Humans are inheritely selfish Prove me wrong

File: 23589762309.png (187KB, 267x365px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 267x365px

what does selfish mean?

Pathological altruism is a thing. Therefore no.

Humans are inherently a lot of things

Primates have been shown to support members of their groups who couldn't support themselves and the same goes for Neolithic humans

>>2468837
Self interested

>>2468849
Some people are Pathologically retarded, doesn't mean our nature is retardation
>>2468870
Now show it to me in humans not monkeys

humans aren't a real thing. you are just grouping things

>>2468908

Retardation isn't a nature. It is inherent in euphoric fedoras though.

>>2468908
Which part of "Neolithic humans" isn't human to you?

>>2468928
Neolithic humans no longer exist, irrelevant to modern day
>>2468920
Then Altruism isn't nature either

>>2468936
Do you want modern day examples of altruism? Ever seen a soup kitchen, or volunteer work at retirement homes?

>>2468936
>Neolithic humans no longer exist
Yes they do you retard, they were already anatomically modern

>>2468942
Those people are giving charitably because it makes them feel good about themselves
As are >>2468947

>>2468950
Helping others materially because it makes you feel good spiritually is still altruism

>>2468953
No, if you're doing something for yourself it's selfish. There's no need to come up with some strings attached micro-ideology to try and deny truth

If you're implying that you can't be wholly selfless then necessarily that means you can't be wholly selfish either, unless you're a sociopath and we can agree humans are not inherently sociopathic

Therefore your argument falls apart

>>2468960
Every action you do stems from an inheritly selfish desire, regardless whether or not the outcome is selfless or there is a retrospective element of selflessness

>>2468908
It literally does. Being retarded is, since there's human doing it, part of human nature.

>>2468968
But it's almost impossible to act with complete disregard of the reaction and feelings of others, therefore it's almost impossible to act selfishly. At best we can say humans tend to be selfish when opportunity presents itself, which is a much softer claim than yours

>>2468975
Any element of selflessness is a layer added onto the original desire of which is selfish. For example: I see poor kids on the television and feel sad, I want to stop feeling sad and so I send them money to make them not poor. The original feeling is that of making yourself feel better whereas the selflessness part of helping other is just a feeling placed in the original desire, perhaps as a justification method
>>2468971
Genetic defects are generally considered outliers my friend. You wouldn't have retards filling out surveys would you? They're in a different branch of humanity

>>2468992
Group cooperation has deep evolutionary roots and is related to the survival of a number of individuals, not to one's personal happiness. If you want to say that nature has rigged us to feel good when helping others, I'd accept that but the word selfishness implies you have a choice and the evolutionary explanation says you don't

>>2469001
I don't understand, what does teamwork have to do with this? If I work for someone I sign a contract selling they give me something and they get something. Teamwork happen because it's a more efficency way to better yourself. You're implying that teamwork happens because better want to better the group, and even then that they're not bettering it simply to have a more efficency way to better themselves later

>>2469017
That's not the cooperation I'm talking about. It's stuff like volunteering for charity, or choosing to adopt a kid etc. We have a biological impulse to feel good when helping other humans. Is that impulse selfish? No more selfish than feeling good after eating or sleeping well

>>2469023
It's not an impulse, it's a thought process. You feel bad when you read about these things you volunteer for and so to remedy that you volunteer. If you happen to feel good because you helped someone after the fact it's irrelevant because the desire came from selfishness

>>2469029
>It's not an impulse , it 's a thought process
Not true. See studies on animal/primate altruism

Robert Ardrey,African Ganesis(N.Y.: Dell publishers, 1961), pp. 80-81, 136

Okasha, S. (2008)."Biological altruism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Nicholas B. Davies; John R. Krebs; Stuart A. West (April 9, 2012). "11".An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. John Wiley & Sons. pp.307–333

>>2469045
Again show me studies for modern day humans

>>2469048
The second and third reference explore humans as well

>>2468837
Max Stirner is autism incarnate, no wonder 4chan likes him

madonna adopted all those africans
checkmate

File: descartes.jpg (12KB, 350x444px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 350x444px

>>2469075
I prefer Descartes over anyone else tbqh.

>>2469315
To raise her own BBC slaves

>>2468837
Maybe your parents should have left you there when you were born.

>Oh wait they did

>>2468837
Capitalism dupes people into working against their own material interests in favor of primarily benefiting their boss.

checkmate atheists.

>>2469048

Stop being so entitled you lazy mullenial

>>2468908
retard you don't understand stirner

>>2468837
That's not what Stirner says at all you stupid faggot.

>>2468837
> actions are either altruistic or selfish

They are both sides of the same coin, no go to bed ayn.

>>2468837
True, but you have to kill your selfishness before it kills you.

>>2468950
>Those people are giving charitably because it makes them feel good about themselves

Proof?

>>2468837
Mothers aren't

>>2468837
The self can be holistic if you understand ecology and evolution.
Egoism and alutrism are more than compatable.

>>2470931

wrong

File: 1484844089116.jpg (48KB, 640x887px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x887px

>>2468837
There is a difference between 'Moral' selfishness, such as charity, humanitarian aid, or friendship, and 'Immoral' selfishness, such as stealing, cheating, etc. What we consider to be 'selfish' is simply the immoral selfishness. We can ascribe the word 'selfish' to the immoral variant, where the self is put as first priority.
Of course we think for ourselves. There is nothing wrong, inherently, with thinking for yourself. What is wrong about selfishness is when our thinking for ourselves puts someone else down.
>>2468846
It seems with OP it is simply "self-interest." I don't believe OP's claim is true. Setting your standard so rigid so that anything that requires thinking about yourself is neither a fair definition nor, in my mind, a legitimate concept to associate with a negatively connotative 'selfishness.'

I read somewhere while studying ethics the following:
If someone ascribes everyone to be inherently selfish, then some acts must be less selfish then others, such as "I see poor kids on the television and feel sad, I want to stop feeling sad and so I send them money to make them not poor" (This example presupposes that my intent to not feel sad influences my action to help out the poor children). This action is very clearly not as selfish as stealing a purse to pay my monthly rent. These differences must therefore be expressed as separate words: 'Selfish,' and 'Selfic,' where 'Selfic' refers to less 'selfish' actions. And now we have the same problem as before: selfish and unselfish (altruistic).

>>2468950
No, people might be giving charity because of spooks too.