# Everything you voluntarily do is selfish...



## NoEgo (Jul 5, 2016)

I hope this is the correct section for this. I'm not really sure if you'd consider this "Philosophy."

I'm sure I'm not breaking any new ground here, someone's probably came to that same conclusion before. I've thought about this for years, and I always come to the same conclusion: humans are inherently selfish. Every single voluntary action we make is selfish, even if it's for the benefit of another person. Think about every single "selfless" act you've ever done. Why did you do it? Because you WANTED the other person to be happy. You WANTED to do it. It was for your own benefit. Helping that person gave you pleasure.

Of course, if you're in a bank during a robbery and the gunman shoots you without you voluntarily getting the line of fire, and you just-so-happened to save someone else's life as a result, THAT would be a selfless act.


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

Then what do you do with this information? Or are you just stating a philosophical curiosity.


----------



## NoEgo (Jul 5, 2016)

sarafinanickelbocker said:


> Then what do you do with this information? Or are you just stating a philosophical curiosity.


Both. I think knowing this information could help in life. I know through experience that many times when someone's doing a seemingly "selfless" act, sometimes there's an underlying goal behind it.


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

...but what does that mean to you? Is that okay?


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

sarafinanickelbocker said:


> Then what do you do with this information? Or are you just stating a philosophical curiosity.





sarafinanickelbocker said:


> ...but what does that mean to you? Is that okay?


 It seems to me to just be a statement of fact. People rarely acknowledge this fact and yet it is very plain to see. Many people do not like it but I have never seen anyone debunk it. Why? Because if it is true (and it seems to be on close inspection) we would have to choose whether or not it should be acknowledged. And if so, it would undermine everything that some people believe in.


----------



## caelle (Sep 9, 2008)

If people are doing good things for others, whether it's for selfish reasons or not (I'd guess it's a mixture of both), I don't care. It's good to do good.

This is especially true when I'm nice to other drivers. I do good things for them, but it makes me feel great inside, like I'm the nicest ***** on the planet.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

nomi said:


> If people are doing good things for others, whether it's for selfish reasons or not (I'd guess it's a mixture of both), I don't care. It's good to do good.


 What is the definition of "good"? If you believe what you're doing is good but I don't, which one of us is right?


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Afreen88 said:


> Yep.
> 
> Although I don't think 'selfish' is quite the right word, there certainly is no selfless act, ever. I even disagree with your 'saving someone from the line of fire' example (if I've understood it correctly).


 Yeah. I forgot to point that out. If you accidentally save someone's life you had no intent to do anything at all other than go about your business. So it would still be a self-centered endeavor.


----------



## caelle (Sep 9, 2008)

WillYouStopDave said:


> What is the definition of "good"? If you believe what you're doing is good but I don't, which one of us is right?


Maybe we both could be right? We can have our own definition of what we think is a good or kind act.

And if the person I did the kind act for is happy with what I did for them, then your opinion, or anyone else's, wouldn't matter.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

nomi said:


> Maybe we both could be right? We can have our own definition of what we think is a good or kind act.
> 
> And if the person I did the kind act for is happy with what I did for them, then your opinion, or anyone else's, wouldn't matter.


 But if there is such a concept in your mind as "good" then there has to be such a thing as "bad". So if someone is doing something that you (subjectively) believe is bad you can't both be right. Someone is going to be unhappy and want the other to stop. In a perfect world, you could both have independent ideas about right and wrong and not bother one another but it generally never really works that way.

At any rate, I think this thread is good because a lot of times people will wag their finger at you for thinking of yourself first when really, that's what everyone is doing. It just so happens that some people have a selfish need to feel like they're doing "good" things for others and some people have a less complicated form of selfishness going on. Those people take a lot of crap from people who go the extra mile to disguise their self-centered ways. Why? Because they're more transparent and it's always easier to get at the low hanging fruit. Because, yes, some people get off on browbeating others (as I am doing right now. :lol ). Why do they do it? Hell if I know. Guilt? Pleasure? Both? They probably don't even know.

If it makes you feel good to feed homeless people, you're not really going to ask why. If it makes another person feel good to hoard all their money and possessions, you might be inclined to judge them in a negative fashion because that goes against your definition of "good". Can you honestly say that you never intentionally create conflict with people who are not really doing anything to you simply because you believe they're wrong?

It's important to acknowledge that people are inherently selfish because there are too many people pretending that it isn't so and that selfishness is wrong (In which case, they are without exception motivated by what they'd personally like to turn the world into. Which is a selfish desire).

And my keyboard sucks.


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

WillYouStopDave said:


> It seems to me to just be a statement of fact. People rarely acknowledge this fact and yet it is very plain to see. Many people do not like it but I have never seen anyone debunk it. Why? Because if it is true (and it seems to be on close inspection) we would have to choose whether or not it should be acknowledged. And if so, it would undermine everything that some people believe in.


Yeah, perhaps. I was curious what NoEgo thought about it though. @NoEgo, what are your thoughts?


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Yes, every action we make is because it benefits us in some way shape or form. For example, people who volunteer do so because it makes them feel good. We make friends with people who offer us something in return, either through material or emotions means. It goes on and on. There's nothing wrong with this of course, but I do find it odd when people try to deny it.


----------



## VacantLot (Jun 28, 2016)

Well just in a the basic linguistic sense since you cannot separate your actions/thoughts from your own body or mind it will always be de facto "selfish"... maybe you should check out that recent discussion on this forum on the illusion of a self 

But surely there is at least a utilitarian distinction between self based acts which harm others and self based acts that don't harm others, or even benefit them. As a society people are generally going to favor the self based acts that aren't bringing harm to them and it won't be considered within the negative connotation of the word selfish.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

VacantLot said:


> But surely there is at least a utilitarian distinction between self based acts which harm others and self based acts that don't harm others


 If you really want to split hairs there is no such thing as an action that doesn't affect someone else in some way. Just breathing has some small effect on the world. If you're using a computer every day, your existence has had an impact on the people who live in the countries where computers are manufactured. And often it's not the best impact you could possibly have on someone. Sure. It provides them with a job. Barely.

My shoes that I've had for about 10 years cost about 20 bucks. They're relatively nice shoes so I'm pretty sure it didn't cost them nearly as much as it should have to produce them. Do I care? I guess on some level I've thought about it but TBH with you, I'm really glad I got a good deal on my shoes and if it's between me having to pay $100 for a pair of shoes so someone can get paid a living wage and me paying $20 for a pair of shoes so I get a reasonable price on something I can't do without, it's myself I'm worried about first.

Is that bad selfish? Maybe. But I'm not even employed. So I'll take the $20 shoes and the poor factory worker in China can have his $5 a day job in his worker's paradise and I'll call that even.

How much do you think a $400 computer would cost if every worker who was involved in making it was paid a "living wage"? Do you even think about this when you use your computer every day? If you even think about it once a month you're probably doing 100% better at caring than the vast majority of bleating heart liberals do.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

VacantLot said:


> Well just in a the basic linguistic sense since you cannot separate your actions/thoughts from your own body or mind it will always be de facto "selfish"... maybe you should check out that recent discussion on this forum on the illusion of a self


 And yes. Of course when it becomes obvious that being selfish is normal, some people are going to do some amazing mental gymnastics to try and say there's no such thing as the self.

Have fun with your contortions. If it makes you feel better, I guess.


----------



## VacantLot (Jun 28, 2016)

WillYouStopDave said:


> If you really want to split hairs there is no such thing as an action that doesn't affect someone else in some way. Just breathing has some small effect on the world. If you're using a computer every day, your existence has had an impact on the people who live in the countries where computers are manufactured. And often it's not the best impact you could possibly have on someone. Sure. It provides them with a job. Barely.
> 
> My shoes that I've had for about 10 years cost about 20 bucks. They're relatively nice shoes so I'm pretty sure it didn't cost them nearly as much as it should have to produce them. Do I care? I guess on some level I've thought about it but TBH with you, I'm really glad I got a good deal on my shoes and if it's between me having to pay $100 for a pair of shoes so someone can get paid a living wage and me paying $20 for a pair of shoes so I get a reasonable price on something I can't do without, it's myself I'm worried about first.
> 
> ...


Well I have actually thought about this topic a lot; I remember as a kid reading a satirical essay my cousin wrote back in the day when Kathy Lee Gifford was criticized for endorsing a line of Wal-Mart clothing made by slave labor, on why people should NOT stop buying it because even the scant money that was pouring into those countries would dry up. It was supposed to be some kind of joke, but he did have a point. The average consumer isn't going to have that much power to control the economic system, even if they are conscientious about it. Outsourcing manufacturing to the cheapest possible country is a fact of the current day, and it's a cold comfort to know that a job lost in one place might benefit a poverty ridden person in another place.

