Question: I realized that I had asked the same question twice, essentially. So I'm going to change my question to something more like "what is the difference between selfish and self-interest. The purpose of this will be two-fold; I will lay out my own understanding of these terms and hope that others will come to read and understand it.
Selfishness, actually, is better defined as wanting what is best for only yourself and always at the expense of someone else. Self-interest, however, is the interest in your own desires and benefits at no overall cost to others.
Selfishness is only caring about yourself while giving no concern for another person; it's hoarding all of the food for yourself in a survival scenario. Self-interest is doing something that will benefit you at no harm (but maybe benefit) to others; it's like getting food so that you will survive, but choosing to give part of it to other people, or like choosing not to fight a bear to kill it and eat it (as it's the only source of food); While this will cause both of you to starve, it's self interested because it would probably come at great harm to you. You would be almost heroic if you did fight this bear, but you shouldn't be punished if you had not.
18 February 2012
Stubbornly Altruistic
Question: Can the goal of an initially altruistic act become non-altruistic when the situation changes due to the other party’s refusal to accept the act?
Here I am thinking specifically about the example where two people are in a life boat. It would be altruistic, and even supererogatory, to offer all of your food the other person. If the other person then refused to accept the offer, you are left in a new situation; knowing full well that the other person will not be eating the food, could you be called altruistic for your constant refusal to eat the food? What if that person refused to eat until you agreed to eat too?
I think it may very well still be altruistic to refuse to eat the food, in that you are still trying to place the needs of someone else above them. I think, however, that it would also be exceedingly stubborn to not reach some sort of compromise. Given that you are now fully aware that both of you would die if you continue in this manner. I'd imagine that both of them can be sort of altruistic and eat only if the other person eats.
Here I am thinking specifically about the example where two people are in a life boat. It would be altruistic, and even supererogatory, to offer all of your food the other person. If the other person then refused to accept the offer, you are left in a new situation; knowing full well that the other person will not be eating the food, could you be called altruistic for your constant refusal to eat the food? What if that person refused to eat until you agreed to eat too?
I think it may very well still be altruistic to refuse to eat the food, in that you are still trying to place the needs of someone else above them. I think, however, that it would also be exceedingly stubborn to not reach some sort of compromise. Given that you are now fully aware that both of you would die if you continue in this manner. I'd imagine that both of them can be sort of altruistic and eat only if the other person eats.
What Philosophers Want
Response to Justine - full post here
The philosophers are not some odd race of people, they too are people who, much like you, are trying to make sense of the world. Some people may not like to have their views changed but sometimes, I think, it is completely necessary. They don't want you to be unhappy. Most of them just want you to think and to do things that you actually want to do, but sometimes it takes lots of thinking to do. They want you to be happy and to see the truth which they think is fairly essential to being happy. Would you want to spend your entire life eating something that you didn't like, just because you didn't know that anything else existed? There is not just living life, you don't need to constantly think about everything you do, but as they come up you should consider them fully and then act accordingly. You don't need to plan anything out, really.
The philosophers are not some odd race of people, they too are people who, much like you, are trying to make sense of the world. Some people may not like to have their views changed but sometimes, I think, it is completely necessary. They don't want you to be unhappy. Most of them just want you to think and to do things that you actually want to do, but sometimes it takes lots of thinking to do. They want you to be happy and to see the truth which they think is fairly essential to being happy. Would you want to spend your entire life eating something that you didn't like, just because you didn't know that anything else existed? There is not just living life, you don't need to constantly think about everything you do, but as they come up you should consider them fully and then act accordingly. You don't need to plan anything out, really.
15 February 2012
Selfish At What Cost?
Response to Justine: - full post here
Selfishness, actually, is better defined as wanting what is best for only yourself and always at the expense of someone else. Self-interest, however, is the interest in your own desires and benefits at no overall cost to others.
In the lifeboat scenario, it would be selfish only to take the food without any consideration of the other person. If I have no concern for the other person I am selfish. However, if I do have interest in that person, but choose to eat the food because they want me to and because they won't it's only self interest.
Watching a baby drown is selfish only if saving the child comes to no or minimal expense to you. If you are very well able to save the child, it would be selfish. It would be self-interested if saving the child comes at considerable risk to you. As to whether or not the person watching should go to prison, I think so, if they had the ability to help and little or no expense to them and chose not to.
Selfishness, actually, is better defined as wanting what is best for only yourself and always at the expense of someone else. Self-interest, however, is the interest in your own desires and benefits at no overall cost to others.
In the lifeboat scenario, it would be selfish only to take the food without any consideration of the other person. If I have no concern for the other person I am selfish. However, if I do have interest in that person, but choose to eat the food because they want me to and because they won't it's only self interest.
Watching a baby drown is selfish only if saving the child comes to no or minimal expense to you. If you are very well able to save the child, it would be selfish. It would be self-interested if saving the child comes at considerable risk to you. As to whether or not the person watching should go to prison, I think so, if they had the ability to help and little or no expense to them and chose not to.
Incompatible Miracaused
Two of many things that I hear from Christians at least, are that everything happens for a reason and that miracles exist. Given that the notion of miracles is expressed in saying the the event has not been caused, I cannot see how these things are compatible in one religion. Unexplained events are simply unexplained; they do have a cause however. If you believe that everything happens for a reason, then you can believe that god is the reason for everything. If you choose then to believe in miracles, you must reject the notion that things happen for a reason. Either that, or you must agree that miracles are beyond the control of even god.
It's slightly amusing thinking that if you accept that everything happens for a reason and that god is that ultimate reason, the moving hand, then we cannot distinguish between a healed cancer patient and having just enough tomato to make a sandwich.
Also as an interesting note, I haven't seen any miracles for amputees.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)