Psychological Egoism

Do any of you disagree with psychological egoism?

If so, how do you defend being so criminally retarded?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/#2.3
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

We're acting in the interest of our supposed children, to keep our genes in the game.

Yeah that's true. That doesn't undermine psychological egoism though.

Psychological egoism contends that you are always acting in your self-interest - and yes, taking an interest in your children, like all human behaviour, is also grounded in that self-interest. Because the second most important interest that we all have, after preserving our own life, is reproducing - propagating our genes as much as we can in the world.

Psychological egoism is false, and ethical egoism is retarded.

Isn't it just a tautology at that point?

I don't understand why anyone would deny psychological egoism. I think it's pretty obvious. Even if something you do may not be in your immediate self-interest, there's some other reason you're doing it, be it virtue, it makes you feel good, desperation, etc.

A woman who jumps infront of a car to save her child isn't acting in her own self-interest.

Yes she is. She does so because she feels it is her duty as a mother. This is her genetic legacy.

So what?

It's not HER OWN self-interest.

You're just moving the goal posts.

>Psychological egoism is false
This is what idiots actually believe.

I notice you made no argument for your claim - this is probably because you're wrong and you know it.

Make any argument you like and I can refute it. The reason being that psychological egoism is correct. Established by psychological experiments.

The theory that altruism is innate does not have the explanatory power to explain the whole gamut of human behaviour. Ultimately, selfishness is king, and people are only altruistic when they feel they have something to gain (so like I say, self-interest is the ultimate motivation).

Look at criminals (pic related). They reject all altruism - apart from when they feel they *have* to be altruistic, to serve their self-interest; e.g. when they partner with other criminals, for protection, or to take a score. They stab each other in the back all the time though, of course. Because their self-interest is the root of all their motivation (just like it is ours; we're just not as impulsive as criminals).

No. I just tried to explain why looking after your own children is fundamentally grounded in your own self-interested motivations.

The children example is not the evidence that shows we are always self-interested, though. The evidence is the entire gamut of human behaviour. That's the evidence. When you look at how humans act across all different situations, you'll see that they only ever act selflessly when it's in their interest to do so. When there is more to be gained / less to lose from acting purely selfishly, that's what they'll do.

Exactly, although it's also good to understand why "virtue" is in one's self-interest. As Thomas Hobbes explained, morality is just a contract between men, who realise that they are stronger as a unit than apart. This is why we don't want to piss people off. It would endanger us. It's better to endear ourselves to other people. That's the only reason we ever act altruistically.

Yes it is. It would be against her self-interest to let her child die. As a parent you have a built-in desire to pretect your child. Doing what you feel you must do falls in line with self-interest.

>It would be against her self-interest to let her child die.

No it wouldn't. In fact it could be argued that it's better for her personal self-interest that her kids just die, because then she wouldn't use so many resources to keep them alive. Resources that she could use on herself.

You're stupid, but it's okay, because eventually you will realise how wrong you are.

Animals are exactly the same as the mother in that example - they take great costs upon themselves in order to ensure the survival of their children.

The interest of all organisms at the end of the day is to preserve and propagate oneself. That's the goal that all life on this planet pursues. The mother in your example is pursuing that goal actively. She wants her genes to be propagated so that's why she sacrifices herself to save her child.

Self-interest doesn't simply mean "saving one's own life". It means serving the goal that all lifeforms have, which ultimately is propagating one's genes.

No it wouldn't. People aren't rational to begin with, parents even less so. As a parent, the needs of your child outweigh your own. Therefore, a child's interests become a parent's.

>The interest of all organisms at the end of the day is to preserve and propagate oneself.

Which is not the same as psychological egoism.

It can even be argued that altruistic acts on the part of a collective of humans that you aren't even related to genetically, are better for your self-interest than simply being egotistic.

I am collectivist.

>As a parent, the needs of your child outweigh your own.

E.g psychological egoism isn't true.

>In fact it could be argued that it's better for her personal self-interest that her kids just die
No it isn't because the ultimate goal of all life on this Earth is to propagate itself.

>because then she wouldn't use so many resources to keep them alive. Resources that she could use on herself.
If that was TRULY in someone's self-interest, then no parents would EVER sacrifice any resources for their kids.

If what you say was true, then birds wouldn't give food to their children. No human parents would take their kids to school, or spend any money on them - they'd just drop them off in the street.

You're an idiot. Nature disproves your theory of the motivation of humans.

>If that was TRULY in someone's self-interest, then no parents would EVER sacrifice any resources for their kids.

Exactly.

see

How does that follow? There's a difference between personal benefit and self-interest. The two often coincide, but not necessarily. Such as in the provided example.

>There's a difference between personal benefit and self-interest.

In what way are they different?

If there is no personal benefit for you to raise children, in what sense is it self-interested behavior to have children?

Because it makes you feel good.

>Which is not the same as psychological egoism.
Yes it is, you fucking idiot. Psychological egoism is the claim that all actions are grounded in self-interested motivation (even actions that appear altruistic). See picture related

You are a fucking moron that doesn't even know what psychological egoism IS

>It can even be argued that altruistic acts on the part of a collective of humans that you aren't even related to genetically, are better for your self-interest than simply being egotistic.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM CLAIMS YOU UTTER IDIOT

Psychological egoism says that whenever you act in an apparently selfless manner, you ONLY do it because of your own self-interested motivations.

It is very easy to observe this in human nature - take away any motivations to act selflessly, and people stop acting selflessly.

E.g. a soldier that jumps on a grenade to save his comrades. He does this because he has been trained to act in the interest of the unit - but he only AGREED TO ACCEPT this training because either:

a) He willingly joined the army, in pursuit of a paycheck (and respect, probably)

b) He was conscripted into the army, and he wanted to avoid the punishment of trying to evade conscription

If you take away the motivations, then people don't act selflessly. For example if that soldier had not been receiving a good paycheck, then he would probably quit the army, and never perform any selfless action at all.

Again you are CRIMINALLY moronic. Is your IQ about 70 or something?

The self-interest of every organism is to propagate itself.

HOLY FUCK

FUCK OFF WITH THIS BAIT

YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST FUCKING PERSON I HAVE EVER FUCKING ENCOUNTERED

THERE IS NO FUCKING HOPE FOR YOU

I WAS PROVING YOU WRONG THAT PROTECTING YOUR KIDS ISN'T SELF-INTERESTED

PROTECTING YOUR KIDS *IS* SELF-INTERESTED

THAT'S WHY WE FUCKING DO IT

TO SERVE OUR SELF-INTEREST OF PROPAGATING OURSELVES

YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST FUCKING PERSON ON THE PLANET

Or you're a master baiter and you're doing well I guess because you've completely fucking baited me

Christ, who knew people could be this butthurt when you pop holes in their tightly-knit theories.

You've provided zero argument for your position for altruism is somehow innate

Zero.

And that's because you constantly move the goalposts for what "self-interest" actually means.

I mean, at this point I half expect you to say that people who commit suicide are acting in their self-interest.

No I haven't, I've actually stated it clearly in all of these posts:
>propagating our genes as much as we can in the world.
>The interest of all organisms at the end of the day is to preserve and propagate oneself.
>the ultimate goal of all life on this Earth is to propagate itself.
>The self-interest of every organism is to propagate itself.

>I half expect you to say that people who commit suicide are acting in their self-interest.
They are MOTIVATED by their self-interest, yes - psychological egoism is a theory of MOTIVATION.

>Do any of you disagree with psychological egoism?

Sure, in so far as I don't think we actually have a clear idea of our own self-interest, and that our will is such a multifaceted and conflicting thing that no one action represents the entirety of our self's interest. There's also habits and involuntary responses, which don't really fall under it, but are none the less things we do, meaning not everything we do is out of self-interest.

We do however act in our self interest in the sense that we ultimately are the wellspring of our own decisions, as only we can make our own decisions for us.

It's also difficult to reconcile psychological egoism with the things like soldiers throwing themselves on grenades for their fellow soldiers, one could argue it's a conditioned response, but that doesn't really put it in the domain of self-interest.

We don't always act in our own self-interest. Humans also act empathetically, oftentimes.

However, even granting that, we act empathetically because we empathize with others when we see them suffer, and we want to avoid that from happening.

So by empathizing with others, we desire to not see them suffer, because an empathetic seeing another suffer, suffers themselves.

So under the surface, even people acting empathetically are ultimately acting out of self-interest.

Psychological Egoists BTFO

I agree.
It's just what the 'ego' is.
For one, my ego includes all life because we are all parts of the same thing you know.
I did an mushroom
I became the world and beat myself off.

>It's also difficult to reconcile psychological egoism with the things like soldiers throwing themselves on grenades for their fellow soldiers
No it isn't and I already addressed this exact example in this post: Here, I'll quote it to you:

>E.g. a soldier that jumps on a grenade to save his comrades. He does this because he has been trained to act in the interest of the unit - but he only AGREED TO ACCEPT this training because either:
>a) He willingly joined the army, in pursuit of a paycheck (and respect, probably)
>b) He was conscripted into the army, and he wanted to avoid the punishment of trying to evade conscription
>If you take away the motivations, then people don't act selflessly. For example if that soldier had not been receiving a good paycheck, then he would probably quit the army, and never perform any selfless action at all.

>So under the surface, even people acting empathetically are ultimately acting out of self-interest.
Exactly. That's what psychological egoism contends.

We can act in a way which ends up putting others' material interests before ourselves, yes - but the MOTIVATION is still self-interested, in every single action we ever perform.

...

>New new new new new trollface.

Psychological egoism is a pointles reduction. If literally just obeying the laws of physics is ""self-interest"" then I guess, yes, everything we do i in our ""self-interest"".

It is more meaningful to ask whether people act in their rational self-interest or they have been spooked into acting against it.

Self interest is impossible because there is no self. The only things that can be "served" are continuous goals.

Ayn Rand ruined the word egoism.

No it's not a pointless reduction, because there is a genuine and meaningful question as to whether selfless acts are genuinely selfless - whether we have an innate motivation to act selflessly, when giving to charity, for instance.

My belief, as a psychological egoist, is that we are all fundamentally selfish with every single action - and my belief is backed up by science, evidence, psychological testing, etc.

Well I studied psychological egoism at university (well, touched upon it) without any reference to Ayn Rand whatsoever

I'm pretty sure she's an ETHICAL egoist (she believes we SHOULD always think and act selfishly), which is completely different from psychological egoism.

Ethical egoism is a claim about how we SHOULD act. It's prescriptive.
Psychological egoism is a claim about how we DO act. It's descriptive.

Psychological egoism is only well defended because it reduces all human action to simplistic, functional mechanics.

All the rest of grown up philosophy is the elaboration of the limitless ways humans conceptualize the optimal ethical life beyond egoistic self-servedness. It does not negate any of those, because any epistemology acknowledges that there is no necessary conflict between self-interest and ethical acts in service of greater realities.

Psy egoism is inane and uncreative hence its defensibility, it makes very little substantive steps towards deeper understanding of the nature of human existence.

You're an idiot

You're right, it says nothing about how we should act ethically or morally - that's not what it's trying to describe

It's a psychological claim at the end of the day, it's not a moral or ethical claim

Therefore you're dumb.

Those justifications don't work for such a final action. You can't receive a paycheck after you're dead, and conscription doesn't inherently necessitate sacrificing your life away typically.

Further, the idea that you can somehow act in the interests of a unit at the expense of yourself while still acting in a psychologically egoistic fashion is retarded. A soldier's squad is not his self. It's not the training that needs to be justified on egoistic grounds, it is the specific action of throwing himself on the grenade that needs to be justified on egoistic grounds for this to work, if there's a possibility of him acting at any point out of anything but self interest, then humans are not absolutely psycholgically egoistic. A condition response is not the same as an egoistic action.

Not even fucking Stirner is a psychological egoist.

>Stirner explicitly considers adopting the explanatory stance of psychological egoism only to reject it. In a discussion of a young woman who sacrifices her love for another in order to respect the wishes of her family, Stirner remarks that an observer might be tempted to maintain that selfishness has still prevailed in this case since the woman clearly preferred the wishes of her family to the attractions of her suitor. However, Stirner rejects this hypothetical explanation, insisting that, provided “the pliable girl were conscious of having left her self-will unsatisfied and humbly subjected herself to a higher power” (197), we should see her actions as governed by piety rather than egoism.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/#2.3

I support ethical egoism and only believe in psychological egoism insofar as people attempt to act in their own interest. However, things like ideology and instinct can cloud our understanding of self interest and ability to reason. These systems (ideology and instinct) can lead us to act against our interests despite the fact that they were adopted to foster them.

TLDR: psychological egoism exists but is not 100% accurate

You familiar with Spinoza's work? His idea of egoism in Ethics isn't too far from that.

We don't always act in our own self-interest. Sometimes we act against our self-interest by doing things we know will be to our own detriment.

>is-ought

I haven't, I'll pick it up. Any specific essays or books I should read?

Every defense anyone can bring up agains psychological egoism being the main driving force of individuals is based on that very egoism. Those people merely try to shield their consciousness from looking directly at the ego which tries to escape from its own meaninglessness.
Basically, they are all spooked beyond repair.

>The theory that altruism is innate does not have the explanatory power to explain the whole gamut of human behaviour.

Acceptable.

>Ultimately, selfishness is king

Doesn't necessarily follow at all. Providing a selective group and then extrapolating to the entire species is also a logical leap.

Please try harder next time.