I noticed a discussion on acts of charity or altruism. Whether or not they are actually good deeds, or egotistical self promotion. Its a question I have always found interesting.
Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so.
It is a theory I personally agree with. I believe everything we do is inherently selfish and all actions are taken with the belief that we will gain some benefit from the action. Every action takes energy, so why would anyone expend energy if they gain nothing from it? Of course if everything we do is selfish, then the word selfish itself is rather meaningless and redundant.
23 comments
It only makes sense. Why would someone do anything that poses no benefit to themselves? At the end of the day people are very selfish, even if they would like to think otherwise. So yes, I suppose you are right in believing the word selfish is redundant.
What about people who are willing risk their life or give their life for others? Are they selfish? Just wanna know your opinion on that 🙂
I suppose it depends what that person believes. They might believe they will gain some benefit in the after life. Or an egotistical need to see themselves as a hero or a martyr makes them risk their life for others. But yea that is one of the more difficult scenarios, to try to reconcile with this theory.
Yes, but there is definitely a spectrum/range of fakeness.
On one extreme, you have white celebrities adopting black children from Africa and organizing press conferences to tell the world about their “good deed”.
On the other extreme, a soldier instinctively, without his egoic mind having any time to consider that he will be deemed a “hero”, throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades.
Especially in an emergency situation where they don’t have time to stop and think about it, sacrificing their life would be a selfless act.
Yes there is definitely a range even if all actions are selfish there are things that are more or less selfish based on intent or how the actions effect others.
I believe it can be either way. I think there are people that really care and I think that there are people who want to appear to care to others and people who want to appear to care to themselves or to impress a diety. But I don’t think that every single thing every single person does and has done on this earth was merely for their own ego gratification.
If someone reaches a state where they have eliminated ego and truly view themselves as being one and the same with everyone and everything else, then for them there is no such thing as selfishness or selflessness because the concept of self no longer exists.
And unfortunately, such a person has never existed and likely never will. The idea of ego death in itself is an absolute ego trip.
That is true, theoretically. But, it is hard to conceive of anyone who has reached that state (or can).
To be honest, I don’t think Eckhart Tolle (or any other spiritual teacher) ever reached that state … if they did, the state was transient. I just don’t see the ego as something one can eliminate permanently. It has to reappear, however minimally. Switching it off permanently would be like a computer switching between binary states. Humans don’t operate that way.
But, because even spiritual teachers have a certain need to keep up a certain image in the public eye. I don’t think too many folks would attend Eckhart’s outrageously expensive retreats if they read about him engaging in some sort of monetary fraud or other self-serving behavior.
Oops, I accidentally butchered a sentence.
But, because even spiritual teachers have a certain need to keep up a certain image in the public eye, … they have to keep up the pretense that they have, in fact, completely detached from their ego.
That said, it doesn’t make their teachings any less helpful to people. But, it is worth pointing this out.
I suspect some have achieved this or the concept wouldn’t even exist. However, even working towards it helps. And you have a good point, River, that you have to start the journey towards eliminating desire by desiring to start the journey.
The existence of the concept is no proof that anyone has achieved it. We can imagine many impossible things.
I accept the possibility, but I regard it as highly unlikely, as they would be ascending beyond the constraints of the human mind at that point, in my view.
I agree with anhedonic.apathy (GREAT username, by the way). In layman’s terms, your username means – I don’t enjoy anything and I don’t care about anything 🙂 Way cool !
I think our brains are capable of imagining many abstract/impossible concepts. That’s how we got the movie The Terminator ! And, the millions of fiction novels.
For the reason I mentioned, I think our physical form prohibits us from achieving that state. I’m sure we can get awfully close to that state. But, claiming total selflessness … nah, I don’t think so.
I don’t believe people can actually fully eliminate the ego. If anything i would believe they were egotistical in their belief that they had done so.
I believe this is almost certainly the case, though it’s a very complex and detailed concept. All tracing back to natural selection and our need to see ourselves and portray ourselves as the best possible mate. To answer ignorance’s question, yes even the most selfless appearing acts can be self-interested in very roundabout ways. Sacrifice and all.
It hardly matters, though. The function and end result is the same, regardless of the mechanism.
If you have ever watched the TV show, ‘My Name is Earl’, you’ll know that he starts a list of all the bad things he had done to people. His goal in the show is to make up for every bad thing he has done in order to right his wrongs. Seems pretty selfless right? Not at all. The only reason he chose to do this was because he was hit by a car and lost a winning lottery ticket. And by doing these “good deeds” he got his lottery ticket back and then started on his list, he then believes that good things will happen to him if he does good things to others. Therefore he does not do these things selflessly but rather selfishly as he expects something in return. Even a couple times on the show after he did something good for someone and nothing good happened to him he got mad and stopped doing the list for a while. It shows that all humans really do have selfish intent.
I don’t have much to say on the subject other than I very much agree, although I wish I didn’t, and it took me a very long time to admit this truth to myself.
Also, I’m glad to see that you’re still alive, anhedonic apathy, although I’m sorry to see you back here again.
Heya kat. I have been around i just don’t comment all that much.
Ah, I see. Well, either way, I’m happy to hear from you.
I am glad to see you are still alive too. I hope things have been going better for you. Although, i am guessing they probably aren’t since you are still on here.
Well, I haven’t been posting as much as I used to. Whether that’s because I’m busier now or because I’m better now, I’m not sure. Things don’t really get better or worse, honestly, they just change. Sometimes they get worse, but mostly they just stay bad, but bad in a different way.