Another theory would suggest that there is no such thing as “seflessness”
Doing kindness to someone either publicly or privately brings pleasure to the person doing the kindness & hence is a selfish act. That doesnt make it wrong , it just doesnt make it selfless.[/quote]
I am confused…how does bringing pleasure to someone result in selfishness?[/quote]
Everything we do is with self-interest in mind. Think about it. And I mean everything!
I guess the only person who could answer that would be the recipient of the good deed. eg If you were head of a starving village in Africa would you rather recieve 10 bucks from an anonymous source or a thousand bucks from a posturing , self -agrandising source ? I suspect the latter.
.
Its interesting how different people have different views on what & who is self agrandising , hypocritical etc . I know a guy who thinks that Mother Theresa was one of the most selfish people around & had done much more harm than good. Something to do with preaching no contraception & being responsible through this for creating more abandoned babies than she saved.
Where does perception & reality devide ? Who is fit to judge ? Not me that would be far too self agrandising.
I gave 14 quid a month or something like that to feed starving kids, much like the anonymous source Scuba described above. I have never told anyone before now.
Yet, I did it for my own benefit too. I felt less guilty and it felt good to be doing something good.
Would I have done the same if there was nothing in it for me?
Probably not.
Am I selfish. Of course I am. We all are. This is what drives everything. Otherwise there would be no economizing, and no one would do anything.
Self-interest IS the invisible hand.
Actually quite interesting and gee Mother Theresa not everything I post is a troll. Discussion can be interesting sometimes. 
Okay. Now that Mother Theresa has made me cry. Wah!
No, seriously. In this one discussion I was having, I was informed that there are five steps of charity in Judaism. The lowest is where you give money and the person and you both know who gave the money.
The second is where you do not know, but the recipient does.
The third is where you know but the recipient does not know.
The fourth is where neither knows.
Finally, the fifth and highest level is where the person in question giving the money actually raises the person from the position where they need something to being able to provide for themselves.
Curiously enough, in Hebrew, charity is not charity but translated as justice. Any comments on the ethical implications of that?
So it goes back to the give a man a fish or teach a man to fish thing. Yet I do not think from a philosophical or ethical point of view that we can discount selfish actions that result in good. For the same moral reasons, we have so many especially I hate to say this on the LEFT who constantly believe in their heart of hearts that they are doing good (the road to hell is paved with good intentions) despite the fact that because they have not educated themselves to the possible results of their actions, the final result is bad. So what kind of moral implications does this have?
ATTN MOTHER THERESA: THE LAST PART IS A TROLL ONLY FOR YOU. Everyone else can answer sensibly.
Another theory would suggest that there is no such thing as “seflessness”
Doing kindness to someone either publicly or privately brings pleasure to the person doing the kindness & hence is a selfish act. That doesnt make it wrong , it just doesnt make it selfless.[/quote]
I am confused…how does bringing pleasure to someone result in selfishness?[/quote]
Everything we do is with self-interest in mind. Think about it. And I mean everything![/quote]
I strongly believe that the pure act of love is selfless. If one is truly in love, then one’s own ambitions and desires cease to exist. All you do is tempered by how it would affect your loved one.
How about when your buddy gets you some weed and doesn’t cut it or mark it up…is that not a selfless act?
Talk about dichotemy…hehehe
Actually I believe that some say that true love is the most “egoistic” of all or greatest level of SELFishness in the sense that the self is mostly actively, completely, egoistically involved.
That means however that things have to be viewed differently. To wit, that the more selfish you are, the more honest you are about your selfishness the happier you will be.
Now to temper this. You know that x will make you happy but you know that everyone will block you if you do not share or make an effort to have everyone included so at the highest level of selfishness you “selflessly” consider the opinions and views of others to achieve your greatest level of happiness given the variables involved, which is your maximum level of attainable selfishness no?
[quote=“fred smith”]Actually I believe that some say that true love is the most “egoistic” of all or greatest level of SELFishness in the sense that the self is mostly actively, completely, egoistically involved.
That means however that things have to be viewed differently. To wit, that the more selfish you are, the more honest you are about your selfishness the happier you will be.
Now to temper this. You know that x will make you happy but you know that everyone will block you if you do not share or make an effort to have everyone included so at the highest level of selfishness you “selflessly” consider the opinions and views of others to achieve your greatest level of happiness given the variables involved, which is your maximum level of attainable selfishness no?[/quote]
There may or ther may not be a link between selfishness & happiness, that depends on the person & the act. There is definately a link between selfishness & survival. There is an interesting book on this subject called “The selfish gene”. It basically argues that we are here to provide our genes with immortality by passing on to the next generation & everything flows from this. eg Parhaps the purest form of “love” is that
of a mother for her child. Why ? Because this gives the mother the best chance of passing her genes into the future.
This is why in the animal kingdom eg when a new lion takes over from the old male, the first thing he does is kill all the lion cubs as they do not contain his genes.
Not very romantic is it ? !! So the answer to making the world a kinder place has to lie in there being a benefit to our genes in the world being a kinder place…
Whew. Just got back from a nice vacation AWAY from Taiwan. Very nice and I am back to my old cheery (well tolerable) self, but I notice every time I return how no one here seems to know how to walk in a straight line or is that just me. Also there apparently is a strong urge to always be first in and first out and first at everything else.
What’s up with that? 
Not quite – the reason is to bring the females into breeding condition again. They don’t go into heat while they’re nursing, so killing off the cubs allows the females to go into heat sooner.
Mapodofu:
Would not mind having the young of a HK couple on the plane this weekend whacked. Talk about squalling brats, but the thought of them being able to procreate again at an earlier date is not something I wanted to think about either. Yuck!
Give him a fish and you stave off the inevitable starvation for a day or two more. Teach him to fish and he will eat everything in the lake before starving to death. Why not do your bit for the environment and feed him (and his entire family) to the fishes.
On a different tack, what was the book where the guy used to do things for people and when they expressed gratitude would say something like “Don’t thank me, because I don’t do anything I don’t want to.”?
I (occasionally) do nice things for people because I think the world would be a much nicer place (for me) to live in if everyone did the same. Some one has to go first, and it’s no good waiting for everyone else 'cos they’re all waiting for you. And it makes me feel good.
Not quite – the reason is to bring the females into breeding condition again. They don’t go into heat while they’re nursing, so killing off the cubs allows the females to go into heat sooner.[/quote]
But why does he want the females in heat ? So that he can breed with them & create cubs containing his own genes.
A “Sophies choice” (now that was a disturbing movie) type question.You raise 2 children with your partner one is your own the other is from your partners previous relationship who you have loved & brought up as your own. You are put into a situation where you can only save the life of 1 of the children, Which would you save ? Horrible thought but I suspect most would go for the one containing thier own genes even though on the surface they love both equally. This used to be institutionalised into the church (catholic I think). During birthing difficulties , if there was a chice between saving the mother or saving the child, then the child was saved. Could this be because in that male dominated time the child contained the fathers genes but the mother did not ?
Quite a powerful movie. Hmmm let’s say for example that you were faced with a choice between your parents or your siblings. Who would you save? I bet many cannot imagine making the choice because their conscious mind will not allow them to even think that far, but have a guard screaming at them with a gun and you know both are going to die if you do not choose and then you might be surprised who you really do choose.
That said, anyone want to be brave and say for the record who they would save in the above circumstances or choose say between your children and wife or between children as well? or between wives I guess depending on your religion?
but it’s true wov!
about the previous post, reminds me of a south park episode (i think) where they go, what if you had a gun to your head, and you had to do your dad to save your mom, and then all the other variations.
this is the worldwide recorder concert episode where one of the teachers (the Mr. Hat guy) goes visits his parents and has issues with his father (but Kenny G makes the save).
true wov! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
JB:
Well if you think those comparisons are ludicrous, how about who would you SAVE out of two or three choices on Forumosa?
Or you could say between say xxx and yyy, I would NOT save so and so.
Think of the fun we could have with this.
i.e. between Blueface and Tigerman who would you save or who would you choose NOT to save, etc.
And always remember Nevah evah joke with Suthnahs bouts the War of Northern Aggression. I recalls my first entreeh intah pahlite charlestawhn sahsahiety. Cahwce they woudnah speak to me fah ovah two yeahs. Ever read V.S. Naipaul’s account of the South: A turn in the south?
The critical way he writes had everyone excited about how he was going to slam the racist, red neck south and lo and behold the man loved it and painted it in a very positive light.
Then again looking at the other post, I guess I would be hard pressed to decide who to save out of a choice of cake, european or quirky. Though I fully intend to write about my angst in a new book called Fred Smith’s Choice. Y’all will come and bahy it nawh woncha?
Who to save?
ImanIOU of course. Yes, the southerners are the nicest americans.
I have shied away from VS Naipaul ever since taking ‘India - a wounded civilization’ on holiday with me and having nothing else to read on a long ferry trip.