COMMENTS:
I have to go with Selfishness on this one, however I highly doubt that Altruism exists. No matter how self-sacrificing an act may seem, one does it to promote one's own will.
Curious, do you read Ayn Rand?
Selfishness includes many things that people interpret as altruistic so I'll go with selfishness.
You'll say selfishness until you find yourself with two broken legs in a hole after a car wreck.
altruism is selfishness, there is no difference, study anthropology/philosophy and you'll understand
I believe that on some level, we are all capable of being altruistic. However, the human ego is chiefly responsible for its repression.
American society is inherently selfish. We got started by people who didn't want to pay taxes and we set up our economy/government so that people would be allowed to profit as much as possible. The opposite side of the spectrum, a society based around helping everyone and dividing the wealth up evenly would be north korea.
In this case I'll go with selfishness.
When did selfishness ever become a virtue?
magdalenasdollar doubts that altruism even exists but has no such doubts about the existence of selfishness. All altruistic acts must be some aberration and should be ignored, eh herzog? Actually, herzog, don't bother answering. I know exactly what you always say and it is just worthless.
Go ahead and try the alternative to selfishness, a communist utopia. Have fun.
You seem to think that the only alternative to selfishness is a Communist utopia, herzog. Obviously your imagination is seriously lacking. If you are so keen on selfishness then why don't you keep your absurd advice to yourself? Surely letting people know of your great knowledge it might give them a survival advantage over you.
But seriously, herzog, you're a loon.
Nah, you're just upset that once again I have actual evidence to back up my argument, and you're left with nothing buy conjecture.
Explain to me how The Bill Of Rights is selfish, herzog.
Easy, it's all about individual rights. What the government can't do to me. It doesn't say that we should all be legally required to help each other out, it didn't provide for welfare or national healthcare. It simply listed the things that the government could NOT do to individuals. They were fighting for personal freedom, not wealth redistribution.
Do you remember how the whole thing got started? People who didn't want to pay their taxes.
You really should think about what you post before you hit 'comment'. Because you are looking kind of ignorant right now.
American society is inherently selfish.
by herzog.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Your forefathers.
How can a "perfect Union" be inherently selfish, herzog?
What is selfish about wanting Justice, herzog?
I believe I just answered that. If you want me to copy and paste my own posts for you, tough. Read them.
How can wanting Justice and a perfect Union for the whole country be selfish, herzog?
If you were fighting for individual rights for all, herzog, would you be being selfish?
Wanting to give our children prosperity is a selfish act, in a way. It is a way of increasing our own influence on the species by making sure our children and grandchildren will live good lives, and produce more descendants.
Because if you're fighting for individual rights wouldn't that also help you out? If you were to offer to make yourself a slave for the greater good of society then you'd be altruistic. But that never happens.
I'm betting you would die for America herzog. That would be defined as altruistic by most people.
Wanting to give our children prosperity is a selfish act, in a way. It is a way of increasing our own influence on the species by making sure our children and grandchildren will live good lives, and produce more descendants.
by MrTroche on Sep 13, 2004
You know there is more to it than that assessment, MrTroche. "In a way" it is selfish, but in the most important way it is doing a good thing for all the people of a whole country for ever (or at least until a brain-damaged Hitler is told by his puppeteers to start taking it away).
Surely it is quite clear to most people that humanity depends on each other, and that herzog and his ilk are monsters, trying to poison peoples' minds with lies. herzog deliberately ignores the reasons why a group of people might want to give everybody in The United States Justice and focuses on the selfishness of the great men that made the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. herzog is a true American traitor, trying to downplay the undeniable altruism of the creators of the Bill Of Rights. herzog's argument is inconsequential in that it makes a indefensible assumption. He is claiming that The creators of the Bill of Rights (one of the greatest documents since the Magna Carta) created it for entirely selfish reasons. The reason he takes this position is because he is trying to make people think that there is no good in human beings. He denies God. He denies truth. He denies love. He denies anything other than meaningless relativism and pre-emptive strikes. He defends Bush. Need I say more? No. herzog is the worst sort of human being on the planet. Sowing lies and hatred into the hearts and minds of decent people.
You're going too far cretin. I don't believe he is saying they were being consciously selfish but on a deep psychological level their actions were selfish, at least partially.
The question cretin which you constantly choose to ignore, is which is the greater virtue.
Altruism has it's time and place, and is nice on occasion. Giving your money to a bum on the street rather than using it to buy a playboy is a nice thing to do and won't cause the end of civilization.
