Why should I help poor people in Africa?

[TheProwler]

Er a lot of people would give up their lives for their children

Do you know anybody who has actually done that?

Yes, I knew people who gave their lives for their children, both directly and absolutely as well as many parents who effectively gave up their lives, denied themselves all their dreams and passions to give their children a better future.

And pick up any history book to find many more that we don't necessarily know personally, but know of well.

Can you share one of these stories? Because I'll bet there is some explanation that shows that is was really a selfish act.

And people give up a lot of shit for their kids because they expect the kids to keep them company and look after them when they get old.

[PLAYER57832]

Er a lot of people would give up their lives for their children

Do you know anybody who has actually done that?

Yes, I knew people who gave their lives for their children, both directly and absolutely as well as many parents who effectively gave up their lives, denied themselves all their dreams and passions to give their children a better future.

And pick up any history book to find many more that we don't necessarily know personally, but know of well.

Can you share one of these stories? Because I'll bet there is some explanation that shows that is was really a selfish act.

And people give up a lot of shit for their kids because they expect the kids to keep them company and look after them when they get old.

You can narrow just about anything down into some self-interest. Doesn't mean there is no societal benefit to such actions.
And, most importantly many selfish actions truly are just that .. selfish and not of benefit to anyone else. Its important to distinguish the two types of actions.

[The Voice]

I believe "pure" altruism exists in at least one instance, and that is when we don't have time to think. We just act on instinct alone (classic example of person jumping into burning building to save stranger).

[TheProwler]

You can narrow just about anything down into some self-interest.

That's exactly what I am saying.

People are selfish. To the core.

[PLAYER57832]

You can narrow just about anything down into some self-interest.

That's exactly what I am saying.

People are selfish. To the core.

No, because these acts you call "selfish", even though they are can very much be distinguished from truly heinous and terrible acts done purely for greed and self-satisfaction.

[TheProwler]

You can narrow just about anything down into some self-interest.

That's exactly what I am saying.

People are selfish. To the core.

No, because these acts you call "selfish", even though they are can very much be distinguished from truly heinous and terrible acts done purely for greed and self-satisfaction.

Just because something isn't heinous and terrible doesn't mean it isn't selfish.

You said it yourself:

You can narrow just about anything down into some self-interest.

I'm only agreeing with you; people are selfish. It's all part of human nature.

[Lootifer]

What I dont get about your point (trolling maybe?) Prowler is why do you assume that we can only be selfish? Can we not be a bit selfish, and a bit selfless?

I genuinely believe [some alturistic ideal], and consequently take certain actions/have certain opinions that reflect this over-riding ideal. Now yes you can connect a whole lot of selfish rationale as to why I take these actions both at the detailed level and at the meta level; but is there not, at some level, some component of selfless behaviour involved?

*edit removed what the ideal actually is. My point is better that way.

[Man United]

Almost everything we do, even if it also benefits others, is in our own interests. As has been said a number of times, people are selfish, it's our nature. We do, however, also perform actions while only thinking about others, sometimes even at risk of personal loss. These actions are certainly rarer, but they do occur.
TheProwler, I'm sure in your life you have done completely selfless things. Not for for rewards or gratitude, but for the sole purpose of helping someone else.

[TheProwler]

I might have done a few things in my life that have appeared selfless.

But somewhere, deep down, I knew I'd be talking about it some day on this forum, or one just like it, and I'd get praise and respect from others for my "selfless" actions.

Since then I've realized that I'm just a selfish asshole.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, but there are two kinds of "selfish asshole": (1) completely self-centered, not giving a shit about anyone, and (2) self-interested/altruistic--i.e. helps others, yet still gets the personal perks of feeling good about it.

On the spectrum between "selfish asshole" and "Bodhisattva," (1) will remain very near "selfish asshole" and (2) can be in the close to (1), or in the middle, or at "Bodhisattva." So, it doesn't follow that everyone is a selfish asshole, or that "people are selfish to the core."

[Lootifer]

Yeah thats what I was trying to say!

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, sorry. Here you go:

Sure, but there are two kinds of "selfish asshole": (1) completely self-centered, not giving a shit about anyone, and (2) self-interested/altruistic--i.e. helps others, yet still gets the personal perks of feeling good about it.

On the spectrum between "selfish asshole" and "Bodhisattva," (1) will remain very near "selfish asshole" and (2) can be in the close to (1), or in the middle, or at "Bodhisattva." So, it doesn't follow that everyone is a selfish asshole, or that "people are selfish to the core."

[TheProwler]

(2) self-interested/altruistic--i.e. helps others, yet still gets the personal perks of feeling good about it.

It's all about the perks. You take out the "feel good", and nobody would help others.

You show me one person that does selfless acts of kindness and then feels absolutely shitty about it, but continues to do these selfless acts of kindness that makes them feel absolutely shitty, and then I will believe that this person isn't a selfish asshole. But that person doesn't exist. Because people only perform what appear to be selfless acts of kindness when it gives them a good feeling.

People are selfish assholes.

Maybe you object to the word "asshole". I can understand that...

But to object to the word "selfish" is just to deny your own human nature.

[patches70]

Oh, prowler, I can guarantee you that there was a time in your life when you were far, far more selfish than you are today. I guarantee it. You could today be a complete miser and you still wouldn't be as selfish as you once were.

There is no more selfish person than a newborn infant. Infants are the most selfish creatures on the planet, and they have to be to survive. Absolute constant care they require. When they are hungry they let everyone know about. When their diaper needs to be changed, they let everyone know about it. When they want cuddles, they let everyone know about. When they want that toy, they let everyone know about it.

An infant cares only for itself, it doesn't even have the vaguest idea of who it is that is providing the care that it demands, only that it's demands are cared for.

