Alright, here we go.
@Zaku “Your logic only follows if we obey your constraints of word use.”
Yes, you are correct. My first sentence is an assumption of fact which I did not attempt to prove, and which I encourage others to disagree with. Using your example, “I don’t want to do X, but I’m doing it anyway”. I would argue that, if you truly did not want to do X, you wouldn’t be doing it. If you are doing it, it must have been initiated by a desire to do it. For example, “I don’t want to do my homework, but I’m doing it anyway”. In this situation, although I would prefer not to do my homework, I care about my academic performance enough to want do something I would otherwise not want to do.
“Also even your assertions do not to me connect with your conclusion or corollary about pleasure necessarily facilitating survival.”
I was on the fence about including that statement. I originally did not intend to provide any kind of proof whatsoever to support my initial statements, but instead to elaborate after I had received responses. Now that we’re on the topic though, I will explain.
Firstly, human beings pursue pleasure and comfort. This is evident from the actions of the majority of the population. All human activity is ultimately geared towards making the lives of the individual easier, and more pleasurable. It’s the reason why we’ve created so many technologies. It’s the reason why we have such a prosperous entertainment industry. Seemingly in contrast to what I just stated, it’s even why we have wars (because one group’s need for pleasure conflicts with anothers).
In nature, pleasurable feelings often lead to benefit, while displeasure leads to harm. Sex is the most obvious example, with the benefit being continuation of the species. Eating is a pleasurable experience, until you eat too much. Urinating/defecating provides a sense of pleasurable relief. Holding it in is uncomfortable or painful. The scent of urine and feces itself is unpleasant. Damaging your body is painful. Picking scabs is painful until the skin underneath is fully healed. Foreign objects entering your body cause unpleasurable physical reactions (sneezing, coughing). Being too hot is unpleasurable. Being too cold is unpleasurable. The feeling of being tired is unpleasurable, and sleeping is pleasurable. Etc. Those feelings which are pleasurable are a result of actions that are beneficial to one’s continued existence, and vice-versa.
Exceptions to to this “rule” are due to man-made interference with our ecosystem (e.g. introducing tasty, but unhealthy foods) or physiological/psychological disorders (e.g. allergies).
Without an understanding of how the ecosystem works and what we must do to survive, it seems to me a logical conclusion that the purpose of “good things feeling good” is so that we will seek out pleasurable actions, which in turn, are beneficial to us. This mechanism works assuming of course, we desire pleasure.
@ETpro “I may have missed your clarification, but it doesn’t change my contention that wanting to act altruistically does nothing to modify the definition of “selfless”. The definition remains “the act of sacrificing ones own good for the greater good.” That you did it because your wants drove you to is immaterial.”
Why is it immaterial? Is the definition of altruism not putting the welfare of others above your own? Do you accept wants are a biological mechanism to facilitate needs, and therefore, to sacrifice needs requires one to sacrifice wants (and vice versa)?
“To think otherwise, you would have to maintain that, because we live in a deterministic world, there is no difference between selfless and selfish; when in fact they are antonyms.”
I would argue (in fact, I am arguing) that selflessness does not exist, or in other words that selfishness and selflessness are the same thing, because it is impossible to be truly selfless. You cannot act in such a way that completely disregards your own wants (and by extension, needs). In fact, for this discussion, we must assume we live in an, at least partially deterministic world, as choice is intrinsically deterministic.
“Oh, and now that we’ve conducted demolition derby on your question and implied answer, welcome to Fluther. :-)”
Demolition derby? You’ve hardly chipped off the paint. Thanks for the welcome. =)
@Nullo “I am saying that though our motives may be selfish, our actions can be selfless all the same.”
You’re right, and thank you for making this distinction. However, without motive, altruism is meaningless, even if you “accidentally” helped someone else without satisfying any personal desire. You cannot put someone else’s welfare over your own if it was by accident, since without the motive to do so in the first place, I would not say that you could really claim responsibility for the action, and therefore, “you” did not perform the altruistic act.
@Mariah “There is another, colder way to interpret these actions. Instinct also favors actions that increase acceptance by others; this makes sense because being accepted by others facilitates survival; they might share their resources with you, etc. We therefore do sometimes go out of our way to help others for selfish reasons: to get them to like us more. It doesn’t make sense in this situation, because it doesn’t matter if people like us if we’re dead. But it could simply be a case of mistaken priorities between our social instincts and our survival instincts.”
Thank you for this. I did not consider the social aspect of biological mechanisms.
“This kind of behavior exists and is observable, so we know that it happens, but it is so difficult to rectify with natural selection.”
Plus, all of humanity’s meddling with the ecosystem and natural selection complicates the matter further.
@ETPro “Natural selection drove toward preservation of the species, not the individual organism.”
Survival of the individual organism is a requisite for survival of the species, even if it means that organism has to die to preserve the species. A male black widow can’t reproduce if it dies before it finds a mate. Likewise, a dead bee can’t protect a hive.
@Zaku “Moreover, I think you are incorrect to assert that “There really isn’t an evolutionary reason why anyone should care about members of their species that aren’t related to themselves.”
”(Of course, that realization may have the asker returning to their original assertion of “aha! benevolence is selfish!” which is just a silly badly-defined non-question (see my first answer).)”
Refer to my retort =).
“Which is all true, but the attempt to rigidly define selfishness as black-and-white exclusive of selflessness, simply produces confused examination based on flawed definitions.”
Well I would argue that selflessness does not exist at all, in which case, there is no comparison to draw between the terms. One is imaginary.
phew
Time to go to bed.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