However, if we were to base our society around one, or if we were to look at which one has done the most real good for people around the world selfishness wins, no competition.
Mother teressa spent years feeding the starving children in third world nations, very altruistic, very nice, and very ineffective. They are still poor, still starving, and no better off than they were before.
Bill gates started a computer company to make money for himself, very selfish. As a result the economy in the US has boomed with these new tools, thousands of jobs were created in the US and abroad, the standard of living rose during this period, and life is much more convienent and enjoyable because of it.
Who acted out of the goodness of their heart to help the people of the world? Mrs teressa. Who actually did something significant to improve the lives of the people of the world? Bill gates.
You can preach about intent all you want, but at the end of the day selfishness can be counted on to continue improving our lots in life, altruism can't.
Semantic, perspectives...
In some of these arguments, we say the same things but choose different words.
Can anyone name a *truly* unselfish act they've done?
Yes, magdelenasdollar. I am warning you that if you take herzog seriously you will be making a very bad mistake.
herzog just gives himself away every time. Apparently now he is even trying to tell us that it is selfishness that helps others. I shudder at the way he pours scorn on acts which might be seen as kindness, like giving money to a bum rather than buy a Playboy. If this is what herzog confuses with altruism no wonder he thinks that selfishness will save the world.
I don't know why herzog even bothers to inform me that Bill Gates started a company to make money. Strangely he believes that our lives are better because of it. It is not "convenience" that makes our lives better.
Mr Troche. I am not going too far. I know exactly what herzog's game is. He is one of the propagandists that are working to make America unpopular in the world. He represents Bush and the neo-cons' military ideology perfectly and even takes the time to attack the United Nations. America's fall will have to happen in order for the United Nations to become a World Government. This will happen when America's military is overstretched and its foreign policy has created thousands of real terrorists which attack it. herzog is the personification of everything that is wrong with America. In his latest post he even comes across like Gordon Gecko from Wall Street.
Eventually, through our television screens, we will be offered a new world. Full of peace, justice and co-operation. The opposite of what herzog is. Or at least the opposite of the character of herzog. And then the trap will spring. The global elite that planned the whole thing will have got our agreement on global totalitarianism and they will never give it back.
That is why I am not going to address it directly any more. If I address it or its arguments I might give them a legitimacy that they do not deserve.
cretin-slap,
Thanks for the warnin'. Giving money to a bum, as you put it, is one of those fine-lines in perspective. Yes, it is an act of kindness, but it can be argued that it isn't truly unselfish, for you are still promoting your own will. A truly unselfish act for you might be to donate to an Atheistic cause. But why would you ever do that?
Also, what kind of a world would we live in if everybody kept giving hand outs, no jokes on the current state of affairs, please! Many wouldn't strive for a better world or work at all. I'm all for helping out in times of crisis, but there comes the point when you just have to say no and force others to take responsibility for themselves and make their own contributions to humanity.
If there is only selfishness why are people striving for a better world? Do you understand what you said?
Your point as I understand it is that if people became more charitable then more people than before would stop trying to make the world a better place.
So on both sides of your argument people are doing altruistic things. Not bad for a concept that you previously doubted even existed.
Do you think that Bush is a liar for claiming that democracy is a gift from God and that he invaded Iraq to help the Iraqis? If you think that only selfishness exists then you have to say that Bush is a liar because he has, on a number of occasions, claimed to want to make the lives of ordinary Iraqis better.
Your arguments don't seem to have much relavence to the real world.
cretin-
People are striving for a better world because THEY WANT to live in a better world. I understand what I wrote but am not sure I understand what you did.
My point is that people are charitable to causes THEY WANT to support.
Yes, Bush is a liar.
It's all a matter of perspective, but how is Altruism relevant to the real world? If a nation were to give to every that needs, it would only weaken itself. The need is too great. Soon there would be nothing left to give.
It is in humanity's best interest to only give to causes YOU WANT. Again I ask, why would you EVER give to a cause YOU did NOT want?
I also meant to point out that when people are given everything, there is less reason for them to strive to better themselves.
There is no need to capitalise THEY WANT all the time. I get it.
The fact is that people are dependent on each other. People do things for each other that require no reward, like caring for an elderly relative or disabled child. For somebody to glibly claim that these altruistic activities are somehow based on selfishness is shocking and dreadful.
I think that by deliberately ignoring genuine altruism or by imagining fake motivation for it you are misrepresenting humanity and doing it damage. Imagine if people acutally believed your lies!
