• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Altruism or Selfishness? Which drives us?

I never said their wouldn't be a benefit to yourself, Opal. I was saying that everything you do is also for another person. It's a bit of an oxymoron/paradox (Don't know what to call it). But it's there.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't make opal's point invalid, though, since altruism is defined as "unselfish concern for the welfare of others". And since the action is selfish, whether or not it is also for the welfare of others is irrelevant, as it can't be altruism.
 
Mirry said:
That doesn't make opal's point invalid, though, since altruism is defined as "unselfish concern for the welfare of others". And since the action is selfish, whether or not it is also for the welfare of others is irrelevant, as it can't be altruism.
Click to expand...

I wasn't pointing out that it was altruism either. Why do people keep thinking that? o-o
 
But saying "it is selfish, but there may be benefits for others to" is not disproving or proving anything. It is pretty much precisely what I have been saying the entire thread; certainly it is not countering my arguments or suggesting that it is ultimately altruism that stands at the heart of human decisions.
 
opaltiger said:
But saying "it is selfish, but there may be benefits for others to" is not disproving or proving anything. It is pretty much precisely what I have been saying the entire thread; certainly it is not countering my arguments or suggesting that it is ultimately altruism that stands at the heart of human decisions.
Click to expand...

You would be correct in saying so, but to be fair: Comparing selfishness to altruism wasn't a fair fight to begin with. Had you use the polar opposite of altruism then the debate would've been drawn to inconclusive.
 
Uh, selfishness is the opposite of altruism. Particularly in the sense we're talking of here.
 
opaltiger said:
Uh, selfishness is the opposite of altruism. Particularly in the sense we're talking of here.
Click to expand...

but I have just proven that you can't commit an action 100% for yourself. Everyone is explaining altruism as 100% for someone else. So, no they're not opposites in the context that it has been used in this debate.
 
but I have just proven that you can't commit an action 100% for yourself. Everyone is explaining altruism as 100% for someone else. So, no they're not opposites in the context that it has been used in this debate.
Click to expand...

True. But, then this debate is going to turn into which one is used more.

I think we can all tell which one :/
 
I said earlier that as long as the motive is selfish, the consequences don't matter - and the motive is always, whether conscious or not, selfish. In this sense, yes, you're doing it 100% for yourself. The consequences, of course, are usually not selfish; it would be downright stupid to argue that the consequences of every action are selfish. No, it's the fact that the action itself is selfishly motivated - that's what I meant by selfish action, but I suppose that was rather misleading.

ETA: if you wanted to define altruism as benefiting someone else more than yourself and selfishness vice versa and then examining actions and their results, we'd have a whole different debate. I still think the answer is selfishness, incidentally, although perhaps it's only the cynic in me speaking; however, I think the arguments for both sides hold merit.
 
Another point that could be added is that, subconsciously with a persons selfishness, that think on a conscious level that they aren't, because it serves them deep down. Even saying other aren't selfish, could be selfish, noble as it may be.

Hell, nobility is selfish too.
 
I think Altruism is what seperates us from lesser animals ('cept Chimpanzees).

I think this is a beneficial adaptation, and while most animals are driven by instinct to live, a human can see why it is better that they should die and let a group of people survive, than to let the group of people survive and be alone. It is better for the species to survive, not the individual.

However, we also have selfishness that drives us, so I think it is a little of both, and probably depends on the situation.
 
when I'm happy(lots of times I'm happy cause I just sorta am and I woke up that way) I make other people happy (Altruistic) which makes me happy(Selfish) which means I have more happiness to spread(A) which makes me even more happy(S) which means I have more to spread (A) etc. etc. etc. It's an ifi-loop of... guess what... both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom