Are All Human Actions Ultimately Selfish?

[sahlinja]

One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of humans. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if not all, of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as experiencing power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism and maintains that self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the specific driving force behind all of our actions.

What do you guys think? Are all human actions ultimately selfish?

 

[no country for old wainds]

in a word, yes

 

[Cythraul]

From the accounts of psychological egoism that I've seen, it seems to be an unfalsifiable position. I disagree with it. More on this later.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Yes, but there are degrees of selfishness, as in true selflessness(expecting no return) being one end and any of the seven deadly sins being the other end.

 

[no country for old wainds]

From the accounts of psychological egoism that I've seen, it seems to be an unfalsifiable position. I disagree with it. More on this later.

I'm interested. I'm not sure my views are entirely compatible with the psychological egoist movement, but I think they're along similar lines.

 

[Opethian666]

Yes. The only difference is how obvious the selfishness is. Some people get enjoyment out of helping people for no material rewards (they just enjoy the feeling of the hormones stimulating their efforts for others), others get enjoyment more out of physical rewards (like money for helping). This doesn't mean that the person that wants a physical reward is more selfish than the other person, just that this person's body attaches more value to a more obvious reward.

 

[Opethian666]

This kind of comes down to the same concept of the free will thread actually.

 

[speed]

This kind of comes down to the same concept of the free will thread actually.

And my previously posted (before both) economic man thread.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Define 'selfish.'

I would personally argue that while self-interest often (though not always, pure acts of altruism are neither unknown nor unnatural) plays a major role in constructing human action, 'selfishness' describes a state beyond mere self-interest where:

1. self-interest becomes the only concern.

and

2. the interests of self are pursued even when they directly conflict with the long-term interests of all.

Thus while, say, eating better and getting more exercise are acts motivated entirely by self-interest, there is nothing inherently selfish about either act. Profiting from junk food manufacture, on the other hand, is an inherently selfish act.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

instead of actually reading this thread (i'll get around to it i promise) i'm just going to answer the question

yes, all human action is selfish
any human action that is 100% selfless would be a person suffering from psychosis

 

[Europa Ascendent]

From the accounts of psychological egoism that I've seen, it seems to be an unfalsifiable position. I disagree with it. More on this later.

I tend to agree, the terminology involved is simply far too subjective to serve as an adequate basis for empirical inquiry. This is 'social science,' not the real thing.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Yes. The only difference is how obvious the selfishness is. Some people get enjoyment out of helping people for no material rewards (they just enjoy the feeling of the hormones stimulating their efforts for others), others get enjoyment more out of physical rewards (like money for helping). This doesn't mean that the person that wants a physical reward is more selfish than the other person, just that this person's body attaches more value to a more obvious reward.

This is pretty much my own take on things. "Selfishness" and "self-interest" are pretty misleading terms in discussions like this, really. The former has all sorts of moral connotations clouding its definition, and the latter suggests that the action is actually in the interest of the self rather than merely perceived (not necessarily consciously) to be in the interest of the self by the person in question.

 

[Cythraul]

I tend to agree, the terminology involved is simply far too subjective to serve as an adequate basis for empirical inquiry. This is 'social science,' not the real thing.

Right, but my main problem with it is that for the psychological egoist every action is a verifying instance of his theory. If someone performs an apparently altruistic action, an action which should serve as a falsifying instance for the theory, the psychological egoist will resort to ad hoc modification to explain away the altruistic action. But what is there that establishes that this theory applies to every action?

Also, let me distinguish between desire-dependent reasons for action and desire-independent reasons for action. Desire-dependent reasons for action and reasons for action simpliciter are not coextensive. But again, the psychological egoist would like to deny this. But on what grounds?

 

[Hubster]

One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of humans. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if not all, of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as experiencing power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism and maintains that self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the specific driving force behind all of our actions.

What do you guys think? Are all human actions ultimately selfish?

On quick inspection, one could say, "yes, all human actions are selfish".

But on closer inspection into differing cultural moral systems, this becomes very blurred. What is considered selfish and disasterous in one culture is considered completely normal or transparent in another.

Thus, moral systems provide an evil and a good simultaneously - an advantage and disadvantage coexisting within evolution: a "balanced paradox".

 

[no country for old wainds]

I'm not really willing to commit to any side on this. Could you give an example of what might be a desire-independent reason for action?

