Thread: Are all of people's actions; At their root, self-motivated?

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

I don't think truly selfless actions are even possible. Even if you do something like die or willingly allow yourself to be tortured in another's place, its often due to an inability to live with yourself if the alternative happenned. ("I love you, so, I can't watch you die" or something similar). We're really just trying to stave off potential guilt or acting out of habit for no real sake other than habit.

I disagree with your two examples. I really don't think that if I chose to be tortured or to die in someone's place that I would be doing it because of guilt or out of habit. I don't commonly take physical punishment for others or die in someone's place, and neither would I feel that I would not be able to live with the consequences of letting the other person die. Personally, I know I probably wouldn't be that bothered about it, but let's say I was actually being somewhat emotional for once, I still would easily be able to live after that person's death, even if it makes me depressed for a while.

I'm not saying that there can't be cases like that, and that cases like that don't happen. What I'm saying is that it is foolish to think that these will always be the case. That still doesn't mean the acts that aren't because of the reasons you stated are selfless either, per se.

I think it's important in this thread to make a distinction between doing something for personal gain, in vain, or selfishly--versus doing something that has ties to yourself and in someway in the future may actually benefit you (which may not even have been intended at all). Yes, you could say then, everything you do involves you. But then again, that's stating the obvious. If we are going to decide that this is the only answer we are willing to agree on, then there might as well not be a thread at all. I mean, it kind of goes without saying that anything you do will involve yourself. But, if we want to discuss what I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, I think it might have some interesting discussion qualities.

Originally Posted by snoop

What I'm saying is that it is foolish to think that these will always be the case.

This is what I was trying to get at.

This discussion is basically all about the concept of enlightened self-interest. If we act according to our personal greed, we end up suffering in the long run. Therefore, we act in a way that encourages positive group dynamics, so that other people will care for us when we need it.

In the same vein, let's consider the example of Mary sacrificing her life to save Sandy, in a case where the two people are not related. Enlightened self-interest would say that it might be reasonable for Mary to risk her life to save Sandy, but not to deliberately sacrifice it. In weighing the possibility of sacrificing her life for Sandy, the possibilities for Mary are:

First outcome: Mary does not sacrifice her life, and has emotional trauma from Sandy's death.

Second outcome: Mary sacrifices her life, and is dead, even though Sandy lives.

The outcomes are not equal, so is it really reasonable to say that Mary's sacrifice was selfish?