If you get what I'm saying, you certainly haven't shown it. You haven't made a counterpoint to anything I've written and continue to avoid the question I asked you.
You are saying that you are doubtful that altruism even exists, and you are saying that selfishness is a greater virtue than altruism (if it exists).
You are saying that 'No matter how self-sacrificing an act may seem, one does it to promote one's own will.'
I am arguing that everything we do is achieved through the use of our will. Just because the things that we do are achieved through using the will donsn't mean that everyhing we do is selfishly motivated. You only have to look at reality to see human beings are generous and giving. Your suggestion that all actions are selfish is wrong. It is possible for us to choose whether we want to help somebody because we care about their welfare or you can choose not to. Just because both these outcomes are achieved through using the will does not mean that both are selfish actions.
Bringing the concept of altruism down to the level of giving money to charity you don't want to give money to is grubby and childish. I would prefer to see it as trying to help somebody who is obviously a bit stupid and doesn't know that altruism is what keeps the human race alive. I ask for no reward, magdelenasdollar. I'm simply trying to help you see the truth. Debating with you in this is actually making me feel sad and a bit queasy but I know that if you realise the truth, that humanity needs each other, then it will be a better world.
I see we are endlessly arguing over different topics here. I think humans are dependant upon one another as well. I just don't think that the term 'selfish' has to mean that you don't care for the well-being of others. I don't actually see how doing others harm, or not participating in humanity and acts of kindness, would be beneficial to the self. I respect human compassion, but not pity. There should be no shame in being selfish, putting yourself first and loving yourself above all (until you become a parent, that is, which unfortunately many do not seem to think about). When you are best off is also when you are most able to help others. Whether or not you find it rewarding is beside the point.
I'm not trying to tell you that your acts of kindness are merely to boost your own ego. But I am arguing that you intentionally benefit only things you find worthy. There is nothing childish, sad or queasy about that; that is how the world slowly evolves more toward the way the majority deems fit.
that is how the world slowly evolves more toward the way the majority deems fit.
by magdalenasdollar on Sep 20, 2004
Sorry magdelenasdollar but that is just waffle. You don't know what you are on about. You know you want to sound authoritative but you don't have the ability to do it.
However, having said that, you did say that when you become a parent maybe selfishness is not such a good idea. I take the view that all our relationships are important to us. They affect our health, our happiness and can completely change our lives. Our relationships can save us or condemn us. There may be no shame in selfishness (before parenthood) but selfish people aren't usually praised for putting themselves first all the time. You said:
I just don't think that the term 'selfish' has to mean that you don't care for the well-being of others.
Definition: concerned chiefly or only with yourself; 'Selfish men were..trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of civil rights'- Maria Weston Chapman
Synonyms: begrudging, egotistic, egotistical, envious, grudging, narcissistic, self-loving, self-seeking, self-serving, stingy, ungenerous
Real virtues improve both the person who has it and the person who receives it. Selfishness is unhealthy and will not help the world slowly evolve to what the majority deems fit.
There are different definitions of the word 'Selfishness' which vary when looking in a dictionary or from a philosophical standpoint.
I assumed we were discussing the philosophical views, as implied by the question. I am not saying your definition is incorrect, just that it differs from my view of selfishness.
You defined Selfishness as being 'concerned chiefly or only with yourself'. Objectionists define it as 'concern with one's own interests'.
You said:
Real virtues improve both the person who has it and the person who receives it. This statement is fully supported in the definition of selfishness from an Objectionist viewpoint. Conversely an altruist would be self-sacrificing.
I consider it a waste of time to argue this any further. You seeem intolerant of my perspective and rather than argue my statements, you appear to enjoy futile attemps at belittling me.
It's really quite ineffective and besides the point, aside from showing your lack of respect for either term debated in this discussion.
I agree. I would also like to read who has redefined the word selfishness for use from a philosophical standpoint.
I din't mean to belittle you. I just don't agree with most of what you say. Sorry to waste your time.
Well, obviously it hasn't been a waste of my time or I wouldn't have responded. I enjoy hearing others' views. I consider debating healthy. I need to be argued against to keep myself thinking. I just meant it'd be useless for us to continue this particular argument, as I think we have stated repeatedly how we feel. I don't agree with most of what you say, either. But clearly you have good intentions, so I respect you and may even *gulp!* like you, whether or not you feel the same.
Great stuff. That's far more worthwhile than whether we disagree over an issue like this.
Agreed. (oh, the irony...)
I am having trouble seeing how "selfishness" is a virtue here.
|
