Moderator: Carleas
I challenge Cyrene on whether selfless acts exist or not.
What is a selfless action and on what grounds do we measure it?
What exactly is the measurement system in diagnosing a selfless action?
Why do we believe that selfless acts exist and what causes us to believe in them?How do we know when a person is acting in a selfless manner when in every motion there can exist a hidden ulterior motive of un-disclosed selfishness?
How does a so called selfless action differ from that of a selfish motive?
Could it indeed be possible that selflessness is merely a epic cultural fiction or myth constructed for the purpose of controlling others by that of judgement, punishment and docile reward of faith like service?
I believe all individuals are psychological egoists with differing degrees of selfishness motivating their lives in the will to survive.
Clearly in all societies everyone is a sort of whore in that everyone has a price for whatever social services they can offer in lust of distributive reward where everybody is for sale.
Just by observing society one can clearly observe that without monetary exchanges nothing could ever function in that so called selfless deeds are not effective enough in motivation alone where selfish desire wins out all the time in contrast in motivating people's everyday lives.
There exists no action that is un- conditional as there exists no social interaction that isn't limited by some stipulation or another.
Even when people work together collectively in cooperation they do so for a mutual selfish motive amongst themselves individually that they at first agree on.
People cooperate in order to fulfill a mutual selfish desire amongst themselves that all parties can benefit from and at the first sign when mutuality of fulfilling such desires as a collective is lost conflict and dissention immediately arrives.
All actions revolve around the self that produces them where there exists no such action independent on it's own of the producing self. Since all actions revolve around the producing self and nowhere else how can all actions not be driven by selfish motives or impulses?
I believe what is described to be selfishlessness is in reality a intentional misinterpretation of specific selfish inclinations in order to give off the public illusion of some ideal that people are somehow different from all the other animals who are driven by mere impulse alone in that we mask certain selfish actions in public to coincide with out fictional cultural myth of altruism since even the most so called altruistic of individuals are driven by some of the most rundimentary forms of selfish desire.
Selflessness is always paramount with philantrophy or self sacrifice.
Everytime we hear the word selflessness it always coincides with either of those two words.
Yet if we study those two words fully what exactly is significant in both terms?
In both terms the selfish motives of narcissism, admiration,status,fame,obssesion, public fascination, and the desire of social prestige is the governing force of motivation.
No action is done for nothing. Everybody wants somthing.
All actions revolve around a desire, intention, goal, vision, and insight.
Could selflessness or moral duty be a form of masochism?
My opponent speaks of genes showing how selflessness can exist but fails to recognize that genes are apart of the organism acting selfishly and therefore is not a seperate entity by itself but indeed is a micro part of the organism itself.
My opponent speaks of insects and other animals on the effects of genes yet what really concerns us here in this thread is the animal of people.
My opponent speaks about the psychology of protecting one's own kin or offspring which I shall allude to be nothing more than the selfishness of self preserving one's own blood family.
My opponent must also realize that in contrast infanticide prevails as well along with family murders a great deal of the time which are driven by selfish impulses too.
My opponent speaks about animal behavior where animals make loud noises of warning giving away their position to oncoming predators but fails to realize that this too is another form of selfishness in that a creature too weak to defend itself will selfishly pursue others to help it under times of duress.
My opponent also fails to understand that certain pathological obssesions of selfishness visualized on another person or object may induce individuals to risky sporadic behavior where they will do things that offer themselves no benefit but nonetheless will entice individuals to take such a course of action for their mere obssesions alone even amongst the threat of their own death.
My opponent also fails to realize there is a plural existence of selfishness in that there exists different degrees of it.
Also note that if genes are not conscious they cannot be altruistic either.
Evolution is the competition of all life seeking to exist by mass cannibalization amongst each other.
In the mass cannibalization of evolution organisms seek life and survival by taking it away from others selfishly.
A selfless action is one organism (in this case human) acting in such a way that it benefits someone else, at a cost to themselves. (without the expectation of a massive social reward).
Cost/benefit analysis.
such as acting selflessly to save your child,
when no social benefit could be gained. (or any benefit)
Lets say I get no pleasure out of helping the poor, absolutely no pleasure what-so-ever, you walk by a poor person everyday, for a year, and you don't get one twinge, the bum never asks or bugs you for money, its an empty stretch of road where no one is there to see.
In psychology, a person who has a martyr complex desires the feeling of being a martyr for its own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need.
In some cases, this results from the belief that the martyr has been singled out for persecution due to exceptional ability or integrity.[1] Theologian Paul Johnson considers such beliefs a topic of concern for the mental health of clergy.[2] Other martyr complexes involve willful suffering in the name of love or duty. This has been observed in women, especially in poor families, in codependant or abusive relationships.[3][4] It has also been described as a facet of Jewish-American folklore.[5]
The desire for martyrdom is sometimes considered a form of masochism.[6] Allan Berger, however, described it as one of several patterns of "pain/suffering seeking behavior", including asceticism and penance.[7]
If I decide randomly, to throw this person a penny, ,just one single penny, that no one sees, that I didn't get pleasure from, by definition that is a selfless action, that I did not benefit frrom what-so-ever. The claim that these types of actions are impossible because humans are ruthless egotists is nonsensical.
If people were 100% selfish beings, a human would never choose possibility A over possibility B if possibility B meant more, FOR THEM.
How many expert doctors, ,who could have raised to the upper height of society, and have *EVERYTHING associated with that, ever decidee to go live with the poor to treat them? TO become a minor god to some poor african village? Yes he raises his social status in some circles, he's empathetic, and went out of the kindness of his heart that helps him masssively go through life.
Masochism refers to sexual or non-sexual gratification in the infliction of pain or humiliation upon oneself.
Pain, violence, sex and love all are associated with the release of a variety of hormones and chemicals within the human body. Furthermore, humans have been shown to exhibit sympathetic responses in their bodies while watching, hearing, or imagining such experiences.
Endorphins are released by pain experiences and can be perceived as pleasurable and possibly psychologically addictive. It is due to this same release of endorphins that people can become addicted to self harm. In this way, the acts of self harm and engaging in masochistic behavior can be similar in function though most would agree, not in causality.
Brain chemicals such as serotonin and melatonin can be affected by emotional or stressful experiences.
Epinephrine and norepinephrine are released during stressful or painful experiences, and can cause a pleasurable 'rush'.
The effects of masochism on body chemistry possibly reinforce the behavior and therefore might create psychological states that seek to further such behavior.
they don't benefit from selfless ones immediately.
(and somtimes never).
Absolutely not because infants show signs of altruism before they've adopted a culture or cultural beliefs.
Also, every single human s ociety that ever lived, just happened to (some of them seperated by an entire globe and thousands of years) all come to the exact same cultural beliefs?
If people are selfish to different degrees, that'd imply that they were unselfish,to different degrees.
No one ever denied that humans are selfish, no one denied that humans are very selfish, no one even denied that humans were more selfish than selfless, my claim, which you continously fight against, is that under some circumstances humans are capable, no, even adapted, to act altruistically.
There was no arguement that society doesn't function largely of selfishness, that was never the arguement we came here to debate. The arguement is whether humans are selfish to the point that they can't act selflessly, in circumstancial situations (like saving a brother or etc) lets stick to that debate.
How do you account for child rearing exactly Joker?
Explain how that is possible to me, without touching on the subject of genetics. Explain how people get all their resources back through society/through children. (and no, not in africa where children slave labour. but right here in america.) tell me about parents who buy their children houses, put them through university, cars, tell me where they get all that money/resources/ time back from?
Except there are examples of cooperation which don't end up in a reward nearly as big as the effort put in. One example is child-rearing but i'll give you another. You and I are in the woods, you're destroyed by a tiger, I have the choice of walking back to the village we're deep in the woods, and tell them whatever the fuck I want happened. I could leave you there suffering, theres a tiger still around and theres risk, theres no chance you'll die, so i can walk back and tell the tribe i nursed you for hours, but instead of lying and walking back, some people, actually do nurse these dying people, TO MAKE THEM MORE COMFORTABLE, when the benefit can *never be returned.
You can jsut lie and gain the same benefit, ,but the lie doesn't always happen.
Except there are examples of cooperation which don't end up in a reward nearly as big as the effort put in.
You and I are in the woods, you're destroyed by a tiger, I have the choice of walking back to the village we're deep in the woods, and tell them whatever the fuck I want happened. I could leave you there suffering, theres a tiger still around and theres risk, theres no chance you'll die, so i can walk back and tell the tribe i nursed you for hours, but instead of lying and walking back, some people, actually do nurse these dying people, TO MAKE THEM MORE COMFORTABLE, when the benefit can *never be returned.
If a selfless action helped that organism survive (human organism) only once within one hundredd thousand times, it would become species-typical within a few generations.
Thats all the hand of natural selection needs (probably a lot less than it needs) to grasp it firmly. If being a 99.9% selfish creature, compared to a 100% selfish creature, paid off ONLY ONCE, in ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES within a few generations alone, there would be no creature left that was 100% selfish. If being 99.8% selfish, paid off 1 in only one hundred thousand times, in a few generations, we'd be out of 99% selfish organisms.
is it really hard to convince you that somtimes helping an organism with 50% of your genes, at a small small small cost to yourself, doens't propagate those genes better? overall.
Even if a human is selfish they can act unselflessly towards others at a cost to themselves,
people do mask their intentions and naked ambition and selfish goals for success,
but the point isn't that humans aren't capable of massive selfishness and deciet, just that somtimes they can a ct unselfishly.
I feel like i've already anwsered this a thousand times. Intention, goal, vision and insight do not imply lack of selflessness, but somtimes are co-evolved aspects of adaptations to protect others. Like genetic relatives.
This is where your understanding of biology breaks down into nothingness. Organisms do not exist for the benefit of themselves, organisms do not get better and better genes to be better at survival. Organisms are machines, made up of genes, and the ones best at surviving propagate genes the best. This is the 'gene eye'd view of evolution'and I explained to you already, that theres massive evidence for it.
