Are All Human Actions Ultimately Selfish?

[MURAI]

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, I do not feel all human acts are selfish. Most people will do at least a few things in life that is beyond just satisfying themselves. For example, the average man taking care of one's child. Or writers or artists trying to make higher work. Which is some what like giving birth to a child. Not for the sake of getting something in return, but for the sake of it. Also, some do not exactly consciously calculate their actions but more on emotion or instinct. So, they are not capable of thinking before hand, "what is in this for me" before carrying something out.

Hobbes proposed a body like the Leviathan for individuals to give up their rights to prevent them from running wild and taking from others. Most in the west know this ultimately can not work because we have seen how communism collapsed. It also sounds pretty close to that nightmare vision in Orwell's 1984 to the westener. All societies are based on hierachy no matter how much it is disguised. It is stupid to try to cover that fact up.

You mentioned charity and Nietzsche said acts like that are based on pity to ultimately make yourself feel better for giving a hand out who you feel is lower than you. I somewhat agree, because you're not even actually doing anything helpful for the pitied. They can not even fend for themselves and they will start depending on the hand out.

 

[Demilich]

I think we can all agree that we've done things that put us through pain and suffering for the people we care about. I think that people who believe that all human actions are selfish must simply be those who are incapable of comprehending such an "awesome feat" as doing something for another when there is an option which would be much easier and/or more beneficial for the self.

 

[no country for old wainds]

 

[derek]

I point you to the work of James Rachels in his simple but readable "Elements of Moral Philosophy". I agree, for the most part, with him that psychological egosim is an unsupportable position, namely due to its complete inablity to be tested.

see, Ch.5, for the interested.

 

[Darkmatter]

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?

Absolutely, they are selfish in the strict sense of the word. Self-gratification is the basis for hapiness, which is the ultimate goal. Even a person giving their lives for the sake of others is a purely selfish act. The more common use of the word 'selfish' is based on acts that are considered by most to be in the strict interest of one self. Nevertheless, selfishness can also benefit others greatly, of course.

 

[speed]

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 pathologies 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, not the venal sighs of an AIDS ridden whore.

I enjoy your statements here. However, is not ego-gratification and self indulgence our society's goal? Our media and advertising companies have tried to make it out common goal for years--have they succeeded? (not to mention this seems to be the goal of our current economic structure) I believe they have.

 

[Sacred Profane]

THis reminds me of a friends episode.

Anyway, yes, all actions are selfish. But according to me selfish doesn't neccesarily mean something negative so what's the prob?

I've been trying to think of something that is totally unselfish, and there really is nothing...

 

[Demilich]

How 'bout someone giving their life in a split second decision to save the lives of others? Bet that is the ultimate gratification of the ego eh?

 

[Sacred Profane]

How 'bout someone giving their life in a split second decision to save the lives of others? Bet that is the ultimate gratification of the ego eh?

Well, maybe subconciously they know they will be considered a hero?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Demilich gives a good example there. I don't see saving someone's life in a completely unpremeditated impulse as being ego gratification. It is an action that comes instincively and must be down to genetic selfishness in essence. The instinct (if one has not had it bred out of you) would be to save someone more instantly and willingly depending on a rapid unconscious calculation that it would be beneficial to your genepool that they survived. So if they are from a different type of human grouping to oneself or were very old, the instinct to risk one's life for them would feel less urgent. Similarly men are quicker to save others, especially young females, than the females themselves would be. (Females are valuable because they have babies).

 

[derek]

So it is some ancient DNA encoded, genetic prerogative that would drive such actions, as opposed to it being exclusively egotistical? I suppose that is slightly more testable as opposed to ego theories.

 

[troopsofdoom]

Yes. Have you ever noticed people only start or donate to charities when it relates to something that has happened to them. I bet Magic Johnson would give a shit about aids if he never contracted it. That's just one out of a billion examples.
Who cares about retarted kids unless they have a relative or one of there own thats retarded?