>>671934 Is: The reality, either in symbol or fact or both. Possible: Within capacity. Man: What experiences. Commit: To act with purpose. Selfless: Without consideration of ones self. Act: A behavior or deed of man.
Yes. There are evolutionary reasons for people to do selfless acts, like saving a child or so, which isn't favourable for the martyr. Is it possible for a man to commit a conscious selfless act? Yes. There are people who believe in an objective morality, and follow it despite their will to follow it (I am a vegetarian even though I love meat, and I am also an atheist, somewhat, who don't think I will be rewarded for it).
The idea that people do only egoistic acts only seem to stem from egoistic people. Instead of asking whether it is possible, I think you should try arguing that it is impossible to not be an egoist, which is a much harder task to do. Putting another thing's interest above ones own is a very plausible metaphysical and physical construct, so why wouldn't it be possibly physiologically/psychologically?
It seems more like one of the silly re-iterated-into-everyday-wisdom-enlightenment ideas that should be die ASAP.
Remember that the possibility to give an explanatory reduction to selfishness isn't sufficient evidence for it being selfish. I can explain everything with the God hypothesis, but that doesn't mean it is true. You need to go from already known axioms and deduce the conclusion, not infer to it as a plausible explanation; or you need to give a reason why it is the best possible belief given current evidence.
Performing a selfish act implies intent intent is not possible under certain circumstances, such as when under the influence of certain drugs Therefor any act done without intent can be seen as being entirely selfless due to its randomness and unpredictability
>>671970 Any idea about how valid the memes about scopolamine are?
>It is unclear if the claims of use of scopolamine in crime is true or not. The drug is known to produce loss of memory of events recently before exposure and sleepiness, similar to the effect of benzodiazepines or alcohol poisoning, but claims of the drug "removing free will" are dubious.
>Scopolamine has been used under the name "burundanga" in Venezuelan and Thailand resorts in order to drug and then rob tourists. In 2008, Vice News aired an episode called Colombian Devil's Breath recounting the use of scopolamine by Colombian criminals as a suggestion drug. The two-part investigation contains first-hand accounts of its use, including claims that small amounts blown into people's faces turn them into "mindless zombies". While there are rumors that delivery mechanisms include using pamphlets and flyers laced with the drug, not enough is readily absorbed through the skin to have an effect. However, spiked alcoholic drinks are occasionally used.
>>671966 >Yes. There are people who believe in an objective morality, and follow it despite their will to follow it (I am a vegetarian even though I love meat, and I am also an atheist, somewhat, who don't think I will be rewarded for it).
The pleasure you derive is from being spared the thought of eating meat and being cause of the immense suffering to animals.
Its no different from the pleasure I get from not raping and attacking people despite my lack of belief in an afterlife + judgement.
>>671966 >follow it despite their will to follow it. This doesn't seem possible. The act of following must come from an act of will. Your love of meat requires will to prevent you from eating it. Ill explain why will is a dubious basis for selflessness later. >"I don't believe I will receive a reward in the afterlife therefor my act mus be selfless" sic Although this is on the right track toward selflessness, it does not rule out selfishness completely. You still engage in the act of vegetarianism because either social reward, personal fulfillment, or political gain. >"I think you should try arguing that it is impossible to not be an egoist, which is a much harder task to do." Lets assume my premise is that a selfless act is impossible. Can you describe the difference between this premise and my own? The person incapable of a selfless act and the egoist are the same person. >"Putting another thing's interest above ones own is a very plausible metaphysical and physical construct, so why wouldn't it be possibly physiologically/psychologically?" You haven't provided any evidence to suggest its plausible on a metaphysical level, there is therefore no reason to assume its possible from a phys or psy perspective. >Remember that the possibility to give an explanatory reduction to selfishness isn't sufficient evidence for it being selfish. >I asked a question, i am uncertain that it is possible to commit a selfless act, but I doubt that it is becasue their exists no evidence to support the claim that a selfless act exists.
>>672088 Didn't you read the initial post I was replying to? Anon raised an argument, that acts done without intent (as in acting under a potent substance) can be potentially classified as selfless due to their unpredictability.
My retort consists of asserting that subconscious intent is still present, remaining rooted in instinct ad I've already stated.
>>671925 Yes. There are people who do not believe in an afterlife, are highly scared of death and couldn't care less about other people's opinions. Some of them would still die for a true friend, simply because they realize there are things that are worth more than their own life.
I cannot see a sacrifice like that as self gratification.
>>671925 >>672103 And if you're asking if it's reasonable, it completely depends on what the person's interpretation of reality is.