It is only later that people learn the lesson that compassion is also a good thing, for obvious reasons. But we do grow less selfish than we start out as.

We start out that selfish in life, and everyone gets less and less selfish as they grow older. Such is life.
But yeah, we still stay selfish to one degree or another, as pretty much every living thing on the planet is selfish to one degree or another.

[TheProwler]

Absolute constant care they require. When they are hungry they let everyone know about. When their diaper needs to be changed, they let everyone know about it. When they want cuddles, they let everyone know about. When they want that toy, they let everyone know about it.

You sound like my wife describing me at our therapy sessions.

[BigBallinStalin]

(2) self-interested/altruistic--i.e. helps others, yet still gets the personal perks of feeling good about it.

It's all about the perks. You take out the "feel good", and nobody would help others.

You show me one person that does selfless acts of kindness and then feels absolutely shitty about it, but continues to do these selfless acts of kindness that makes them feel absolutely shitty, and then I will believe that this person isn't a selfish asshole. But that person doesn't exist. Because people only perform what appear to be selfless acts of kindness when it gives them a good feeling.

People are selfish assholes.

Maybe you object to the word "asshole". I can understand that...

But to object to the word "selfish" is just to deny your own human nature.

There's a difference between (a) feeling good about helping someone while helping someone, and (b) not helping anyone and feeling good/bad about it.

(b) = selfish asshole
(a) != selfish asshole

(b) wants to maximize "feel goods" toward oneself and doesn't care about others, while (a) strives to maximize "help toward others" (and obviously cares about others). It doesn't matter if "helping others" and "feeling good about it" are complementary goods/occur simultaneously. Clearly, there's a difference between (a) and (b), so how can your conclusion hold true?

If you apply your definition to both groups, then your definition of "selfish assholes" is meaningless.

[Lootifer]

It's all about the perks. You take out the "feel good", and nobody would help others.

You show me one person that does selfless acts of kindness and then feels absolutely shitty about it, but continues to do these selfless acts of kindness that makes them feel absolutely shitty, and then I will believe that this person isn't a selfish asshole. But that person doesn't exist. Because people only perform what appear to be selfless acts of kindness when it gives them a good feeling.

You're making the claim so the burden of proof lies with you.

Unfortunately the way you have defined your stance (underlined) is actually unprovable. You cant turn off the positive aspect of altruism, it just happens.

Hence this whole argument is pointless. You can state everything is a fact as much as you like, but its simply not a fact unless you frame your argument in a way which can be shown.

[TheProwler]

There's a difference between (a) feeling good about helping someone while helping someone, and (b) not helping anyone and feeling good/bad about it.

(b) = selfish asshole
(a) != selfish asshole

(b) wants to maximize "feel goods" toward oneself and doesn't care about others, while (a) strives to maximize "help toward others" (and obviously cares about others). It doesn't matter if "helping others" and "feeling good about it" are complementary goods/occur simultaneously. Clearly, there's a difference between (a) and (b), so how can your conclusion hold true?

If you apply your definition to both groups, then your definition of "selfish assholes" is meaningless.

You can't just say "(a) != selfish asshole" by definition.

We do things that we think will eventually benefit ourselves. "What goes around, comes around."

Heck, if most Christians were honest with you, they'd tell you they're just trying to earn their way into heaven. Send $10 a month to Africa for everlasting joy and pure bliss. Sounds like a good deal to me.

And atheists? They're just hoping someone will be impressed by what they do and give them something in return. Like sex. Sex is very powerful motivation.

[TheProwler]

You're making the claim so the burden of proof lies with you.

Unfortunately the way you have defined your stance (underlined) is actually unprovable.

That's fine with me. I'm happy to continue on my way, knowing that I understand the selfish nature of my species while there are a bunch of people struggling to come to terms with it.


It doesn't hurt me at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's a difference between (a) feeling good about helping someone while helping someone, and (b) not helping anyone and feeling good/bad about it.

(b) = selfish asshole
(a) != selfish asshole

(b) wants to maximize "feel goods" toward oneself and doesn't care about others, while (a) strives to maximize "help toward others" (and obviously cares about others). It doesn't matter if "helping others" and "feeling good about it" are complementary goods/occur simultaneously. Clearly, there's a difference between (a) and (b), so how can your conclusion hold true?

If you apply your definition to both groups, then your definition of "selfish assholes" is meaningless.

You can't just say "(a) != selfish asshole" by definition.

We do things that we think will eventually benefit ourselves. "What goes around, comes around."

Heck, if most Christians were honest with you, they'd tell you they're just trying to earn their way into heaven. Send $10 a month to Africa for everlasting joy and pure bliss. Sounds like a good deal to me.

And atheists? They're just hoping someone will be impressed by what they do and give them something in return. Like sex. Sex is very powerful motivation.

Other than repeating myself, all I can say at this juncture is to think about this issue along a spectrum. There are 'shades of selfishness/self-interest' which if considered, must reject the conclusion that all humans are selfish assholes. Just sayin'.

[Lootifer]

You're making the claim so the burden of proof lies with you.

Unfortunately the way you have defined your stance (underlined) is actually unprovable.

That's fine with me. I'm happy to continue on my way, knowing that I understand the selfish nature of my species while there are a bunch of people struggling to come to terms with it.


It doesn't hurt me at all.

Oh I accept my selfish nature - but, here, i can be condescending too - i just also understand we aren't completely selfish, and more importantly, one can be more selfish than another.

[TheProwler]

I'm glad we can all agree that humans are always selfish to one degree or another.


Bunch of assholes.

[Lootifer]

Haha, that'll do pig, that'll do.

[TheProwler]

"pig"?!?!?!?

What are you talking about?

[Lootifer]