Whoops I accidently pressed "Post Discussion" rather than "Preview" againn

everything we do is at its core self centered — Italy

A couple of thoughts. First, a quibble, this is really psychology, not philosophy. It deals with matters of testable fact.

Second, the idea that humans are selfish or self-centered is flawed. Humans are social animals. We like each other. We have empathy and compassion. We can help others without needing there to be any reward - it's just what people do for each other in a community. I think most kindness is done without a second thought. At some abstract level, I guess you could say that, since it's a factor that provides evolutionary benefit that makes it selfish. That doesn't make any sense. It would be as though I said "Boy, you have a fast car," and you responded "No, it's not fast, they just built it with a big engine so it could win races."

First, a quibble, this is really psychology, not philosophy. It deals with matters of testable fact. — T Clark

It's a characterisation based on interpretation, and so, it is definitely a philosophical statement. Its bearing on philosophy alone would make it a philosophical idea, even if "self-centred" was defined within psychology in a way that was testable, we'd be under no obligation to abide by that definition within the context of philosophy. And within philosophy, it is not testable, it's a matter of interpretation.

If everything we do is selfish, then everything we do is immoral;
If everything we do is immoral, then everything we do is bad; — Italy

While I don't subscribe to the views of psychological egoism, I don't think that selfishness is the same as self-interest, and this conflation might undermine your argument for me. Frequently, it is in one's self-interest to cooperate with others, and that is in fact, part of the argument of psychological egoism. Many moral arguments centre around the idea of how cooperation creates a better living environment for everyone, and I do subscribe to ideas such as this.

What is in the best interests of the many is often in the best interests of ourselves, for example, a desire to live in a free and prosperous society. Where selfishness might be best characterised by prioritising your interests in a way that neglects the interests of others, self-interest might be best served by caring about the interests of others.

This is a significant part of moral thinking for me, it is, in part, motivated by self-interest. Where I disagree with psychological egoism is the characterisation of a multifaceted motivation as mere self-interest. It seems as though the idea construes any possible personal benefit as by default the primary or even only possible motivation, regardless of clear evidence showing the involvement of other factors.

The other issue I have with it is how it construes seemingly any "need" or "desire" as self-interest, even when that need or desire is literally the exact opposite. Take a parent's desire to protect their child, to construe this as "self-interest" is absurd, and reveals a highly reductionist way of thinking.

It's a characterisation based on interpretation, and so, it is definitely a philosophical statement. — Judaka

The important part for me is that, in this case, unless you get the science right, the philosophy is meaningless. The discussion is not about what is right and what is wrong, it's about human motivation. That's a question that can't be answered with philosophy alone.

It is not just about "human motivation", it is about characterising human motivation, and that makes it philosophical. How could science provide a definitive answer to whether our motivations were "self-centred" or not? What makes something "self-centred" is subjective, the logic used is subjective, and the verdict reached in each and every case involves making choices about how to interpret, what to interpret, how to characterise and the construction of a highly subjective narrative. There's nothing testable about it, how do you propose any scientific approach could definitively answer such a question?

:up:

Psychological egoism main idea is that everything we do is at its core self centered, and so every good did is done not out of kindness -but out of our own interests. — Italy

Not this again!
Think about the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon. The firefighter who charges into a burning building to rescue a stranger's child. The casual stroller who sees someone fall into a river and jumps in to rescue him. The passer-by who burns his hands pulling an accident victim out out of a burning car. All these things have happened. All these people could as easily have died - and two of them did - as become badly injured heroes. Thing is, they didn't think. They acted on an impulse which doesn't calculate cost/benefit ratios; it just impels a social animal to react in the interest of its species.

The disagreement that I have though is that this branch of philosophy, and this theory in particular, are mainly used for the argument "we human beings are immoral. Innately evil". — Italy

No, it just says we're all self-centered. We are, but it's not an all-or-nothing condition. There may be a whiff of automatonism as well: the implication that we act in predetermined ways - that, too, may be true, but as long as we are unaware of it, we make decisions.

But first to understand it, I feel we need to ask "Why do we think selfishness is immoral?". — Italy

Ayn Rand certainly didn't. We're taught by the Christian-based cultural mores that we ought to be selfless; abnegation of the self and of worldly desire is a touchstone of spirituality. I suppose the reason Jesus - or whatever real and/or fictional and/or composite person(s) - made up that doctrine is as a counterbalance to a money- and advantage-driven culture, not unlike our present one.

The thing is that Unconscious/ Evolutionary selfishness is not innately immoral; — Italy

Nothing is innately immoral; since morality is a social convention, it is subject to consrant, ongoing change.