But I wasn't really railing against capitalism or even the cost benefit analysis of global trade. I was just drawing a distinction between actions that could be considered philanthropic like a person donating blood out of their own desire to help people, versus actions that could be considered misanthropic like a sociopath assaulting someone because of their own desires to hurt someone.

Someone could point out, "hey, these people are both acting out of their own selfish desires", but both the intentions and the consequences are very different.


----------



## greentea33 (Mar 4, 2014)

Nope. I've done all kinds of things that do not benefit me. 

Done because I care more about ____ (whatever it is at the time).


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

An act where someone terminates their own lives (given the that they want to live) for external reasons / people, couldn't be a selfish act, since the most fundamental of all human desires (assuming they aren't depressed) is the will to live. So at the minimum _everything_ voluntary cannot be selfish.

The majority of acts _will_ be based on self interest though, but not all of them will be. The difficulty of course is in determining that an act doesn't have (sneaky) self interest behind it ultimately, but the above example can at least be used to show that not _all_ acts are due to self interest.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

I've been a psychology student and passionate about this domain and when I realized this it was like a little Evrika moment. Ok, a big Evrika moment. I realised altruism cannot exist.

When the brain decides to do an action, it can have only 2 selfish reasons:

1. get a reward
2. avoid a punishment

So by definition every action you take is selfish. Case closed.


----------



## zubie (May 27, 2016)

So I took psychology 101, and they have a part of it just talking about this very thing, and they also regard this in general as fact I believe. I mean there may be some that disagree. but if it is in the generic 101 class, then I think it is probably at least somewhat agreed on. 

In that part they pointed out every time someone does something good for another, it is because they are subconsciously or consciously hoping that someone will do the same for them at some point. But I also think that is okay. 

haha this reminds me of my husband a little though. Cause everytime we are witnessing something pretty bad, he points out to me, this is why he thinks that all people are bad and selfish. And I guess he may be right, but I am always avoiding looking at this.. But maybe I should..

~
One common theory in psychology is that there are these levels of needs, and the lower levels must be completed before someone can get on with the next level. For instance Survival is at the bottom, love and friendship is higher. Ego needs I believe are higher still. If you are in a life or death situation you are probably not going to worry about these other issues.
And then when all the basic needs are met there is supposed to be the self actualization, and that is something few people ever get to, but it is where hypothetically you can give to others without any needs in the background. 

It does not seem selfish to me with this in regard, to take care of oneself first. As they say, you must love yourself before you can love another. So we have to be very selfish in order to really get to a point where we care about others.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

zubie said:


> And then when all the basic needs are met there is supposed to be the self actualization, and that is something few people ever get to, but it is where hypothetically you can give to others without any needs in the background.


You say if they have all the needs in the pyramid fulfilled.

That will mean they are in a state of happiness, so helping others will not add to their happiness ?

I dunno why I tend to think helping will boost their happiness even further. Is there a point where you can say you achieved max happiness and you can add no more ?


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

In a way, yeah. I mean, if I donate money, it's probably because I think I'm doing something to decrease poverty, certainly because I do want to live in a world without poverty.

Exceptions might be certain instinctive acts like loving your family.


----------



## Barakiel (Oct 31, 2013)

I wrote a blog post about this very topic and how every single online argument about it goes the same exact way everytime. I hate to self-promote like that but I don't feel like writing up a large response again. :/


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Afreen88 said:


> I think we've discussed this before :b
> 
> Like I said, I would not use the word 'selfish', but even the BIB is rooted in 'self-interest'... although I wouldn't describe it quite that way either, mainly due to the negative connotations.
> 
> ...


Yeh, I remember this popping up before and being debated by a competent opponent (I assume it was you)  I think I will just agree with your last paragraph


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

what I really like is eating shellfish


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

AussiePea said:


> Yes, every action we make is because it benefits us in some way shape or form. For example, people who volunteer do so because it makes them feel good. We make friends with people who offer us something in return, either through material or emotions means. It goes on and on. There's nothing wrong with this of course, but I do find it odd when people try to deny it.


It would be a lot more 'convenient' if there was some great, ultimate altruism, but when you think about it, things just couldn't work that way.
Since we control our own actions, every action that we choose is something that seems preferential to us. We just have to understand this self-motivation in the broadest sense, rather than a narrow, materialistic sense.

