105 Discussion Question 2: Psychological egoism

"Human beings are inherently self-interested. In fact, human beings can only act to further their self-interest. Even actions that appear altruistic are, in fact, not."

Write a short post either in support of or opposed to the above statement, or respond courteously to one of your classmate's responses. Please post by Thursday night.

Comments

[Ron]

While it may appear at first glance that human beings only act to further their self-interest, a more in-depth look will reveal that, in reality, that is not the case. There are many exceptions in which one can find people acting altruistically both in appearance and in fact. People willing to donate their organs to save others is just one simple example that comes to mind. There is nothing to gain from donating an organ, so it must be done from a purely altruistic motive. There are two possible arguments that one can make against this example. The first one would be to claim that donors enjoy some sort of pleasure out of possibly risking their lives or having a surgeon operate on them. While it is a possible claim, it does not seem very likely; even if it does happen, it would definitely be the exception rather than the rule. The second argument would be to say that donors do so only because they experience joy out of helping others. It could thus be argued that their actions are not altruistic because they help others for the reason of making themselves feel better. The problem with this argument is that the donors are putting themselves in danger. If the donor simply wanted to feel better about themselves by helping others, there are numerous opportunities where one can do so without having to face unnecessary risks. From this simple example, it can be shown that human beings are not inherently self-interested.

[Nora Bryar]

I do not believe that human beings always only act in their self-interest. I think that Ron has a great example of this when he brings up the act of organ donation. However, I'd like to add on a little bit to make his arguement stronger. If he was talking about a liver transplant from one live patient to another, his ideas make sense. But when I think of organ donation, I think of it as something you agree to while you are still alive. You are agreeing to let surgeons harvest your organs after you have passed and transplant them into a person who is in need of that specific organ. In this case, the deceased person is not in any danger and his organs are of no use to himself. By giving his organs up, the person is completely altruistic because it is impossible to benefit yourself when you are deceased. The person may believe that he became an organ donor because he feels good about himself for doing so, but it is not a sure thing that his organs will be harvested and that he will save a life. Because he does not know the outcome, it is an altuistic act which proves that human beings are not always acting in their self-interest.

[Katie]

i beg to disagree. i believe that even though this example of donating organs may at first seem truely altruistic, it may not completely be. and i stress completely. the person may want to help others, but also by NOT knowing the outcome of his/her donation, one wonders why do it at all. if it is not a guaranteed thing, why donate them? they may or may not help. therefore, i believe that being an organ donor cannot be completely altruistic, there must be some personal reason behind that specific persons action. for example, they might enjoy the fact that they are known to others as a helpful and caring person--they want a good reputation, which is in their self-interest. also they may want to be organ donors becuase of the simple fact that they've known someone or heard of someone that's benefitted from organ donation, so they want to be that person who can help another, again because they like the feeling that they will be helping others and also because they want to be remembered after death. a certain part of themselves will live on in another. this notion pertains to the search for everlasting life. everyone wants to leave their mark on the world after they've left it, and organ donation is a way to achieve this self-interest. so although, organ donation has altruistic elements, it is not completely altruistic because the person donating does it not just for another, but also for themselves in one way or other.

[Deborah]

I agree with what Katie said that human beings are inherently self-interested even in the actions that appear altruistic. No matter what, I feel as though humans genetically can’t help to think of themselves even when acting altruistically. How about when Kahane described kin altruistic vs. reciprocal altruistic? Do you think its true that when people tend to benefit their friends, close ones act in an unselfish altruistic behavior? Do people not expect others who can be expected to return the favor? I feel as though we overlook these ideas in that people can act unselfishly. Yes, parents want to find a good job so they can benefit their family and children. But this act has an motivation of wanting to desire the best for only their family and close ones. Thus, this is still selfish because they are only thinking for themselves and their family. Also, usually most people when helping others unintentionally have that notion that the person they helped will always return a favor. However, this could be argued with the donating your organ example. But, I believe that if you donated your kidney to someone, and one day you’re in need for a organ transplant, you would expect to receive the same treatment of having someone else willing to donate their organ to you. Thus, again you’re following the notion that you’ve helped someone and now expecting a return of favor from another person. This doesn’t make this altruistic because you still wish to have the same treatment in return for future. I hope this makes sense.

[Yuzhe Li]

I think I agree more on the above statement than oppose to it. The desire we have motivate us take the actions. The actions we do everything by the end we want something in return. That something in return may not always direct, that can be indirect. When we done something that are not intensionally to ask a favor back, that action may be look like an altruistic act. But eventually, you would get something out of it by helping someone. For example, when you see some beggers on the street and you give them some money. On surface this may sound like you are not acting out of your self-interest, but acting altruistic. The reason is that you didn’t get anything in return by give the beggers money. From what I read in some articles before that explain this action in a phsycology perspective was that we want to reduce our dicomfort. That’s why we take the action to give money to the beggers. The result is that you did get something in return. The return is not in physical object, but the benefit in return is that to reduce your discomfort feeling.