When the other animals are right besides tunnels that they can run into, and you're in the open and the predator is closest to you... its of absolutely no help to call out. the animals don't run to help, they dissapear, and you're left alone staring into the eyes of a hungry predator, and its a dash for the tunnel, when it could have be a swift and silent escape.
of course genes are not alturistic or selfish,
you're not replying to my point that alturistic actions can increase the number of genes that go into the next generation massively, while not being a huge risk to the organism. unceasingly selfish creatures would die out as this adaptation spread species typical.
And how do we know that people acting in what is supposedly considered selfless are doing so without the expectation of massive social reward?
Can it be measured on a empirical level? Or is it all mere hearsay?
And how do we know that selflessness even exists? It is very easy to say that god exists just by saying that the divine is really out there in existence but it is another thing entirely to prove it.It is very easy to say a action is miraculous or centered around the divine but it is another thing entirely to prove it.
When you state that selflessness exists all I see is you merely implying that it does through that of words and language without revealment.
Explain.
We know that people like all organisms exist solely for breeding and reproduction.
Saving your own offspring which is your blood and the future of your own genetical configuration amounts to nothing beyond self preservation of one's own genetical material. A selfish motive.
Is that a situation of selflessness or is it a sign of a idiotic obssesion leading to one's own death?
People are 100% selfish like all organisms are but the reason why differences exist can be found in individual traits, behavior patterns, and likes which shows differing degrees of selfishness from person to person.
Martyr complex followed by the desire of social reward. Public recognition and status.
Earlier I posted a article on martyr complexes but there also exists a form of masochism interconnected with this issue too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masochism
Masochism refers to sexual or non-sexual gratification in the infliction of pain or humiliation upon oneself.
Pain, violence, sex and love all are associated with the release of a variety of hormones and chemicals within the human body. Furthermore, humans have been shown to exhibit sympathetic responses in their bodies while watching, hearing, or imagining such experiences.
Endorphins are released by pain experiences and can be perceived as pleasurable and possibly psychologically addictive. It is due to this same release of endorphins that people can become addicted to self harm. In this way, the acts of self harm and engaging in masochistic behavior can be similar in function though most would agree, not in causality.
Brain chemicals such as serotonin and melatonin can be affected by emotional or stressful experiences.
Epinephrine and norepinephrine are released during stressful or painful experiences, and can cause a pleasurable 'rush'.
The effects of masochism on body chemistry possibly reinforce the behavior and therefore might create psychological states that seek to further such behavior.
Provide me with a so called selfless motive that offers no benefit to the one acting.
How?
If people are far more selfish than your so called perceived selfless altruism what exactly does that say for the relation of altruism in contrast to selfishness?
So you admit that individuals and society are mostly selfish in their day to day behavior yet you do nothing in pointing out where selflessness comes into the picture.
Safe guarding the duplication of one's own genetical materials to exist in the future even beyond when the parents cease to exist altogether.
That child is mine and is apart of me therefore I protect what is mine.
Then there is the perception of parents living forever in the lives of their offspring by traits and material passed on.
And I suppose keeping a dog for one's own amusement in the household which doesn't give anything back that it is given is another tall tale of hinting altruism?
I think that would describe a martyr complex but more importantly I think you forget man's ability of self delusion where people often enough do things without much reward because of pathological obssesion of a object or person and sometimes such obssesions can become so strong that people can wind up dead themselves over them.
( Drug addicts are an excellent example of this.)
I
So called selfless acts helps the survival rate of an individual? ( A selfish disposition.)
Or maybe your confusing selflessness with selfishness altogether by that of misinterpretation and a story like cultural narrative of humility versus vanity under a dualistic spectrum of thinking which is a product of culture itself.
Nothing is done without a want, desire, goal, and plan in mind.
Even a drug addict can become selfishly obssesed with the drugs that he puts in himself for a euphoric like high in that overtime through a overdose he kills himself.
I beg to differ. People are very capable of massive selfishness and deceit. History only alludes towards this.
What you fail to understand is that there is no seperation of organisms and their genes.
Both are one and the same thing in that both exist only to support one another.
Both cannot exist without each other.
Give me an example of a animal species doing this. Name the species so I can find it on the net.
[/quote]I'm merely arguing my point that your confusing or alluding selflessness without evidence to certain actions that have nothing to do with altruism at all but infact is somthing much more often enough under a selfish inclination.
You are misinterpreting actions to be selfless to fit your ideology built between some cultural narrative or artifact of belief.
Cyrene "won" because the concept of selflessness exists.
Because Joker undertook the argument on Cyrene's terms, he lost on the opening.
Everything [exists].
Once this fact is understood, then it becomes a matter of defining "selfless", which literally means "without self".
Are people "without self"? That depends on how a person defines "self", which neither Cyrene or Joker did.
Therefore, the debate backtracks to the initial proposition -- does the concept exist? Yes, it does.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users