I think Kant is important for that reason; "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means".


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

NoEgo said:


> I'm sure I'm not breaking any new ground here, someone's probably came to that same conclusion before.


They did. The term used for such an idea is psychological egoism, the idea that every human action is motivated by self-interest, even the most altruistic ones.



> I've thought about this for years, and I always come to the same conclusion: humans are inherently selfish. Every single voluntary action we make is selfish, even if it's for the benefit of another person. Think about every single "selfless" act you've ever done. Why did you do it? Because you WANTED the other person to be happy. You WANTED to do it. It was for your own benefit. Helping that person gave you pleasure.


Wanting to do something for another person is not the same as wanting to do something for your own benefit. When a person performs an altruistic action, what do you think is on their mind when they are performing it? Certainly not any thoughts about their own well-being and certainly not the effects of another person's well being on their own. Yeah, sure a person may feel better when they perform a good action, but that is hardly what is on their mind when they are doing the action.

Of course, you could say that perhaps there is a subconscious motivation going on here. Perhaps there is, deep down inside our minds, such a concern our own happiness. But in the end this is all just smoke and mirrors. There could also be a subconscious altruistic motive in every action that we make, even the most selfish ones. There could also be a subconscious sexual desire in our every action, even the ones that are seemingly not sexual at all. By saying that such motives are "subconscious" we are able to devise any sort of crazy story for why we acted the way we did. But that doesn't necessarily mean there are any such motives.



> Of course, if you're in a bank during a robbery and the gunman shoots you without you voluntarily getting the line of fire, and you just-so-happened to save someone else's life as a result, THAT would be a selfless act.


The problem with this is that it seems like every action is a selfless act then. I am hungry, I go to the store, and purchase some food for myself. In so doing, I am indirectly helping out the person who I am giving the money too. I mean, they are running a business, and need my money to make a living. I wouldn't want to say that such actions are selfless, any more than the fact that I received pleasure from helping others make them selfish acts.


----------



## the misanthrope (Aug 15, 2016)

it is probable that selfishness motivates most of our actions, it is a biological imperative I think. however if the results are positive motive hardly matters. The motives behind bad behavior that is more important, and interesting


----------



## the misanthrope (Aug 15, 2016)

enjoy your walkabout.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

In a topic dedicated to selfishness and ego, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ayn Rand (I may have missed it, my attention to detail is abysmal atm) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.


----------



## the misanthrope (Aug 15, 2016)

she is the great apologist for self interest.


----------



## BoxJellyfish (Jul 28, 2015)

I think it's relative, if you decide to give your spare money to charity, then it's selfish in the way of wanting to feel good that you helped others, but selfless in a way that you are giving up your own desire of whatever you were going to do with that money instead (like buying yourself nice clothes or food) to give to someone else. It all depends.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

I think when you WANT to help someone, especially at your own expense, you are projecting your want to be their want. If that makes any sense.


----------



## meepie (Jun 20, 2010)

It depends, there are people who do good things when it goes against their basic needs and even threatens their safety which I think is pretty selfless because they are willing to risk their lives for a greater good. What is the benefit for the person when they are dead? This is called self-sacrifice or martyrdom which is very selfless. For example, people who stand up to the government(i.e. journalists, gay rights activists, etc) in a politically oppressive country because they believe that it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

meepie said:


> For example, people who stand up to the government(i.e. journalists, gay rights activists, etc) in a politically oppressive country because they believe that it is the right thing to do.


"Selfless" makes sense in a philosophical discussion, but in the strict biological sense, the people who stand up to government are motivated by forces inside them - even if it costs them their lives.
Believing that something is the right thing to do is grounded in biology, just as the drive for survival is, and sometimes it's the stronger drive.


----------



## The Library of Emma (Mar 3, 2016)

NoEgo said:


> I hope this is the correct section for this. I'm not really sure if you'd consider this "Philosophy."
> 
> *I'm sure I'm not breaking any new ground here, someone's probably came to that same conclusion before.* I've thought about this for years, and I always come to the same conclusion: humans are inherently selfish.


i did.


----------



## PrincessV (Aug 17, 2015)

I agree. If you've ever taken care of a baby... they are one of the most selfish things ever! Those little brats are the true essence of what a human is. Cutely disguised, but actually evil.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe


----------

