i think i got a D. no joke. only philosophy course i took in undergrad (though i should add i took it freshman year when my GPA was a 2.0 and a 2.0, so it's not like i was doing well in any class).
well i mean, you're big on a lot of the 101 debates. i think you're past this stuff. it's all kinda a dead end like the free will vs determinism.
and to whoever said it, some suicide bombers do operate on self-interest. killing infidels = virgin's in the afterlife. the irony is the virgins are probably the children killed in the blast. (wouldn't that be poetic?)
Wrong. 100% of suicide bombers operate out of self interest. The only exception would be someone who killed themselves only for a reward so that their family could eat/live etc. I'm not sure that person exists.
nah, do you really know the motivations of every suicide bomber that ever blew themselves up? that's why i said some. if all do, i'm still right. if some do i'm still right. if none do that's the only way i'd be wrong. and we know that not to be true. when you say 100% you present something you can't back up, and appear to be wrong. stay away from always, never, and 100% when presenting arguments. especially if you can still share your point without making those claims. its not about being right, its about having a discussion that leads to some sort of solution or conclusion on the subject matter.
you're right. however, i can't come up with any reason why someone would blow themselves up (and kill others) outside of selfish intent, except in the scenario i outlined, which is of course still very selfish - killing strangers to save your family, for one
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 18376 Location: outta space Gender: Male
given2trade wrote:
windedsailor wrote:
given2trade wrote:
windedsailor wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
windedsailor wrote:
ceebs you really must've liked philosophy 101
i think i got a D. no joke. only philosophy course i took in undergrad (though i should add i took it freshman year when my GPA was a 2.0 and a 2.0, so it's not like i was doing well in any class).
well i mean, you're big on a lot of the 101 debates. i think you're past this stuff. it's all kinda a dead end like the free will vs determinism.
and to whoever said it, some suicide bombers do operate on self-interest. killing infidels = virgin's in the afterlife. the irony is the virgins are probably the children killed in the blast. (wouldn't that be poetic?)
Wrong. 100% of suicide bombers operate out of self interest. The only exception would be someone who killed themselves only for a reward so that their family could eat/live etc. I'm not sure that person exists.
nah, do you really know the motivations of every suicide bomber that ever blew themselves up? that's why i said some. if all do, i'm still right. if some do i'm still right. if none do that's the only way i'd be wrong. and we know that not to be true. when you say 100% you present something you can't back up, and appear to be wrong. stay away from always, never, and 100% when presenting arguments. especially if you can still share your point without making those claims. its not about being right, its about having a discussion that leads to some sort of solution or conclusion on the subject matter.
you're right. however, i can't come up with any reason why someone would blow themselves up (and kill others) outside of selfish intent, except in the scenario i outlined, which is of course still very selfish - killing strangers to save your family, for one
haha, yet that one exception probably happens.
_________________
thodoks wrote:
Man, they really will give anyone an internet connection these days.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
How did this reach 6 pages without me noticing?
I've got a paper to write tonight... I'll probably read through this and respond tomorrow or on the weekend. I've also been meaning to respond to Thodoks' post about greed in the economy thread but haven't gotten around to it. Now I can just cover it here.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
Instead of just busting out a huge post, why don't I start with this:
Isn't it true that every single action we take, no matter how small, is an action we want to take (unless we are being physically or mentally manipulated to take that action)? If that is true, isn't it also true that every action we take, since it is an action we wanted to take, is in our self-interest? If both of those are true, mustn't it also be true that self-interest is an a priori characteristic of human action?
In other words, self-interest is contained in the notion of human action. One cannot act without acting in their self-interest.
Instead of just busting out a huge post, why don't I start with this:
Isn't it true that every single action we take, no matter how small, is an action we want to take (unless we are being physically or mentally manipulated to take that action)? If that is true, isn't it also true that every action we take, since it is an action we wanted to take, is in our self-interest? If both of those are true, mustn't it also be true that self-interest is an a priori characteristic of human action?
