[Discussion] What do you think about Psychological Egoism?

[Donald J Trump]

Psychological Egoism is something that has been on my mind from a very young age. It is a theory that I personally developed but later discovered that it was well established and named before I was even born.

The theory refers to our intentions and motivation. It put it simply It says that everything we do, we do for ourselves and not altruistically (for others). There are 2 motivators in our decisions, the motivation for positive reinforcement (gain) and the motivation to avoid pain.

One example of a seemingly selfless deed would be to see a homeless man struggling in the rain and to gift him with some money to allow him to get inside a Cafe and warm himself up with a hot drink while also avoiding the rain. Someone who leans to the side of Psychological Egoism like myself would argue that this gesture was done for a non-altruistic reason. The sole motivation potentially being that after helping him, you would feel great about yourself as you did something nice (positive reinforcement) and that is what you were seeking. The second reason directly links to when people often state " I couldn't just stand there and do nothing, I felt bad". You felt bad, therefore in order to eradicate this feeling from yourself, you helped out. The sole motivator being to rid YOURSELF of any guilt, not to help out selflessly. In many, if not all cases the first and second reason can also be combined together.

I think even if Psychological Egoism isn't 100% true, the fact is that in life, at least 95% of our actions derive from self-interest.
For me personally it's quite sad to have to admit it, and I could see why people including myself would try to argue so strongly against it. I'm wondering if you put your emotions to the side, what your opinion of it is?

 

[Chikombo]

I didn't even know about the concept.

I wonder if help is a concept that's even real, you could spend all the money you have on homeless people until you would become one of them.
You could help people with math homework for every day of their lives, it wouldn't mean they would necessairly get any better at it at any point.
I'm pretty cynical when it comes to helping others, I mean there are genuinly people who thinks helping people to commit suicide is helpful.
Like I don't know.

The theory makes sense when you talk about it.

The only alternative I can think of is to completely do something just for the sake of someone else and not for yourself, but that would become an abusive relationship in my mind, kinda like Harley Quinn and the Joker, it seems pointless.

I think even if the world seems cynical, people can still be happy in it, I mean, even if someone helping a homeless person is really a selfish act in disguise, it would still be helpful for the homeless person.
I don't think the homeless person would complain.

 

[Donald J Trump]

I didn't even know about the concept.

I wonder if help is a concept that's even real, you could spend all the money you have on homeless people until you would become one of them.
You could help people with math homework for every day of their lives, it wouldn't mean they would necessairly get any better at it at any point.
I'm pretty cynical when it comes to helping others, I mean there are genuinly people who thinks helping people to commit suicide is helpful.
Like I don't know.

The theory makes sense when you talk about it.

The only alternative I can think of is to completely do something just for the sake of someone else and not for yourself, but that would become an abusive relationship in my mind, kinda like Harley Quinn and the Joker, it seems pointless.

I think even if the world seems cynical, people can still be happy in it, I mean, even if someone helping a homeless person is really a selfish act in disguise, it would still be helpful for the homeless person.
I don't think the homeless person would complain.

I definitely agree with you on the last point there. Regardless of all the debates and discussions we can have, in philosophy I often come around in circles and arrive at "Okay... And what can you do about it?" and in these scenarios, there is nothing you can do. All we can do is acknowledge the best truth we can figure out and live our lives. Regardless of If Psychological Egoism is real or not, we need to employee kindness for our society to function. Regardless of any underlying motives, constantly doing nothing is probably not better than doing something for others.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

I think discussing the concept itself to understand its validity would only blur your view. Most of it hinges on morals. Breaking your morals makes you feel bad, and that's where the idea would question "so how can you say you're not just avoiding the pain?" To me, that view limits the scope of cause and effect. You're not really making your statements based on the whole story. It'd be akin to seeing a baby steal another baby's toy, then calling the thieving baby a thief or the aggressor. For all that's known, the "thieving" baby could just be stealing its toy back. Basically, the conclusion could be the exact opposite if you go further back.
So, whether morals are or are not driven by good intent is the first question.

Imo, I'd say yes and give an example. The vast, vast majority of people don't care whether you eat meat. Why do vegans feel bad for eating meat then? Very few people, if any, in their environment would care. There's even situations where there was no reinforcement for them to even gain such morals. How would you explain them adopting these moral beliefs without negative reinforcement then? That's clear proof morals also derive out of altruistic intent. I admit many are just drilled in through negative reinforcement though.

Breaking those altruistic morals would also make you feel bad, therefore feeling bad does not necessarily mean you're motivated by selfishness. The fact that you felt bad itself could be because of altruistic concern, thus any resulting action is actually an effect of altruism even if it manifested because of a selfish concern like guilt. Overall, I doubt I can concretely say actions are taken out of selfishness or altruism; Actions/morals themselves all have different root reasons, thus anything 100% in favor of either is wrong. I can say that actions do result from altruism though. Some vague percentage that I'd assume is much higher than 5%.

 

[Chikombo]

I think discussing the concept itself to understand its validity would only blur your view. Most of it hinges on morals. Breaking your morals makes you feel bad, and that's where the idea would question "so how can you say you're not just avoiding the pain?" To me, that view limits the scope of cause and effect. You're not really making your statements based on the whole story. It'd be akin to seeing a baby steal another baby's toy, then calling the thieving baby a thief or the aggressor. For all that's known, the "thieving" baby could just be stealing its toy back. Basically, the conclusion could be the exact opposite if you go further back.
So, whether morals are or are not driven by good intent is the first question.

Imo, I'd say yes and give an example. The vast, vast majority of people don't care whether you eat meat. Why do vegans feel bad for eating meat then? Very few people, if any, in their environment would care. There's even situations where there was no reinforcement for them to even gain such morals. How would you explain them adopting these moral beliefs without negative reinforcement then? That's clear proof morals also derive out of altruistic intent.

Breaking those altruistic morals would also make you feel bad, therefore feeling bad does not necessarily mean you're motivated by selfishness. The fact that you felt bad itself could be because of altruistic concern, thus any resulting action is actually an effect of altruism even if it manifested because of a selfish concern like guilt. Overall, I doubt I can concretely say actions are taken out of selfishness or altruism; Actions/morals themselves all have different root reasons, thus anything 100% in favor of either is wrong. I can say that actions do result from altruism though. Some vague percentage that I'd assume is much higher than 5%.

I think the conundrum is that when you do something because you feel guilt you are responding to personal emotions, other people may not feel guilt and even find you guilty for pushing that belief onto them.
We are all bonud by our own scopes, in the end we don't do what is right we do what we "think" is right.
And if we choose to be altruistic we are still making a decision by ourselves, that action comes from you and not a divine force.
But if you did act like a slave you wouldn't be doing good things at all cus nothing rational would come out of it. So you need to choose doing right things yourself even if that means it's a selfish act cus you chose it.

 

[Donald J Trump]

I think discussing the concept itself to understand its validity would only blur your view. Most of it hinges on morals. Breaking your morals makes you feel bad, and that's where the idea would question "so how can you say you're not just avoiding the pain?" To me, that view limits the scope of cause and effect. You're not really making your statements based on the whole story. It'd be akin to seeing a baby steal another baby's toy, then calling the thieving baby a thief or the aggressor. For all that's known, the "thieving" baby could just be stealing its toy back. Basically, the conclusion could be the exact opposite if you go further back.
So, whether morals are or are not driven by good intent is the first question.

Imo, I'd say yes and give an example. The vast, vast majority of people don't care whether you eat meat. Why do vegans feel bad for eating meat then? Very few people, if any, in their environment would care. There's even situations where there was no reinforcement for them to even gain such morals. How would you explain them adopting these moral beliefs without negative reinforcement then? That's clear proof morals also derive out of altruistic intent. I admit many are just drilled in through negative reinforcement though.

Breaking those altruistic morals would also make you feel bad, therefore feeling bad does not necessarily mean you're motivated by selfishness. The fact that you felt bad itself could be because of altruistic concern, thus any resulting action is actually an effect of altruism even if it manifested because of a selfish concern like guilt. Overall, I doubt I can concretely say actions are taken out of selfishness or altruism; Actions/morals themselves all have different root reasons, thus anything 100% in favor of either is wrong. I can say that actions do result from altruism though. Some vague percentage that I'd assume is much higher than 5%.

The reason we feel empathy and pity for others is that seeing others (animals) struggle, or get eaten reveals to us consciously or subconsciously our vulnerability and mortality. When you see someone fall down, you see yourself having the potential to fall down, and you hope that by helping that person and enforcing justice or in this case kindness, other will do the same for you in the future if that was to ever occur to you. If you notice often vegans ask the question of "What if you were that cow" which reveals exactly my point that the cattle's pain forces them to face their vulnerability and they're just trying to in a weird way protect themselves.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

The reason we feel empathy and pity for others is that seeing others (animals) struggle, or get eaten reveals to us consciously or subconsciously our vulnerability and mortality. When you see someone fall down, you see yourself having the potential to fall down, and you hope that by helping that person and enforcing justice or in this case kindness, other will do the same for you in the future if that was to ever occur to you. If you notice often vegans ask the question of "What if you were that cow" which reveals exactly my point that the cattle's pain forces them to face their vulnerability and they're just trying to in a weird way protect themselves.

You know that cow will never be you though. Whether or not you help the cow has no influence on your future. This is just psychoanalysis.

 

[Donald J Trump]

You know that cow will never be you though. Whether or not you help the cow has no influence on your future. This is just psychoanalysis.

That's true that you will never be that cow, but seeing that cow get its slit throat without any mercy, help or interruption shows you that a life can be taken while others stand and watch. You may not be eaten, but it shows us how one can have power and more value than others, It could be your life one day. It's not as if even today there are not thousands of cases around the world of unfair executions and casual murder for fun. I think at this point whether you realise it or not, you're fighting for what I said to all be untrue, and I'm with you. I don't want it to be true, but I do want to know the truth. If we let our feelings go and just look at it with all its good and bad, we may be able to see the truth.

 

[GrapeApe]

i dont agree, though i have done a lot of things that were selfish. i cant really agree with -everything- we do, coming from that space

maybe if we were robots, no offense. but for most of us, emotion plays a big part in the human experience. compassion, empathy, love are real feelings. the greatest bonds you create in life come from connecting on an emotional level. a lot of us can feel things, a lot of injustices in the world come from people not being able to empathize with other humans. because of selfishness but also their emotional intelligence being not very high, you see that in like sociopaths and narcissists

ive done a lot of things that part of me didnt actually want to do. but emotional comprehension actually takes you out of that selfish space. being able to understand and empathize is actually expanding your emotional awareness by resonating with how another feels. even though you put yourself in the situation, its a frame of mind. youre becoming more emotionally intelligent from learning through that experience, which can make you want for the benefit of the other from understanding. learning can come from self interest in expanding your understanding. but acting from emotional comprehension doesnt always equal self interest...

-understanding- how another feels is comprehending an emotional state outside of your own. like when the coronavirus hit, i donated over $20,000 to people that were out of work. because i could understand how it would feel to have no income coming in when youre barely able to survive. the selfish part of me subconsciously was, "i dont owe them anything, just because im wealthy doesnt mean i have to give money i worked for away". but again, i had the emotional understanding, i acted simply from that emotional understanding, connecting emotionally to that and being in a position where i could help. it wasnt from a position to gain something, where self interest is acting to gain. not to say i didnt feel good as a result of the happiness they showed or that you cant gain from showing empathy, love or compassion

but from empathy, you can be selfless and still gain in some way, majority of the time unexpectedly. what separates self-interest is your acting specifically to gain, not from empathy, love or compassion

 

[Chikombo]

I like how you thought about the subject THEN found out about it, instead of just reading about it only to adopt it.