Am I being selfish? - Page 6

On November 30 2008 12:52 tube wrote:
man this frits/travis battle is so sick

On November 30 2008 09:52 DamageControL wrote:
Why? You've never done something solely for the sake of your friends? Or family? You wouldn't help a stranger out ever?
You've never done anything solely for the benefit of someone else?

On November 30 2008 13:38 TheYango wrote:


The problem is that you can't be altruistic unless you devote yourself equally to everyone. And that's a paradox, because you can't act while devoting yourself equally to any two parties in conflict.

You do things for your friends, and for the sake of your family, and for complete strangers. But don't you do MORE for your family or friends than for strangers? Why is that?

Because they're your family and friends.

You buy a diamond ring for your wife, but not for the woman you don't know on the street. That implies a preference, and THAT is selfish.

Suppose that a terrorist is holding hostages. Who do you support? The terrorist, or the hostages? There is no objective, empirical way to say that one side is right, and one side is wrong. Even in a situation that has no bearing on yourself, any choice is an affirmation of your beliefs. But your beliefs are arbitrary. So, siding either way cannot be considered "selfless". This is the paradox of altruism.

On November 30 2008 13:43 DamageControL wrote:
Simply because you feel the need to help someone, with no benefit towards you, doesn't mean you have to give yourself equally to everyone.

On November 30 2008 13:52 TheYango wrote:


Altruistic acts are performed to be beneficial without the view to benefit one's self, but ultimately the debate comes down to what is considered "the view to benefit one's self."

My line of reasoning is this:

If you perform an act that of "altruism", you must be doing what you think is right (because doing what you think is wrong, without some outside motivation, is just a silly idea). Except what YOU think is right is arbitrary. Because there is no objective standard to what is right, your act affirms to yourself your beliefs. So at the bare minimum, the fact that you THINK something is right is affirming to yourself your own beliefs, and is therefore selfish, because that affirmation benefits you in some psychological way.

On November 30 2008 09:28 DamageControL wrote:

So you believe nurture creates our personalities and by nature were all the same?

On November 30 2008 05:48 Physician wrote:
I just hope oneofthem doesn't find this thread and rips all of us to shreds lol..

On December 01 2008 00:37 HeadBangaa wrote:
Klockan, you disregard intention with respect to selfishness, and consciousness with respect to altruism. The only way that works is if you throw away the abstractions which all humans operate on. We don't perceive eachother as bags of water with neurons firing off, like some robot. There is an individualism we acknowledge; the "soul" of a person, even if the soul is just a composite of parts. Through evolution, the bits and bytes of biology reform and yield to that which benefits our traits and abstractions of conscious, not the other way around. That is, the "feel-good" part of realized-altruism only exists to encourage such behavior: to manipulate our conscious behavior. Thus, to discuss altruism outside of the scope of consciousness is irrational, and likewise, vice versa.

When you're bunker rushing a zerg, you aren't thinking about the bits and bytes flowing through a network card; those are simply details whose sole purpose is to effect the abstraction (the game you are playing).

Thus, only sensible way to proclaim that "altruism" doesn't exist is to say that "consciousness" doesn't exist. And even then, that argument relies on some bent definition of "existence," limited to the concrete only, and that you must also agree that ideas do not "exist", and that a game of starcraft does not "exist"; it's just a bunch of pixels and bits.


No sensible person believes that. That's more of an ethical guideline of how you should consider other people. The alternative is to stratify how you treat people by their inherent qualities, also known as "bigotry".

On November 30 2008 10:13 Klockan3 wrote:

So how is this different from spirituality or any other kind of new age crap?

Fact is, we can erase your memory and you will still be you, just without your "experiences".

On December 01 2008 01:17 ManBearPig wrote:


Ok I just have to say, this is a really stupid definition of 'self' you're using. The one travis used made a lot more sense.
Also, just because something is 'spiritual' doesn't mean it's false or 'new age crap'.

On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:

What else would he do with the money? Money have no defined happiness value which makes your point moot.

On December 01 2008 01:12 DamageControL wrote:

If you read the thread he didn't mean that, really. He meant we were all the same, save our experiences. He's saying that the only difference between people is the when and the where (or rather the only difference between experiences, and you ARE your experiences) I don't believe this is true.

Travis has the most vague definition of self EVER. I see where he's coming from on some of his thoughts, like the lack of control over our lives, I've thought of that line of reasoning before. But his definition of self is flawed, i think.

On December 01 2008 01:24 HeadBangaa wrote:

No offense, but I can't respond to you because of the ambiguity of your response.

-Who is he, travis or Klockan?
-What is that? My point, or what I quoted? I posited nothing, so I'd like to see a restatement of "that" before you shoot "that" down.
-What is this? ( ^ Ditto)

It seems to me you restated exactly what I said in quoting travis, yet tell me I quoted him wrong, but ultimately agree with me. Very confusing.

On December 01 2008 01:28 ManBearPig wrote:
Yeah sure but I think pretty much every definition of the self is flawed. It was vague alright, but it was less flawed than the one Klockan mentioned. Why, you ask?
Well, linking the self to a physical body has these problems, amongst others;
- Every so many years your body is completely built up from different, newer cells.
- Would you still be yourself after you lose an arm? How about when you lose everything except your head and the rest is replaced by a robotic body? Is robocop Eric Murphy (or what was his name)? I don't think so.
- If you wanna link it to just the brain, the same problem applies.