Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism

Discussion moved to this thread from here:
Message 166Well put, I think this is what I was trying to touch on, but couldn't vocalize it as such.Perhaps this is something that requires stricter levels of definition. "Selfish" may be too general of a word to identify what it is we're trying to talk about.In any event, I think we should continue the discussion here (if anyone is so inclined) so as to not pull the previous thread off-topic.Heh heh... pulled this puppy out from under almost 3 years of cyber-dust and e-junk... that's gotta be close to some sort of record Edited by Stile, : Adding totally selfish gloating about necro-ing this thread

Onifre's point about the difference between micro/macro (subconscious/consious) levels of thought go directly to what I was attempting to point out in the first place.A selfish act is selfish because one is consiously motivated to better one's own personal situation.The existence of subconscious motivations for benefits along the lines of "inner feelings" may be irrelevent.1. If we know that we may get inner feelings, yet acknowledge that we're deciding to do the action for other reasons... regardless of those impending inner feelings... wouldn't the action still be selfless?
-Here I'm trying to say that the mere existence of beneficial results does not necessarily make an action selfishly motivated.2. If we don't know that we'll be getting inner-feelings of pleasure for a certain moral action, then wouldn't this still be a selfless act? How can we act "to get good inner-feelings" if we don't even know that those inner-feelings are a possibility? This seems to strictly remove any selfishness right off the bat.Of course, if we actually are consciously (even slightly) hoping for some good inner-feelings... then I agree that the action is selfish in some degree.
(Anything occuring at the sub-conscious level would seem, to me, to fall into the "not knowing about it" category, which is then strictly non-selfish)I just think it's possible to not consiously hope for such inner-feelings, even in a vanishingly small amount.Perhaps I'm being naive?Is it possible for a subconsious and selfish motivation to exist? Or is that an oxymoron?Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

A very good phrasing of the question, and with my current pretty-much-zero knowledge about the situation I shall jump on my chair and scream "yes!" But, I'm in the mood for an education if you feel so inclined I have never read "The Selfish Gene" by... that guy who wrote it... and I am not a biologist or anything like that by trade (I'm an electrical design engineer).Can you explain to me what is basically meant by "selfish genes/chemicals"? Is it just giving a catchy label to something that doesn't really have anything to do with "being selfish"? Or is there more to it? Why was the label 'selfish' chosen to describe such things?I suppose my definition of selfish is what you're calling the Biblical definition (the fact that this slightly irks me is a personal flaw for another topic... ). I'm interested in understanding specifically what the Evolutionary definition is, and how something like genes or chemicals that have no brain (intelligent decision making process) can be classified as being selfish.Edited by Stile, : Just ruining the un-edited purity of this post to fix some spellings. 'Cause that's just how I roll.Edited by Stile, : Go about your business. This edit never occured. *waves a hand in front of your face*

Quite possible. Especially if your only motivation for helping someone was to make yourself happy. That sounds very selfish.But what if I help someone, and I did so only to help them, and I ended up making myself happy by accident?Was my action selfish because something good coincidentally happened to me?
If so, then the word 'selfish' no longer means "doing something to benefit yourself" but something more along the lines of "things that result in personal benefits, regardless of their original motivation." Which would mean that if the sun shines on my wedding day, I'm being selfish? That doesn't seem to make much sense.Or, perhaps it was nice because my motivation was to help someone else, and wasn't selfish at all. This way there's also no reason to re-define the word 'selfish.'The problem is that I can say my motivation is "for being nice" and you'll never know if I'm lying or not. But it's certainly possible that I'm not lying, therefore it's certainly possible for selfless actions to exist.

But this isn't true. This part imparticular:

quote:

---

You made a conscious decision, because it would give you an intrinsic reward to do so.

---

This is not true. I explicitly told you that I made a conscious decision because I wanted to help someone, this is what I said: I specifically did not make a conscious decision because it would give me an intrinsic reward to do so. Such a thing wouldn't be "only to help them," it would be "to benefit myself." And I agree that such a thing would be selfish. That's why I'm talking about the exact opposite.So, if I'm not doing what you're calling "selfish", why are you still calling it "selfish?"

Yes, I understand what you're saying.
I understand that you are tyring to tell me why I'm doing something.
Are you also going to tell me I'm wrong when I say I like chocolate ice-cream?
Are you going to tell me that no matter what I say, I must like vanilla because you say so?You have no authority in telling me my motivations for my actions.
The only person who can correctly identify my motivations is myself.So when I say I'm doing something only to help someone out. And you say I'm doing it "because it makes me feel good"... guess which one of us is right? What you say doesn't make a difference, it's irrelevent and bordering on arrogant rudeness. What I say is the only thing that matters where the workings of my mind are concerned. These very well may be the only 2 options for you. I wouldn't contend to know the workings of your mind. But, I'm telling you that I have many more options for my motivations, another completely separate one is: "just to help them out." Perhaps you are incapable of this motivation, but I assure you that I am not. It's really quite easy, actually, I just ask myself: "Self, what is your motivation for helping others?" And the answer I usually have is "to help other people." (Sometimes I am greedy and selfish, in which case the answer is something else, but I try to stay away from those motivations). Then I also ask myself "Self, are you sure you're not doing this just to feel good later?" And I answer "Yes, I am sure, that is irrelevent to my motivation for good deeds." Sure, most the time it certainly does. Absolutely not. Feeling happy is a mere coincidence, my desire to feel happy or sad has absolutely no bearing on my decision to help other people. I help other people because I want to help other people. Just because something is an unavoidable result of an action doesn't mean it's the motivation for the action.Take changing a baby's diaper, I change a diaper because I want to keep my baby clean. An unavoidable result of changing the diaper is unleashing an ungodly smell upon the local area. Are you saying that my "real" motivation for changing my baby's diaper is actually to turn my house into a filthy, stench-covered ground zero? That's insane!The position that just because personal benefits are unavoidable means they must be the motivation for the action is equally insane.It is my conscious mind that chooses my motivations. My conscious mind is not limited to selfish motivations. No, it is therefore not selfish at all in any sense of the word. This doesn't have any relevence one way or the other. But, you're wrong again. It's quite possible that you wouldn't be doing any good deeds if they made you feel entirely miserable. But we're not the same person. I don't act or react or have the exact same motivations as you do. I have my own mind that I'm in control of, and you telling me things like this has no bearing on the reality of the situation. I certainly would do something good even if it made me feel entirely miserable. That's because I do good things to help other people. As long as I helped other people, then it doesn't matter how I feel, such a result doesn't enter into my decision making process.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the presence of an unavoidable consequence does not mean that particular consequence was the motivation for the action. All true. It is an unavoidable consequence that I'm going to feel better after cleaning my baby. It is also an unavoidable consequence that there's going to be a ripe stink. Why do you say that one unavoidable consequence is my motivation for the action, but not the other? What's the difference? Why does either (or any) unavoidable consequence have to be my motivation? Why can't I change my baby's diaper because I want him to be clean? What prevents that from being my only motivation? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not claiming that feeling good about the action doesn't exist, I'm simply claiming that it's not my motivation for the action. In the same way that the foul bog-of-eternal-stench also exists, and is not my motivation.Action: Changing baby's diaper.
Unavoidable Consequence #1 that exists: I feel happy.
Unavoidable Consequence #2 that exists: Paint peels from the horrendous olfactory raping.My motivation for the action is not Unavoidable Consequence #2, even though it exists.
My motivation for the action is not Unavoidable Consequence #1, even though it exists.
My motivation for the action is to help my baby be clean.Why do you treat one unavoidable consequence different from the other?

Necessarily? But people do deeds that negatively impact their environment all the time, even to the worst evolutionary result of all -> death or moving towards extinction.Are you claiming that suicide is actually a physical impossibility?
Are you claiming that a nuclear war that wipes out mankind is a physcial imossibility?I don't think you can show that people necessarily make decisions that always make their environment better. Especially in an evolutionary sense.But, as you say, this is also a subconscious thing. And, strictly because it is subconscious, it cannot be selfish. A selfish thing, by it's very definition, is when someone purposefully does something to benefit themselves. Since "purposefully" requires a conscious decision, any subconsious influences cannot possibly be labelled selfish in a moral sense of the word.I really have no problems with you saying something like:"There exists no action in the universe that a person can do which does not result in some amount of internal benefit for that person."I have no issue with such a statement.
There's just no justification for adding the term "selfish" to this, that's all.The phrase "there is no selfish action" is a wives-tale perpetuated by those who want to sound profound, but do not understand what "selfish" actually means.

For the most part, yes, I agree.I'm not sure if you can actually show that ALL good deeds are driven by some amount of subconscious intrinsic gain... but that's not what I wanted to get across anyway.My main point was just to identify "selfish" (as used in the general, moral-sense) as a conscious choice that is not mandatory for good deeds.