Total Posts:119|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

All people are selfish

Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 1:32:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
What do you mean?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 1:36:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
Easy. Give me an example of any action.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 1:47:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:32:14 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
What do you mean?

The case you are making could certainly be true. All people could be completely selfish.

However, the diametric opposite is just as probable. It is something which we cannot determine. The most we can do is claim in an evidentialist sense that altruism does not exist, due to the lack of evidence.

You seem to also be claiming that it doesn't exist in any sense.

I wished to see how you support this claim.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I apologize for the lack of clarification in my original post.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 1:51:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:36:34 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
Easy. Give me an example of any action.

Would saving a drowning child work? It seems as if you cannot disprove the existence of altruism in this case. Casting doubt, however, is possible.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 1:52:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:47:50 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:32:14 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
What do you mean?

The case you are making could certainly be true. All people could be completely selfish.

However, the diametric opposite is just as probable. It is something which we cannot determine. The most we can do is claim in an evidentialist sense that altruism does not exist, due to the lack of evidence.

You seem to also be claiming that it doesn't exist in any sense.

I wished to see how you support this claim.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I apologize for the lack of clarification in my original post.

Any altruistic action has either an emotional, social, moral, or economic benefit behind it. Somehow or another, the person completing the "altruism" is getting something out of it.
I like to use the example of a psychopath. They do not feel emotions, and they therefore do not get an emotional high off of helping people. Do they still help people. No. However, if the opportunity for money was involved, they would be more likely to do so because one does not need emotions to desire money.
I believe that this is what you are asking for.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:51:30 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:36:34 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
Easy. Give me an example of any action.

Would saving a drowning child work? It seems as if you cannot disprove the existence of altruism in this case. Casting doubt, however, is possible.
If he drew pleasure from saving a life. Next.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:17:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:52:09 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:47:50 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:32:14 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
What do you mean?

The case you are making could certainly be true. All people could be completely selfish.

However, the diametric opposite is just as probable. It is something which we cannot determine. The most we can do is claim in an evidentialist sense that altruism does not exist, due to the lack of evidence.

You seem to also be claiming that it doesn't exist in any sense.

I wished to see how you support this claim.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I apologize for the lack of clarification in my original post.

Any altruistic action has either an emotional, social, moral, or economic benefit behind it. Somehow or another, the person completing the "altruism" is getting something out of it.
I like to use the example of a psychopath. They do not feel emotions, and they therefore do not get an emotional high off of helping people. Do they still help people. No. However, if the opportunity for money was involved, they would be more likely to do so because one does not need emotions to desire money.
I believe that this is what you are asking for.
Loving money is a emotion. Next.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:21:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I should warn you that your examples tell me a lot about your personalty type and your moral values. So be careful. Others may view this site.

Ps if the child was mine the action would be altruistic and selfless.
XLAV
Posts: 13,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:44:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 2:21:45 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Ps if the child was mine the action would be altruistic and selfless.

Wouldn't that make you happy/glad that you saved your own child, which makes you kind of selfish?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:49:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 2:44:20 PM, XLAV wrote:
At 5/19/2015 2:21:45 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Ps if the child was mine the action would be altruistic and selfless.

Wouldn't that make you happy/glad that you saved your own child, which makes you kind of selfish?

In who's opinion? Mine? yours? Or the child who's life just got saves? You see perception is the defining factor.

I love myself. Is that wrong? I saved the childs life so I will be happy/glad.

To you I appear heroic and selfless.

Likewise to the/my child.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:49:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

I worked this out a couple years ago. There's no such thing as pure selflessness. There's altruistic behavior, but not selfless behavior.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:51:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet if it was my child i would sacrifice my life to save him/her.

Motivation. I love my child

Love motivates every human action
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:57:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But be careful in any debate. Make sure they give the example. If you give an example they can twist your intentions.

that's why atheists always win religious debates. They never give examples. Only tear yours apart.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 2:58:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

I had a political science professor who would swear up and down that the only interest is self-interest.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:01:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 2:58:10 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

I had a political science professor who would swear up and down that the only interest is self-interest.

Lol that means his only interest was self interest. We impose our intentions on other peoples actions.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:03:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:01:45 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 2:58:10 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

I had a political science professor who would swear up and down that the only interest is self-interest.

