I think that for everything we do, it is for our own gain. If you disagree, comment me with examples and reason behind it. There are acts we do that is for ourself only, and then there are those good deed acts we do to help others. Yet when we are helping others, one small part is for our self. Excuse my being harsh but these are just examples. You wont let someone you love suicide because you love them and want them to be there with you. Or you won't let them suicide because it hurts to know that you let someone die when you could've helped them. You help an old lady cross the street because you know that if you don't, she could get into an accident, and then you'll have a guilty conscience. By helping the old lady, you feel better about yourself and have benefited both you and the old lady. These are just a few examples.
We Are All Selfish
By amtee - Posted on June 17th, 2007
Every time we make a sacrifice to help someone, we have to give up something (time, money, etc). In order for your theory to be correct, this would have to be true:
GOOD FEELINGS OF GIVING > SACRIFICE TO SELF
What about people who die for others? Those people clearly aren't going to get much of a benefit from death and the cost is very high.
I think we do act on more than just selfish actions, or the human race would have died long ago. An individual can live on selfishness, but a population needs a larger moral sphere.
haha, I'll play devil's advocate until I can' anymore. thats a good argument you have. But people waste time all the time, by wasting time to get self gratification, its worth it for both parties. Those who die for others? They believe they are doing it for a great cause and it'll make them a martyr anyways if they feel passionately about the cost of their life.
"They believe they are doing it for a great cause and it'll make them a martyr"
Exactly. Whatever these people are dying for, they value it greater than their own life. That doesn't seem selfish - they are setting aside their self interests for something or someone else.
I am reminded of the soviets who died containing Chernobyl, so the others could survive. They didn't believe in an afterlife. They knew they would die (and painfully) but still did their job to save the community.
We see this behavior in all social animals so it is probably important. We can imagine societies in which individuals are willing to risk their lives to protect their families from wild animals might help a species survive.
Thats true. Well what can I say, you bring up good arguments. What is Chernobyl? What happened there? I want to know.
Yes, in risky situations, courageous people will stand up and risk their lives for the rest of the population.
What is Chernobyl? What happened there? I want to know.
Chernobyl was a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. It had a nuclear meltdown, and all the area surrounding it was poisoned with radiation, and still is to this day. It destroyed much of the environment and the people in the immediate vicinity (read something like 20 miles). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
I dont think such questions are ever answered for certain, but we can always look at extreme examples for better insight.
If people were entirely selfish all of the time, then that must mean they never put anything above themselves in anything they do. I'm not necessarily sure that is true in the case where people sacrifice themselves for others.
At any rate, it's a question biologists, economists, and philosophers grapple with. They all waant to learn what is the motivation for human behavior (often so they can model it) .
My point is that it doesn't have to be intentional, inside, subconsciously, a small part of us do those things because it will benefit us.
What about someone who kills their entire family, and himself because of a promise they made to a stranger when they didn't understand the consequences? I don't think we have to go through the dramatic specifics, it is the end outcome that matters.
The man loses everything that has defined him, except his loyalty. He can hope for no reward, as he will never see the stranger again. His choice will lose him everything, and gain him nothing, even in the after life of his specific beliefs, so why did he hold to that one single principle?
That is a truly self-less act, an act considered by all to be evil and wrong, but done anyway only because a person feels obligated. A "good" act will be lauded on some level and rewarded on some level by others and self. An "evil" act, like the one I describe, would, I imagine, net no reward, or at least not enough.
Thoughts?
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principals."
It's actually a form of escape. People do things because they 'believe' they can benefit from it. The belief may be different from your perspective of the situation and its benefits. It's not hard to kill yourself, what is hard is to survive - to make oneself go through day after day without seemingly any hope. For suicides, death is preferrable to life, though to people who like to live life's benefits outweigh death.
If you think this, you should serious read Ayn Rand if you haven't yet.