Edit: @ cythraul

 

[Cythraul]

Anything independent of desire which constitutes a reason for action. For example, an action done for the sake of someone else. Perhaps a more concrete example would be one who goes to war for one's country out of a sense of loyalty. The reason for action may in fact be contrary to the agent's desire and it may constitute a sufficient reason for action in the agent's estimation. I know the typical ways this notion is argued against, but I don't think they show that it's incoherent.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Right, but my main problem with it is that for the psychological egoist every action is a verifying instance of his theory. If someone performs an apparently altruistic action, an action which should serve as a falsifying instance for the theory, the psychological egoist will resort to ad hoc modification to explain away the altruistic action. But what is there that establishes that this theory applies to every action?

That's the point I'm driving at. "Self-interest" is so vaguely defined that it allows the researcher just to keep moving the 'ends' so to speak (to use a silly old kitchen poster analogy).

My second objection is purely ethical. The taboo against selfishness is a useful restraint. Let's face it, most people are fucking idiots, and the more obstacles we place between them and acting on their impulses, the better our chances of steering them toward more productive action. Psychological egoism provides a justification, however tenuous, for jettisoning this useful restraint: "Well, all action is inherently selfish, so why shouldn't I fuck my sister/rape the earth/vote for George Bush/give money to Cradle of Filth?"

 

[entanglement]

Every action performed has a reason behind it. Someone earlier mentioned that if there was no free will, every action would actually be reactionary, instead of being based on an initial desire to do it. Every action has a motive behind it, and the desire for the motive to be successful would result in pleasure/desire after it has gone successful. The consequencial pleasure/desire is not always the intented destination. Some few people actually do things because they are the 'right thing to do'.. that feeling's where 'selflessness' and altruism come in.

 

[no country for old wainds]

My second objection is purely ethical. The taboo against selfishness is a useful restraint. Let's face it, most people are fucking idiots, and the more obstacles we place between them and acting on their impulses, the better our chances of steering them toward more productive action. Psychological egoism provides a justification, however tenuous, for jettisoning this useful restraint: "Well, all action is inherently selfish, so why shouldn't I fuck my sister/rape the earth/vote for George Bush/give money to Cradle of Filth?"

This is really how I feel about this and the free will topic, the discussion is purely academic.

 

[Nile577]

Selfishness might be defined as having a self-interest in ego-gratification. If this is the underlying motive for all behaviour, fine, but that does not mean that all actions resulting from it are of equal worth. Those which focus on LaVeyan indulgence - i.e. 'fuck posterity, I need to have sex, eat and pleasure myself here and now' - are parasitic and would be removed from any sane society. They lack philosophical, evolutionary (reciprocal altruism can be accounted for by viewing evolutionary processes on a gene-based level - see Richard Dawkin's ‘The Selfish Gene&#8217 and cultural consideration. I think it is essential to reconcile one's self interest to the larger inherent, universal conditions of existence and live a life in which both self and the eternal are valued. In this way, the locus of the ego is not the vapid transience of hedonism but the eternal idealism of Nietzsche, Evola, Heidegger and Blake. When honourable acts are conducted as a result of Romantic, cosmic 'love', in which the wider processes of life are revered independently of personal fortune, the gratification is not simply for the ego but, at a far deeper level, the process of being alive in itself.

Beethoven, Newton & Da Vinci lived lives in which the seat of indulgence was eternal, not carnal. Their achievements eclipse anything accomplished in bed or at table and their concomitant ‘ego-gratification’ sang, if you'll excuse a little flowery prose, with the hymns of the universe.

(Later note: I must admit I hadn't actually read Evola when I wrote this post - I thought he was a Nietzschean that criticised modern culture and consumerism, and as his name was often dropped in lists of 'heavy metal' thinkers (lol) it would be fine to mention. I wouldn't have included him here if I knew the extent of the antidemocractic, racist and right wing ideas he had. I don't like the polemical tone of my old posts or their naivety and simple and stupid dualisms ('culture' & 'great artists/scientists' vs 'hedonism) - so embarrassing. I also deleted my careless reference to short-term thinking as being related to a 'whore' because this is not a metaphor any thoughtful person could maintain and, on reflection, - although it was not intended to be - can be read as painfully sexist. My basic point was, philosophy should try to discourage ('remove' is much too strong) self-destructive and world-destructive actions. But studying James Joyce (and living more - lol) helped me learn a lot about understanding and accepting human weakness both in myself and others.)