Egoism

As the argument goes, even when someone seems to be acting out of selfless concern for another, they are indeed acting out of selfish concern because they seek to remove the distress they feel at the other's pain (given by means of empathy) or gain a positive pleasure release from their actions.

Do you think people are motivated solely by self-interest and only self-interest? Even when acting in a seemingly altruistic manner?

I'm pretty sure empathetic people don't 'seek to relieve their distress at others' suffering', and it's certainly not what runs through their heads. What runs through their heads is more likely something along the lines of 'I understand this person's pain. I should help this person, how can I help this person?' It's sickening that you'd say there are no real kind-hearted people. Not to say I'm kind myself, because I'm not, but I do know a few truly kind people, not driven by their egos or by ulterior motives.

I did not say that there are no real kind-hearted people. I asked you a question to get your opinion about whether or not you think there are or aren't, pretty big difference.

Anyways, no evidence in that argument to refute psychological egoism, though you're along the right lines, you just need to prove your statements. Until you can do that though, egoism stands.

Don't know don't care.

So do you always waste your time posting inane comments?

I mean, couldn't you like, post in a thread about something you actually find interesting?

I could, but I wanted to post here and express the lack of fucks I give. If you've got a problem with that, then get out.

I don't have a problem with it at all. I'm just inquisitive as to why you would come into a thread and post solely to admit your ignorance.

Seems inane to me.

Your wit is palpable.

The best feeling in the world is having an itchy arsehole and finally being able to scratch it.

Truth and support for egoism, reward centers rule our actions.

As to your original question, of course it's possible to act in your interest and state of mind when helping others. It's all situational and dependent on the person, don't ask questions that require us to paint people with broad strokes.
Why come here and ask this when Serious Discussion and Random exist?

I'm taking a shit now, so naturally it's the perfect time to wax philosophic in IB.



The only one who needs to do any kind of proving is you. They call it a burden for a reason. You presume the intent of an individual's actions as selfish based on the inference that the alleviation of their distress and/or the psychological reward received after the fact are justifications for their behavior. The only thing we can know is that their emotional disturbance for that moment spurred them from complacency into action. What we don't know is whether that action was motivated by selfishness. That is unless you are omniscient and know precisely how every human's mind functions, thus you can know without a shadow of a doubt exactly what happens in their brain during that moment and can, with absolute certitude, declare those behaviors selfish. My position is to allow for the possibility of altruism. I do not know when it occurs and in whom, but I shan't preclude considering such a turn of events. You, on the other hand, have to prove its impossibility. I don't necessarily disagree with egoism, as I'm sure it accurately describes many, if not most, cases, but I would be intellectually dishonest if I ever considered it an absolute.



I should check this place out more often during bowel movements.

So, in order to 'prove' my statements, we'd have to have a machine that can read peoples' minds, or someone with similar supernatural abilities. I'd say that peoples' overall actions through the course of their lifetimes, although a less accurate indicator, still show at least part of their true nature. It's unrealistic to expect 'proof' of abstract concepts, such as 'kindness' or 'generosity', etc. Because said proof is nearly impossible to obtain, if possible at all. And I have no idea how one would go about proving these concepts. In the end, we can only 'hope' that there are 'truly kind' people, and it's not just a really, really elaborate hoax to satisfy their own ego, a little bit at a time.

Your statement had implications, because you stated it in a way that your idea of people do good deeds only to satisfy their egos, was a correct statement. You may not have meant to make said implications, but you did, and making such implications is bound to begin a level of controversy, even if small.

A true shitpost?

I don't shitpost, I just post shit. Finally have an excuse to use that line; nice of you to cooperate.

Such a simplistic concept. If people only act in self-interest and selfishness, even in matters that appear selfless, then it fails to explain things like self-sacrifice. If a person gives his/her life to save the life of another, then how can that action be at all interpreted as being motivated by self-interest.

Cant it be both?

The 'legacy' you want to leave of yourself to others after you die could be motivated by self-interest, even if creating that legacy requires self-sacrifice.

@ToyManC Desire within the egoist argument is taken in a broad sense to mean any motivational mental state. It is easy to see why this argument can be applied to any action no? For instance, I could argue that the person is only acting out of desire for oneself when he saves the others because he does not want to be distressed for the rest of his life by letting another person die, peace of mind. There is a fairly famous story using Lincoln that illustrates this very well. As for where that distress comes from biology has indicated that it's a social behaviour groomed by evolution, a survival mechanism and that we do get a pleasurable reward from taking selfless actions.

@Rbz Wow, didn't expect someone here to understand epistemology. Really though, you could apply that argument to disprove the majority of statements, let's just beg the question and assume we can realize truth for the sake of debate.

The argument was proposed by Thomas Hobbes as far back as the 17th century and we have only reinforced it with our findings in biology, specifically neuroscience. There is mounds of data to support it. We have reward centres and our genetics show patterns of the egoist directive.

Also, the burden was not mine, I simply asked a question. When you respond you are taking, willingly, the burden to answer it. The response to Gravity Cat was only made to "keep the train on its tracks" per say, twisting his words to support one side of the argument to generate more thought and prevent derailing.

@Complete_Horizon

It isn't implied, you read a very simple set of questions and decided to make an assumption about my beliefs. That is your own fault, or are you going to try and say that every time someone asks a question they automatically must fall in line with whatever beliefs are supposed to it?

Because that's how you get called a retard.

@Waar

I guess it depends, in modern egoism people seem to be proposing that altruism is really just a social behaviour led on by genetics, a vested self-interest in cooperating with our environment rather than an act of outright selfless kindness.