For people who believe a theistic god establishes morality and promises them eternal bliss if they are one with him, it is completely reasonable for them to give up their life for someone else. But it's highly suspect if it's truly selfless, since they expect a reward from said actions. Certain philosophers believe that there is intrinsic worth in the universe that justify oughts and ought nots. Why it's reasonable for you to behave according to said oughts and ought nots it's hazy at best, and they tend to argue from semantics (what it is to ought is to behave reasonably... ok). And this silliness is once we assume there's intrinsic worth, which there is no reason to believe (and every reason to deny) in the first place . It get's tricky with people who don't place faith in a personal god or intrinsic purpose. There's interesting arguments on both sides of this one, and to be honest I'm not quite sure myself. Many people claim that modern discovery killed heroism, while others feel that the death of nihilism (which isn't exactly uncontroversial) allows for altruism.
>>671998 >Remember that the possibility to give an explanatory reduction to selfishness isn't sufficient evidence for it being selfish. >I can explain everything with the God hypothesis, but that doesn't mean it is true. >You need to go from already known axioms and deduce the conclusion, not infer to it as a plausible explanation; or you need to give a reason why it is the best possible belief given current evidence.
>>672041 >follow it despite their will to follow it. This is just bad wording. I meant that it has no personal gain or whatever. You cannot define selfishness as "fulfilling ones own will" since that would just become "Every act we do is an attempt to fulfill our will." Will is not equivalent to egoism, I can will not to be egoistic, I can will non-egoistic things. That doesn't mean my purpose or "will" to these things are based in egoistic ends. An altruist wills altruistic actions. An egoistic wills egoistic actions. etc. >Can you describe the difference between this premise and my own? I meant the difference on: >A selfless person is impossible. And: >A selfless act is possible. A selfless act seems conceivable, there is however no good argument that a selfless person is impossible except the reduction of each action to a selfish gain, which I have pointed out is an insufficient argument, since that is possible with a lot of shitty, and even straight contradictory, theories. So instead of asking about an act (which almost always falls into the aforementioned shitty argument), one should argue from psychology/physiology based in evolutionary principles or akin, which makes selfless conscious rational people implausible. >You haven't provided any evidence to suggest its plausible on a metaphysical level, there is therefore no reason to assume its possible from a phys or psy perspective. Most things are assumed to be possible on a metaphysical level until a direct contradiction is found. It is basically only to do this: Imagine a world of ordered blobs where each blob acts in its own +1's interest, that is they want to increase property y as much as possible. There is no logical inconsistency there, therefore that is a metaphysically plausible world as far as we are concerned. Metaphysical possibility is very broad. Designing a conscious machine which always serves us seems possible. Cont.
>>672273 Therefore, we seem to be able to conceive without making anything logically inconsistent in describing conscious beings which act self-less. > You still engage in the act of vegetarianism because either social reward, personal fulfillment, or political gain. No, I do it because I think it is the morally right thing to do, and I think despite social reward, personal fulfillment, or political gain, one must, no matter what, follow moral obligations. + this is simply the shitty argument of "This is a possible explanation of your actions."
Look at this: you only chat on 4chan because it will increase your mother's concern of your well being, which might lead into her wanting to interact with you on a more personal level, which might lead to you fucking her, and thus making her reach an orgasm. It is also a possible explanation of your behaviour, and is a completely selfless act, since all your motivation in life is making your mother reach an orgasm.
It is a stupid argument and you must prove there to be a metaphysical, physical, physiological, psychological inconsistency in being a selfless person; or prove from a commonly accepted axiom that we are selfless follows.
Also, I believe moral laws have the same objective standard as physical laws. I don't "will to follow physical laws"; I feel forced to follow physical laws. I don't "will to follow moral laws"; I feel forced to follow moral laws due to the objective nature of morality. So, to make your point with the reductionist argument to a personal gain you must first: Give a definition which akin to "Willing to enhance ones pleasure" or alike of egoism. Give an argument that no person, given certain criteria, can exist which is outside of previous definition. And explain away why I can consciously and rationally follow an objective morality without wanting to.
>>671960 If you just consider that which the person is aware of, possibly. There might be some other ends the person is working towards, like gaining self fulfillment by helping others, or any type of edification really, but I think it's a moot point of selflessness, so long is someone is being helped
Baring unintentional situations, no. Any action on does tends to be done for a purpose, and the fact that said purpose is usually desired in one way or another, either it be for the futre, the after life, short term gain, respect, appreciation or other possible gains makes it selfish. Even actions for others and sacrificing oneself tend to be because of the "selfish" feeling of protection one feels for those close to them or the group they belong to. This isn't a bad thing, just reality Ironicly slavery may be the most selfless thing one can do for it gives no benifit to oneself while adding to others.
Depends how far you stretch the definition of "selfish". I would say technically it is not possible to commit a selfless act. Even seemingly purely altruistic acts such as sacrificing one's life to save a child are done for fundamentally selfish reasons. In this case, the sacrificer has concluded that death is a preferable alternative to living with the knowledge that they could have saved the child and didn't.
Thread replies: 39 Thread images: 2
Thread DB ID: 516940
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.