Lol that means his only interest was self interest. We impose our intentions on other peoples actions.

Well... yeah... but he is right. the point was if you do something for someone else... it is because it is in your interest to do so.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:04:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:01:45 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 2:58:10 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

I had a political science professor who would swear up and down that the only interest is self-interest.

Lol that means his only interest was self interest. We impose our intentions on other peoples actions.

That is how you can tell things about people by their examples. A liar will accuse people of lying because he assumes that everyone lies.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:03:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:01:45 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 2:58:10 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

I had a political science professor who would swear up and down that the only interest is self-interest.

Lol that means his only interest was self interest. We impose our intentions on other peoples actions.

Well... yeah... but he is right. the point was if you do something for someone else... it is because it is in your interest to do so.

Is their anything wrong with loving yourself and doing things that benefit you?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:08:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It only becomes a problem if the action is detrimental to someone else.
Because they also love themself and want to be happy.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:11:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The same applies to good and evil. If you like doing something but think its evil. Whichever option makes you happiest is what you will do. Feeling guilty comes later.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:11:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 2:53:29 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
You guys are on the right track but use love as the motivation instead of benefit/gain.

These are really interchangeable. You have to ask yourself what it means to do something out of love. There is a personal gain/benefit when you do something "out of love." It's probably going to be an emotional gain. Emotional satisfaction is the motivation in the context of love, so to speak.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:13:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Following from this its easy to see that your choices are predetermined by whatever makes you happiest. Lol bad news people. Free will is an illusion.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:11:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 2:53:29 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
You guys are on the right track but use love as the motivation instead of benefit/gain.

These are really interchangeable. You have to ask yourself what it means to do something out of love. There is a personal gain/benefit when you do something "out of love." It's probably going to be an emotional gain. Emotional satisfaction is the motivation in the context of love, so to speak.

Gold star for you.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:16:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 2:15:05 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:51:30 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:36:34 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
Easy. Give me an example of any action.

Would saving a drowning child work? It seems as if you cannot disprove the existence of altruism in this case. Casting doubt, however, is possible.
If he drew pleasure from saving a life. Next.

He also could have done this out of the kindness of his heart. The point I am trying to make is that we cannot tell the other person's true intentions. It could be directed by altruism, or it could not be. How can we see how one case is completely true?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:17:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 1:52:09 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:47:50 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:32:14 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 1:30:49 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/19/2015 12:03:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I believe that all people only have their core interests at heart. When people help people, they feel good about it and or enjoy it. This makes them want to do it more. However, these people are getting an emotional high off of helping, and therefore, get something out of it for themselves.
I have worked it out to where everyone responds to either moral, social, emotional, and economic incentives, and every "good" action someone does benefits themselves in one of these ways.

Psychological egoism (the belief that altruism does not exist) is always a polarizing topic. The issue seems to be completely determined by your perception. I cannot point to a single event which can either prove or disprove this theory. The existence and non-existence of altruism create empirically equivalent theories (theories which explain the exact same phenomena). Could you please display how this is not the case?
What do you mean?

The case you are making could certainly be true. All people could be completely selfish.

However, the diametric opposite is just as probable. It is something which we cannot determine. The most we can do is claim in an evidentialist sense that altruism does not exist, due to the lack of evidence.

You seem to also be claiming that it doesn't exist in any sense.

I wished to see how you support this claim.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I apologize for the lack of clarification in my original post.

Any altruistic action has either an emotional, social, moral, or economic benefit behind it. Somehow or another, the person completing the "altruism" is getting something out of it.
I like to use the example of a psychopath. They do not feel emotions, and they therefore do not get an emotional high off of helping people. Do they still help people. No. However, if the opportunity for money was involved, they would be more likely to do so because one does not need emotions to desire money.
I believe that this is what you are asking for.

It seems that the psychopath could simply lack altruistic behavior.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:18:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Before you start arguing and giving examples to prove you have free will... I said whichever action gives you the highest emotional pleasure. Not moral, beneficial or best choice.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:19:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
EDIT:

...and be an outlier, as everyone else helps people out of the kindness of their hearts.