No I don't, but then again I don't think egoism is what motivates everything we do.

Well, you don't have to agree with a position to know what it could say.

I don't beleive egoism motivates everything either, but I see no problem with egoist considerations of death.

Psycho-Egoism is an assertion that all actions are egoist, so they HAVE to explain away any action that you might see as altruistic and/or self-destructive as having a hidden Egoist motive.

 

[dhuisjen2]

Why does the dead guy care about his reputation?

FWDIM, Aristotle went as far as to say that he did not believe a person could be judged as having eudaimonia (being happy or successful) within his own lifetime -- posthumos reputation is too big a part of the equation. Shakespeare's Macbeth says basically the same thing.

The main question is, can't trying to build a place in history for yourself be a form of selfishness?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Mortensen,

thank you for the post.

Anyone disagree?

yes. i would disagree.

i would agree, however, that this is the SOP for most beings.

metta,

~v

 

[morningstar2651]

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.

You might enjoy A Theory of Fun.

 

[elman]

Well, you don't have to agree with a position to know what it could say.

I don't beleive egoism motivates everything either, but I see no problem with egoist considerations of death.

Psycho-Egoism is an assertion that all actions are egoist, so they HAVE to explain away any action that you might see as altruistic and/or self-destructive as having a hidden Egoist motive.

It is difficult for me to see egoist motive in self distruction if there is no afterlife.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is difficult for me to see egoist motive in self distruction if there is no afterlife.

While I don't think that giving up one's life is necessarily egoistic, I can see a motive. It would be asserting quality over quantity of life. IOW, giving up one's life would be an assertion of one's integrity and values, since intentionally degrading oneself may be seen as ruining the quality of one's life to the point where is isn't worth living any longer.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[dhuisjen2]

You might enjoy A Theory of Fun.

Thanks for the tip. I'll try to look it up over my summer vacation!