In other words, self-interest is contained in the notion of human action. One cannot act without acting in their self-interest.
yes, that's the crux of it.
however, ceebs was trying to argue if it happens REALLY FAST we can't think about it so it's not self interest
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
but i also argued that since we do not realize we are doing it out of selfish interests, it is not a conscious selfish act. and i'm wanting to know if there is a difference between a purposefully selfish act and one done for want to help another which also brings more happiness (that you aren't aiming for).
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Instead of just busting out a huge post, why don't I start with this:
Isn't it true that every single action we take, no matter how small, is an action we want to take (unless we are being physically or mentally manipulated to take that action)? If that is true, isn't it also true that every action we take, since it is an action we wanted to take, is in our self-interest? If both of those are true, mustn't it also be true that self-interest is an a priori characteristic of human action?
In other words, self-interest is contained in the notion of human action. One cannot act without acting in their self-interest.
what i meant is, intent actually seems to be everything, because we don't have actions without intentions.
but we can have intentions without actions. once i act, and begin to employ means to attempt to achieve ends that i desire - no matter how altruistic the ends may be - i'm acting to further my self-interest.
your self-interest to achieve your goal, which could be altogether altruistic and other-loving.
well, yeah. that's what i wrote in my first post in this thread.
then your proposition that all actions are in self-interest doesn't follow. unless that isn't your proposition. or unless you meant to say something like "some, if not most actions are in self-interest, but some can be in the self-interest of being uninterested in helping one's self."
your second statement is much closer to what i'm trying to say than the first.
leaving aside what motivates one to act (whether it's an altruistic inclination or an inclination that serves narrow self-interest), action is the result of choice. my mom chooses to adopt greyhounds. big brothers choose to "adopt" little brothers. peace corps volunteers choose to give their time, blood, sweat, and tears to the less fortunate in africa. my mom, nate, and peace corps volunteers could have just as easily chosen to not avail themselves of these selfless endeavors. implicit in that choice is the notion that, for each individual, the selfless course is preferable to a more selfish one. action, which is a function of choice, reveals preferences. by rejecting what they view as the less attractive course of action - selfish pursuits - in favor of what they view as the more attractive course of action - selfless pursuits - they are revealing their preferences. and by pursuing the action they prefer, they are practicing self-interested behavior.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
corduroy_blazer wrote:
but i also argued that since we do not realize we are doing it out of selfish interests, it is not a conscious selfish act. and i'm wanting to know if there is a difference between a purposefully selfish act and one done for want to help another which also brings more happiness (that you aren't aiming for).
Let's not confuse selfish interests with self-interest. My post was sought to help define the terms of the argument. We have to define selfishness before we say that selfishness and self-interest are the same thing.
Realization is immaterial to the argument I presented above. Do you have an issue with my argument or do you agree that human action necessarily implies self-interest in all cases?
Also, your first sentence is a circular argument. Realization is synonymous with consciousness in the context you used the words. You might as well have said "Since we are not conscious of our selfish interests, it is not a conscious selfish act", so the premise and the conclusion are the same. Just thought I'd point that out.
Isn't it true that every single action we take, no matter how small, is an action we want to take (unless we are being physically or mentally manipulated to take that action)?
I think that may be true for the rational decisions we make. But everyone is fucked up a little and some are fucked up a lot. When people make decisions based on their fucked up parts of themsleves, then I'd say they are not acting in self-interest or at least not acting in self-interest in any sort of rational way.
If I live in a village and my son dies, be it a terrorist attack or a cruise missile, I don't give a shit about your intentions. My son is dead. It's identical to me.
of course, but it's impossible for you to be anywhere near objective in a situation like that.
But there is my point. In my life, I only care how stranger's actions effect me. I don't care how they arrive at those decisions.
If you don't rob me because of:
1) God 2) Law 3) It's wrong
I don't give a shit. Just don't fucking rob me.
I'm particularly proud of this post. Just don't fucking rob me!
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum