Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism

Hi, Stile.It's been a little while. I agree. Evolutionary "selfishness" and biblical "selfishness" are obviously different things, defined by the scale at which they occur.The real question, I think, is, "If the individual 'self' arises as an emergent property of a complex of interacting, 'selfish' chemicals, can the motivations of the 'self' be considered independent of the motivations of the 'selfish genes'?"I tend to think they can be. So, I would agree with you that 'selfishness,' as defined by the Bible, must be a conscious process.But, I would be interested in hearing any opposing views on the subject.-----Just a quick tag for origins: perhaps we could consider the point at which 'life' began to be the point when an emergent, unified 'self' arose out of networks of co-occurring 'selfish' chemicals? Of course, pinpointing the first thing to meet that definition would still be dicey, because there would no doubt be a gradient involved.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, Stile. I have also not read it. But, I know that it was written by Richard Dawkins.I respect engineers: my father and my brother are both mechanical engineers, and my sister and I both considered studying engineering in college (we both eventually switched to basic sciences, though).----- It's just a catchy phrase attached to the gene-centered evolution concept. Basically, it's just the idea that natural selection on genes is more important than natural selection on individuals and populations. So, the self-propagation of genes is the primary driving force of evolution in this view.The "selfish gene" idea seemed like a good way for me to embody the notion of subconscious, evolution-driven "selfishness" (which Cedre couldn't quite grasp).----- Perhaps we could call it colloquial selfishness or traditional selfishness, then.----- It's just anthropomorphization.-----One thing that interests me along the same lines is how far "selfishness" extends.For instance, most people would agree that preferentially serving your own interests and ignoring others’ interests is selfish.
But, is it also selfish to preferentially serve your own family?
How about preferential service for your own country, religion, culture group or race? What about your own species?Don’t all of these ultimately trace back to selfishness?
If these actions are not selfish, why is the preference always for the ingroup? I tend to think that selfishness is innate in most people, and does define relationships, culture and morality in most situations.I also am inclined to think it ought not to be so, but I’m afraid I can’t envision a world that could function in an absence of all selfishness, so the ethical question seems to be only about where to draw the line.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, Lokins.Welcome to EvC! Even if you disagree with Stile's assessment of his motivations, at least allow him the privilege of posing a hypothetical scenario.Do you feel that it's entirely impossible to help somebody just for the sake of helping them?Just to tie this in to biology, evolution doesn't select for selfishness per se, but selects for self-benefit. I would wager that, most of the time, the benefits to oneself go completely unnoticed by the individual, for both humans and non-intelligent organisms.For discussions like this one, I think it's best to only consider motivations that present at the conscious level.-----P.S. Click the "peek" button at the bottom of a post to see the codes used to make quotation boxes: these usually help the conversation go more smoothly.Have fun here, Lokins!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Lokins. The point Stile is trying to make is that you made a leap of logic in the middle of this sentence. Benefitting from something does not necessarily make the benefit the motivation, as shown by the fact that you can benefit from the sun shining on your wedding day.So, benefit does not appear to be a valid means of assessing selfishness.----- Can you show this to be the case?
All you have done so far is assert that this is true.For the most part, I agree with you that evolution has fashioned us to derive pleasure from cooperative behavior. But, I do not agree that slavery to endorphins is the only motivation for good conduct.For instance, take gay marriage, a popular topic on this forum. I personally disapprove of gay marriage. However, I argue with many others on this forum that gay marriage should be legalized, simply because it doesn't make sense for me to interfere in the peaceful affairs of a group of people to which I do not belong.I doesn't make me feel good at all: it makes me feel sick to think of two guys "being together."But, those are the breaks: right conduct is not always pleasant or attractive.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Lokins. How is "because it makes sense" equivalent to "for the hell of it"?----- You know what? Go to hell.I've written two messages to you, and in that time you've managed to turn "there are multiple motivations" into "motivation is not required" and "disapproval of gay marriage" into "hatred of homosexuals."I've wasted enough of my recreational time on you.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Lokins. I'm glad you have the decency to respond this way. I have been worried sick all day that I handled this inappropriately, and it's good to see that it didn't do any lasting harm. It speaks volumes about your character.And, I can see why you read my statement the way you did. I'm sorry.----- Don't get me wrong: I largely agree that hedonism (despite the negative connotations of the term, it is the correct technical term: forgive me if it sounds too derogatory) is the primary cause for most human actions. However, I disagree with the principle that self-benefit must be the motive.I do not benefit from promoting gay marriage. Because it still seems "icky" to me, you might say I am harmed more than benefited by promoting gay marriage (although claiming actual "harm" in this case would certainly be a bit petty of me). Yet, I uphold homosexuals' rights to marriage in debates because simple logic tells me that it is not my place to dictate someone else's conduct.You could easily make the claim that I uphold civil rights to benefit myself by promoting a stable, equitable community. But, the simple fact is that I am merely beginning with a set of premises---A. All humans should have the freedom to pursue their own happiness, so long as they do not, in the process, infringe upon the rights of others to pursue their happiness.
B. Gay marriage does not infringe on the rights of others to pursue their happiness.---and making a logical conclusion from there.-----P.S. Gay marriage is a touchy subject at EvC that has resulted in a lot of suspensions and bannings, so it was a real gamble on my part to bring it up. I hope I don't drag all of that baggage into this thread by doing this.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.