One of the things that we've learned from the economic crisis is that the rational model of behavior simply does not hold true.

While I believe that individuals always act out of some form of self-interest, such as the good feelings that come from contributing to the well-being of others, your argument that individuals always act to maximize their self interest and welfare is demonstrably false. Here is a very famous example. Walter Reed and the team that he took with him to Panama to fight the yellow fever epidemic knew that they were risking their lives on a project that might fail miserably. They could have had very comfortable lives working in quiet, relatively lucrative private practices in the US. Later when the yellow fever vector was discovered, it would have been very easy for Reed to have taken all the credit. People wanted to give it to him. Instead he chose to credit Dr. Carlos Finlay. His behavior neither maximized his personal welfare nor furthered his own interests.

It's unfair to minimize the good deeds of those whose good deeds transcend the comonplace with a rational expectations model that says that their altruism is equivalent to a CEO maximizing his personal financial gain.

Do you think a suicide bomber is acting out of his own self interest?

In your example, by giving credit to someone else - you just used him in your posting. No, in all seriousness, someones self interest shouldn't be confused with always maximizing publicity. In fact, someone could be so paranoid about "not doing enough good" that they go to a super extreme where they never want any credit, never want anyone to know about it, etc. That doesn't mean all their actions aren't being done entirely for their self interest.

ok.


this episode doesn't mean that reed wasn't acting in his self-interest. like i wrote, this illustrates that mr. reed's interests are not self-centered, that he (and the members of his team) is concerned with improving the human condition, that helping eradicate a disease means more to them than does a six or seven figure salary practicing privately. but he (and each member of his team) acted in a manner consistent with what one would expect; namely, that he pursued what he determined to be his interest. just because his interests are contrary to those of the majority of humanity doesn't mean he isn't actively acting to further said interests. and his desire to credit someone other than himself again demonstrates that his interests are not self-centered, that he wants others to receive as much or more credit than he wishes to receive himself. but he again faced a choice: do i take the credit, or do i allow finlay take it? given that accepting the credit for his achievements likely would have offended his sense of humility, sharing the credit maximized his welfare. avoiding the kind of self-congratulations implicit in allowing finlay to take the credit doesn't mean he wasn't acting to further his self-interest; it means his interests were not self-centered.

it's an important distinction.


did you even read my post?

You can't have it both ways. If Dr. Reed's interest was not self-centered, then it was not "self-interest." It was not their own interests they were pursuing, it was the interest of the greater good, as you describe it.


Of course. But your analysis does not distinguish between different forms of self-interest. Instead it seeks to minimize the efforts of those who have truly sacrificed comfort, security, wealth, etc. for the benefit of others by putting them under the same umbrella, called "self-interest," with the rest of us who are trying to figure out whether we save more money at the ACME or the Path-Mark.

What does that have to do with people who care for others before their own comfort?

So? Does that mean that you're a mind-reader?

Actions are the only thing that matter. Intent without action is just useless. Intent is just all the bullshit we use to justify our feelings about people and ourself.

The only completely unselfish action I can think of is for an atheist to give their life for another. Other than that we are all at our core selfish. This idea of an unselfish act is just pure deception.

I'll give you 2 examples and tel me if intent matters.
One. I give what some think is a stupid amount of money to charities. I give partly out of guilt and giving relieves me of some of that guilt. I can't really say that I really give a shit on a personal about the people I'm helping only that they're getting help. My son bugs me that I have zero interest in writing to or receiving letters from my sponsored child. What the fuck do I care about some kid I'll never see. I'm just happy I could help.
The other. My son will not give a penny to anyone. He doesn't believe he'll ever give money to charity. But he does lots of volunteer work. He only does the volunteer work because he likes what he gets to do and what he gets out of it. Example, he's on a youth committee and he gets free supplies to build skateboarding ramps, half pipes and is helpig t get a new skatepark built close to where we live. He also nabbed a pretty covited spot for his band to play. He volunteers to completely protect his interests. But he does a lot of good for youth in order to get what he wants.

Are we both pieces of shit? Or when you need help, you don't really care why the person helped you only that they helped.

1) Tyler, you just said basically what I wrote.
2) I never thought I'd ever agree with Tyler. I can die now.

Does this count as an unselfish act for me?

Let's not push it.

fixed.
it's not necessarily truly unselfish if we're related, or even have strong feelings for someone.

yes. it's not unselfish at all in that case. an amazing deed but not unselfish.

an example: a terrorist says he will kill either my brother or i. we have 1 minute to choose. i couldn't live a happy life knowing my brother took his life for me, so i would want to die. in the end, he would probably me miserable living as a result! haha

there is a distinction to be made between interests and actions (the sum of which could be called "behavior"). one's interests are completely divorced from one's actions. that is, mr. reed's interests were not self-centered. as you've said, he was more interested in improving the lives of others than he was pursuing narrow financial gain or renown. but his actions - relocating to panama to fight an epidemic, shunning notoriety for his achievements, etc - were a function of his interests. thus, he was engaging in self-interested behavior. that's the point i'm trying to make: that one's actions are always a manifestation of pursuing one's interests - even if they don't revolve narrowly around said individual.

let me ask you this: how would it have affected mr. reed if for some reason he would have been prevented from relocating to panama? do you think he would have preferred this?


no, it didn't.

i thought i was pretty clear that i don't think nate compiled a spreadsheet of the pros and cons of becoming a big brother, assigned each a numeric value, plugged it into some metric, and determined if it was the right thing to do. nate cares. his interest is in seeing the life of his little brother improve, be it materially or otherwise. his interest is nothing more and nothing less than helping out someone other than himself. i get it (i did teach for america, ferchrissakes). but by pursuing his interests - no matter how altruistic they are - he is engaging in self-interested behavior. i bet if you asked nate whether he thought his life would be better if for some reason he were prevented from seeing his little brother, he would unequivocally answer, "no, it wouldn't be." why? because he gets more utility out of helping someone else than he does helping himself. and by seeking means to further such ends, he's unequivocally engaging in utility-maximizing, self-interested behavior.

if you think i'm actually minimizing his efforts (or the efforts of civily like-minded individuals), think again.

I am. I think charity and helping others is for pussy's. That was really the point of this thread.

FINANCIAL GREED FTW!

I get what you guys are saying. I guess I would have to agree with your initial post g2t; it doesn't really matter why you're doing it if you are doing it.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOCK ER UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You guys are still pricks for reducing everything good in this world to fucking economics though.

oh, that's not the ONLY reason we're pricks...

is a doctor going to africa because he wants to help humanity -- help those in need -- performing just as noble an action as a doctor going to africa because he believes god will reward him?

or, what about a suicide bomber compared to collateral damage in a just war? in both cases innocent civilians have been killed; but intentions are MUCH different on either side.

sure, actions are important, but intentions can help us determine the moral worth of our reasons and actions.

I'm actually just about to wrap up that chapter in The End of Faith.

is reflexive altruism really selfish if we don't realize we're doing it for our own good? or must selfish acts be consciously carried out?