Human Beings - Selfless?

[WrathofTulkas]

Recently in one of the mudpit discussions, people were discussing whether or not the USSR was a communist state. I said no there is no such thing as communism - it will never happen.

My reason - humans are essentially selfish.

Now I have told this to many people - Many try to convince me that humans are not essentially selfish, and that we are capable of truly selfless acts. Noone has of yet, given me a situation where a human being without question (or doubt) commited an act of selflessness.

There will always be consequence to your actions correct? Will a human being ever commit an act that is not in some way beneficial to that person? I haven't heard of one yet. (Must be Conscious act btw no finger twitching or something)

Discuss - Or try to give me a situation (I have heard many, it must be outside the box)

[Playfishpaste]

Um, yes? If a person agrees to be killed for a complete stranger, they will die in the end, no "feeling good about yourself" and no relief etc. Just death, so yeah, people have done sefless things.

also, apathetic people and people with sociopathy or psychopathy can do things for absolutely no gain, like taking out somebody's trash.

EDIT: Also, you don't need to be selfless for communism to work, you only have to agree with the system and perform "selfless" acts (even though they aren't really selfless acts, because you're getting emotional benefit, but you get what I mean)

[WrathofTulkas]

I'm talking about sane people here. Why on earth would somebody want a complete stranger to kill them if they were sane? Suicide? If thats the answer then the person obviously does not want to live and so death is a benefit, no?

There is always a reason why you do something consciously ( and I dont mean moving you finger, even then you WANT to move your finger). So why would you ever do something that does not benefit you??

I still have not had a satisfactory situation.

[Playfishpaste]

I'm talking about sane people here. Why on earth would somebody want a complete stranger to kill them if they were sane? Suicide? If thats the answer then the person obviously does not want to live and so death is a benefit, no?

I didn't say die at the hands of a strange, I said die FOR a complete stranger, in a sacrificial act. This is not to the person's benefit in any way as he will not get any emotional good feelings out of it because he will be dead.

There is always a reason why you do something consciously ( and I dont mean moving you finger, even then you WANT to move your finger). So why would you ever do something that does not benefit you??

I still have not had a satisfactory situation.

You are talking about sane people, only sociopaths and psychopaths do things without emotions being taken into account. A selfless act is not something that you do for no benefit to you, it is something that you do for no MATERIAL benefit to you, big difference.

[WrathofTulkas]

I didn't say die at the hands of a strange, I said die FOR a complete stranger, in a sacrificial act. This is not to the person's benefit in any way as he will not get any emotional good feelings out of it because he will be dead.



You are talking about sane people, only sociopaths and psychopaths do things without emotions being taken into account. A selfless act is not something that you do for no benefit to you, it is something that you do for no MATERIAL benefit to you, big difference.

Sane people do not sacrifice themseleves for no reason whatsoever....
Material benefit? No I believe this issue of selflessness transcends materials... I'm looking at selflessness like this: There is no benefit to you at all... materials do not have to be involved.

[Playfishpaste]

Sane people do not sacrifice themseleves for no reason whatsoever....

Yes they do, I'd suggest "Introduction to sociology" by gibbons.

Material benefit? No I believe this issue of selflessness transcends materials... I'm looking at selflessness like this: There is no benefit to you at all... materials do not have to be involved.

Then you're not only wrong, but illogical. Only insane people would have this kind of selflessness.

[Problem Sleuth]

A soldier stays behind, distracting the enemy and allowing the rest of his squad to escape more or less intact, knowing he'll almost certainly die. He sees no personal benefit from that action, or, at the very least, the negatives for him far outweigh the positives. Selflessness.

[MET]

So let us imagine that you gave one dollar to a homeless guy. And you would be feeling really bad about it. You wouldn't do it again, because you might feel bad again. Even though you would make the homeless guy happy with it. to me, your being selfish then.

[Segestan]

After death... all Christians and Muslims accept a monarcy, they do so as the perfect altruistic communist is created..

[WrathofTulkas]

Living people please

[Bovril]

Recently in one of the mudpit discussions, people were discussing whether or not the USSR was a communist state. I said no there is no such thing as communism - it will never happen.

My reason - humans are essentially selfish.

I think you misunderstand communism. Theoretically, it is based on the premise that the proletariat will act on their own self interest. I agree with the idea that the USSR was not communist precisely for this reason. The actual soviets were dismantled as soon as Lenin could manage.

Now I have told this to many people - Many try to convince me that humans are not essentially selfish, and that we are capable of truly selfless acts. Noone has of yet, given me a situation where a human being without question (or doubt) commited an act of selflessness.

If you are not willing to be convinced you probably won't be convinced. The usual fallacy bandied about regarding altruism is that if people are pleased to have done some good then its not altruism. This assumption of course precludes the possibility of altruism, but only on spurious grounds. It has a messed up model of causation, i.e. people do something kind in order to feel good, rather than the more accurate model, people feel good because they have done somthing kind. Anyway, say a person with social phobia offers another person who seems lost directions, that person will have done a good turn, even though the memory of having done so will probably torment them (memories of social interactions tend to do this to social phobics). This is altruism even by the ridiculously stringent definition demanded by skeptics.

There will always be consequence to your actions correct? Will a human being ever commit an act that is not in some way beneficial to that person? I haven't heard of one yet. (Must be Conscious act btw no finger twitching or something)

See above.

Discuss - Or try to give me a situation (I have heard many, it must be outside the box)

See above.


If you want to use the term altruism then you have to allow for circumstances in which it could exist (even if you think these circumstances have never occured). If you don't, then you must argue that the concept of altruism makes no sense, i.e. altruism cannot exist, not altruism does not exist.

[WrathofTulkas]

I think you misunderstand communism. Theoretically, it is based on the premise that the proletariat will act on their own self interest. I agree with the idea that the USSR was not communist precisely for this reason. The actual soviets were dismantled as soon as Lenin could manage.



If you are not willing to be convinced you probably won't be convinced. The usual fallacy bandied about regarding altruism is that if people are pleased to have done some good then its not altruism. This assumption of course precludes the possibility of altruism, but only on spurious grounds. It has a messed up model of causation, i.e. people do something kind in order to feel good, rather than the more accurate model, people feel good because they have done somthing kind. Anyway, say a person with social phobia offers another person who seems lost directions, that person will have done a good turn, even though the memory of having done so will probably torment them (memories of social interactions tend to do this to social phobics). This is altruism even by the ridiculously stringent definition demanded by skeptics.



See above.



See above.


If you want to use the term altruism then you have to allow for circumstances in which it could exist (even if you think these circumstances have never occured). If you don't, then you must argue that the concept of altruism makes no sense, i.e. altruism cannot exist, not altruism does not exist.

Oh I want to be convince xD But I'm gonna have to hear something that will make me say "Oh"

Lets take your socialphobic person situation further - Why did he give directions in the first place?

[Bovril]

Lets take your socialphobic person situation further - Why did he give directions in the first place?

Because of a sense of obligation maybe. What does it matter if both the outcome, and his expectation of the outcome were negative?

[WrathofTulkas]

Because of a sense of obligation maybe. What does it matter if both the outcome, and his expectation of the outcome were negative?

If he feels obligated that means HE must commit that act or face humilating consequences right? So he chooses, at that moment in time, the act that will have a beneficial consequence (telling of directions). So his choosing is selfish right? I dont think it matters if he starts to worry about if afterward b/c of an unrational fear

this is interesting

[Bovril]

If he feels obligated that means HE must commit that act or face humilating consequences right? So he chooses, at that moment in time, the act that will have a beneficial consequence (telling of directions). So his choosing is selfish right? I dont think it matters if he starts to worry about if afterward b/c of an unrational fear

this is interesting

I disagree. The typical untreated social phobic is aware enough of his condition to know that interactions with strangers allways result in unpleasant rumination after the event. His sense of obligation is therfore not an impulse to serve his own hapiness, but to perform a task he regards to be proper, despite the upset it will cause him. This, surely, is the very definition of altruism. If he had not peformed the task, then his overall wellbeing would be in a better state, and he knows this. But he still does it. Though filled with a nameless terror at performing the task, and well aware of the discomfort it will cause him, and the ease of simply ignoring the situation, he perserveres.

I should note that such a situation is not common, but its existence proves the existence of altruism. And we can work from this fact to identify the influence of altruism in other actions.

[MET]

Actually, here's a situation. Imagine a wife making breakfast for her husband every day. obviously she does it because she loves him. but that doesn't mean she is actually conscious of that when making the food. meaning the act itself is selfless. although the reason of the act is not.

[WrathofTulkas]

Actually, here's a situation. Imagine a wife making breakfast for her husband every day. obviously she does it because she loves him. but that doesn't mean she is actually conscious of that when making the food. meaning the act itself is selfless. although the reason of the act is not.

But the reason is SOOO important - It what ,imo, makes an act selfish or selfless! Maybe she feels obligated to make breakfast? She was been doing it day after day after day right? It has become routine and she does not want to mess it up?

Maybe we can take this further

[Playfishpaste]

But the reason is SOOO important - It what ,imo, makes an act selfish or selfless! Maybe she feels obligated to make breakfast? She was been doing it day after day after day right? It has become routine and she does not want to mess it up?

Maybe we can take this further

Actually, I hadn't though of the love example, there are cases where you'd do it not out of habit but just because you feel like it, it isn't even for the emotional benefit either...strange. Consider holding an umbrella over your partner, you aren't doing it to get the emotional satisfaction of being a good partner, you also aren't doing it to shelter her from rain as you aren't thinking about how that would negatively affect her (assuming it's a her).

[WrathofTulkas]

Actually, I hadn't though of the love example, there are cases where you'd do it not out of habit but just because you feel like it, it isn't even for the emotional benefit either...strange. Consider holding an umbrella over your partner, you aren't doing it to get the emotional satisfaction of being a good partner, you also aren't doing it to shelter her from rain as you aren't thinking about how that would negatively affect her (assuming it's a her).

But even if you just feel like it.. isnt that selfish YOO WANT to do it. And i think you would put the umbrella over your gal b/c shes your gal Sex is good xD

[MET]

But the reason is SOOO important - It what ,imo, makes an act selfish or selfless! Maybe she feels obligated to make breakfast? She was been doing it day after day after day right? It has become routine and she does not want to mess it up?

Maybe we can take this further

Well, she started the routine because she loves her husband. Obviously she wouldn't have done it if she didn't love him. so it is a selfish act. Yet, after a while, she got used to doing it. No longer thinking about the fact that she actually does it because she loves him. But she still makes breakfast for him, making the act selfless. Even though she still does it because she loves him. But since she is unaware of that, it doesn't really count.