:up:

No, it just says we're all self-centered. We are, but it's not an all-or-nothing condition — Vera Mont

What if we define ‘self’ in terms of self-consistency as a primary motive of behavior? This way, we can dump the dichotomy between selfish and selfless and instead see all behavior as self-centered. But in doing so we are not reverting back to Hobbes and modeling self as some kind of fortress behind whose walls we accumulate stuff and protect it from an outside. Instead, the drive for self-consistency is a drive to anticipate, to assimilate world on the basis of familiarity, recognizability, consistency with respect to our ongoing ways of understanding. This explains why we do ‘selfless’ things for those we relate closely with and act ‘selfishly’ toward those we are alienated from. No need for religious moralistic motives or reductionist biologistiic explanations positing ‘instinctive’ inclinations for altruism.

Thank you for the critique! Hope you have a good day!

Not this again!
Think about the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon. The firefighter who charges into a burning building to rescue a stranger's child. The casual stroller who sees someone fall into a river and jumps in to rescue him. The passer-by who burns his hands pulling an accident victim out out of a burning car. All these things have happened. All these people could as easily have died - and two of them did - as become badly injured heroes. Thing is, they didn't think. They acted on an impulse which doesn't calculate cost/benefit ratios; it just impels a social animal to react in the interest of its species. — Vera Mont

Indeed, such actions are impulsory; And as you said, these people didn't calculate the costs or benefits of such action.
Though, as one does not calculate the costs or benefits, such action is neighter moral or immoral, it is in a gray area. Now, Psychological egoism comes, and says that:
Such action, even if it was done to help somebody, the instinct itself is in actuality comming from us gaining something - be it from an evolutionary standpoint (group evolutionary theory) or ideal standpoint (for love, for country, for this specific idea, etc) which innately go back to the animal itself; (mostly a combination of the two though); And those bleed into though itself too, more or less depending on the situation. Thus, and for some other reasons too, which I hope I tackled lol; Both involuntary and voluntary actions, both actions for the good of somebody, and for the whole porpouse of themself's are 'selfish'.

Now though, I litteraly tackled this subject into my critique part; Where I said almost the same thing about this case in the idea of "There is a difference between acting selfless but evolutionary selfish, and then acting selfish on all fronts; We do not actually act the same as evolution intended for us, as yes the tools of evolution may be "selfish", but how we'll use them is the actual important part" ; I do understand this hypothesis is like saying "One will be happy to be eternally tortured because they'll be alive, as pain is a tool to keep us alive." , and that was what I wanted to say ; Is this a critique for me, or of the same subject I am critiquing? I don't really understand, sorry.

Did you understood the terms "consciously selfish" and "unconsciously selfish" as "consciously selfish" and "instinctivly selfish"? I meant for them to be as "I done this act of selfishness with my full mind" and "I done this good did, or been neutral; Though because of the evolutionary standpoint, it was at its core selfish".
If this is the case, understood! I'll try to explain it more; maybe I could add some examples? Maybe quotes? Well who knows, but thank you!

No, it just says we're all self-centered. We are, but it's not an all-or-nothing condition. There may be a whiff of automatonism as well: the implication that we act in predetermined ways - that, too, may be true, but as long as we are unaware of it, we make decisions. — Vera Mont

I am sorry, but I literally stated that;
The part which you quoted was were I stated "how it is commonly used", not "What it is"; And well, from my experiance and what I've read, usually people do use it like that -(which I do feel is a shame as the core idea I find pretty interesting. B( )

Ayn Rand certainly didn't. We're taught by the Christian-based cultural mores that we ought to be selfless; abnegation of the self and of worldly desire is a touchstone of spirituality. I suppose the reason Jesus - or whatever real and/or fictional and/or composite person(s) - made up that doctrine is as a counterbalance to a money- and advantage-driven culture, not unlike our present one. — Vera Mont

Excuse me.. what? What does this.. Okey! Alright, as you say

Nothing is innately immoral; since morality is a social convention, it is subject to consrant, ongoing change. — Vera Mont

I have stated that I find morality to be: Part taught, and part ingrained; To say more on that, I believe that we are born with some innate ideas of morality, and/or that we are obligated by the circumstances of our existance for some moral ideas to exist (For example, to understand the possibility of other beings existing than yourself; Or self morality, as "I think therefore I am" - Ideas which are impossible to get rid of as long as we exist) and we build over them with our interpretation. But I feel that's more semantics than anything.


Had some of your critique-parts been writed before I have edited my post? Aww, and I thought I was fast!
Or is my english that bad? mymy
Sorry If what I wrote was hard to read, I am not the best in english my english classes.

Well, nonetheless thank you! I feel grateful for this comment, and I had fun writing this!

thank you for the critique!

While I don't subscribe to the views of psychological egoism, I don't think that selfishness is the same as self-interest, and this conflation might undermine your argument for me. — Judaka

I do neighter; The idea of self-interest and selfishness in Psychological egoism is that they are usually seen as one and the same; I know this idea is pretty debated, so I did acknowledge it through the concept of "Moral selfishness" - Though I haven't indulged into it more because that argument is already pretty used, I usually use the argument from this post when I disagree with any idea of "Pshychological Egoism", I don't really see the argument that I use elsewhere so +points on that,", I literally made the argument in question, and finally it works in both of the situation, where self-interest and selfishness are or not one and the same;

There would exist/ exist some other arguments too, but I wanted to use this one as this one is what I usually use! — Italy

Well, I hope this inconsistancy in our understandings haven't accured because of:

Whoops I accidently pressed "Post Discussion" rather than "Preview" againn — Italy

Haha!

Really now, the "Prieview" and the "Post (something)" buttons are ironircally and deviously litteraly next to eachother and in the same colour scheme;
Eh no biggy it happens sometime, but oh my god I would love if the post button is put somewhere, like up in the right corner tab for example, mymy

What if we define ‘self’ in terms of self-consistency as a primary motive of behavior? — Joshs

Does there have to be one primary motive? With a brain this big and an evolutionary history this long, can't we have lots of different motivations and prioritize them according to the situation?

Though, as one does not calculate the costs or benefits, such action is neighter moral or immoral, it is in a gray area. — Italy

So's most human behaviour. For every example, there is a counter-example.
Cheers!

Thank you for the critique!

Probably my whole respounse is biased because the

Whoops I accidently pressed "Post Discussion" rather than "Preview" againn — Italy

but it would still be fun.. soo-

A couple of thoughts. First, a quibble, this is really psychology, not philosophy. It deals with matters of testable fact. — T Clark

First, even if it is (while it wasn't my intent lol) more psychology; I am a firm believer that human psychology is strongly bonded with philosophy itself, it is a great 'tool' just put in a vacuum, and I also believe that in many cases it can be used for a better answer - as in many cases the problem itself arises not because we don't understand something, but because of something human made;
And I do also believe, that philosophy itself was made and is right now how it is because of that human psyche, be it more or less; But that's just my opinion!

At some abstract level, I guess you could say that, since it's a factor that provides evolutionary benefit that makes it selfish. That doesn't make any sense. It would be as though I said "Boy, you have a fast car," and you responded "No, it's not fast, they just built it with a big engine so it could win races." — T Clark

Again, as i said to @Judaka even if this is a totally valid argument; I felt it was better to use the one from my post!
Well, hope you have a great day, maybe not magical neighter talkative, but very dexterous and cognitive able crow! Be your seeds and fruits plentiful

So's most human behaviour. — Vera Mont

Well .. If you actively think of what you'll do; I don't think it really is
And even if it is, I feel that would not be really in the opposition for the argument of "Psychological Egoism"

But ehh I don't really care about that tbh, just hope ya have a good day
And oh, thank you! You too, Cheers! lol

I am a firm believer that human psychology is strongly bonded with philosophy itself — Italy

For me, philosophy is how I become aware of how my mind works. I guess that makes it a psychological tool. As I told @Judaka:

The important part for me is that, in this case, unless you get the science right, the philosophy is meaningless. The discussion is not about what is right and what is wrong, it's about human motivation. That's a question that can't be answered with philosophy alone. — T Clark

cognitive able crow — Italy

I am working on a clever name for you, but nothing I've come up with works. All I've got so far is "anime urchin," which doesn't work for me, in spite of the semi-alliteration.

It is not just about "human motivation", it is about characterising human motivation, and that makes it philosophical. How could science provide a definitive answer to whether our motivations were "self-centred" or not? What makes something "self-centred" is subjective, the logic used is subjective, and the verdict reached in each and every case involves making choices about how to interpret, what to interpret, how to characterise and the construction of a highly subjective narrative. There's nothing testable about it, how do you propose any scientific approach could definitively answer such a question? — Judaka

The question of why people do the things they do is a matter of fact, psychology, even if we don't know the answer. You can talk about it philosophically, but if you get the psychology wrong the philosophy will be misleading. Science can provide an answer to whether our motivations are "self-centred" or not, whether or not that answer is definitive.

@Italy started out describing some philosophical assertions. I responded that those assertions are not necessarily consistent with my understanding of human behavior and human nature. My response was based on psychology - some intellectual understanding but mostly introspection.

For me, philosophy is how I become aware of how my mind works. I guess that makes it a psychological tool. As I told Judaka — T Clark

That's awesome! For me it was how people work; And well, how the whole world works; From that it got to the same premise as yours somehow. Guess there's something which drags one to such path lol.
Cognitive mate, however you see it, however you like it: Both seeing it only as a logical tool or only as a psychological tool, or both, or none are totally valid; After all, philosophy is something a bit different to all consumers and producers of it! Just try to do the best with it and have a little fun

I am working on a clever name for you, but nothing I've come up with works. All I've got so far is "anime urchin," which doesn't work for me, in spite of the semi-alliteration. — T Clark

Usually I just get all the big things about one's character, and then try to combine them;
She's Konata Izumi from Lucky Star, so you were going on a good path with the "urchin" (tbh I actually really like it lol ); Maybe you could try something with "sea star" maybe; Kostar? I just do dad puns to be honest. Try using my name maybe too it is literally a country;
Pro tip just search her online and find the most relevant things about her if you don't have anythin' in mind!



And mymy I am flattered!

urchin — Italy

Just about everyone in anime is an urchin. It represents the urchinization of humanity.