[Eric]

While searching for examples of altruism, the best example I could come up with was martyrdom. What could be more altruistic then giving up your life to further some sort of belief or cause? However, upon evaluating martyrdom, it's very obvious that it is in no way altruistic. More often then not, martyrs die for their religious views. In giving up their life, martyrs believe that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Or they seem to gain satisfaction knowing that their actions will cause pain to those whom they deem as sinners. Regardless, if giving your life cannot be considered altruistic, then what is?

[Amy Neuberger]

I do agree that people only act in their self-interests or pragmatically most of the time, although I think there are some cases of true altruism. Sometimes these acts are simply overlooked or not thought of as altruism. What about firemen and policemen who know their life could be at risk while on the job? There is no way someone could deny that altruism was behind the firemen and policemen who either put their lives at risk or did die for others on 9/11. What about people who jump in front of bullets to save another's life simply because they love that person? Could someone actually say that Mother Theresa lived with the poor and assisted them to benefit herself? Do Habitat for Humanity members rebuild houses for their own good? Surely, all of these acts are altruistic.

[Gina Sutter]

I completely agree with the fact that all actions are indeed altruistic. It reminds me of a friends episode when Pheobe is looking for a good deed that is selfless, but is not able to find one. Her trouble was the fact that all good deeds that you perform in turn make you feel good about yourself which is a positive outcome for you. I believe that whether people want to believe it or not, they aren't going to do something that is harmful to themselves without some sort of gratification from the results. They aren't going to do something harmful to them because it is not in their best interest, and in the end it's every man for themself.

[Bill Storms]

"Human beings can only act to further their self-interest." Can I throw myself in front of a bus, if I know that only ill effects will come of it? Of course I can, but according to most people I would be insane and not capable of rational choice. So then, can any sane person do harm to themselves knowing that only ill will come of their actions. No, if their actions only garner unfavorable results then no sane person could do them. If they did they would be insane.

Any "good" effects will be from the perspective of the actor, and necessarily favorable in their opinion. So any sane action will always carry the intention of bettering the actor.

This does not invalidate the notion of altruism, the “unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.” If I throw myself in front of a bus to push a small child from its path I am not acting in my immediate self interest, but my actions where still intended to have some good effect, saving the small child, which I decided would further my self-interest more than letting them die. Human beings are not bound by the 4th law of thermodynamics to act in their self-interest, but any sane action will always intend to do so.

[Claire Tinley]

My comment on the discussion board last week was incorrect because I wrote about psychological egoism instead of ethical egoism, because at the time I did not really understand the difference. However, of course now I realize the difference between the two and I still think that my thoughts last week are very relevant to psychological egoism. I believe that our criminal law system reflects a belief by society that humans do only act in their own self-interest. We have laws set up so that when people do act entirely in their self-interest and harm another person, then we can take the appropriate measures to punish them. As far as the statement posted for discussion, I am not sure how I feel about the idea that “humans beings can only act to further their self-interest.” I think that a large part of altruistic actions is how others perceive those actions. In the case of organ donation, perhaps a person chooses to become an organ donor because he or she knows the pain of losing a loved one that could have been prevented by an organ donor. Some people may perceive this reason as being self-motivated because the donor is acting in response to his or her own grief, wishing that he or she could have been spared the pain of losing a loved one. On the other hand, I think that there are people who would view the donor’s actions as being very altruistic because he or she can’t do anything about their own pain now, so they choose to try to prevent someone else’s.

[Cynthia Bangert]

Naturally I act in ways to further my self interest most of the time, which makes me suspect that this is the same with most other people. Although I do care about other people (especially loved ones, but also humanity as a whole), I can't deny that I think about the effects my actions will have for me. So yes, I agree that humans are inherently motivated by self interest. Yet I also agree with Claire in that we are not limited to acting in our self interest. Altruism, however, can be misleading. If I sign the back of my drivers license and allow my organs to be donated once I'm dead, no possible harm can come out of this for me. Unless you believe that doctors will purposely let you die to use your organs. In that case, I am willingly risking the posibility of having compromised medical care. Should I continue with my donor plans, I would be acting altruistically. On the whole though, no harm will come to me for donating organs once I'm dead. Therefore, I have no reason not to donate, and in a sense this question has no bearing on my self interest. In cases such as this, where I am not affected either way, it is simply selfish not to donate an organ I will have no use for.

[Maura Kramer]

It is true that human beings can only act to further their self-interest. However, acting in one’s self-interest does not necessarily mean that the action is hurting others. Obviously, one can act in a selfish way, putting oneself before others, and benefit oneself. Examples of such blatantly selfish acts include lying, cheating, and stealing. However, one can also put others first, apparently being selfless, but still further his or her self-interest. When one person helps another it benefits society and thus is helping the person who performed the "selfless act." No good deed benefits just one person, as no bad deed hurts just one person. As Howard Kahane states, "unselfish actions engaged in now often have unselfish payoffs later." The fact that an action benefits oneself and is in one’s self interest does not constitute a negative act. Selfish can be defined simply as benefiting one self, or an action that is in one’s self interest. Selfish is not necessarily an act that harms another person. An action such as breathing benefits one self- it is selfish-but it does not hurt others. It also benefits others in the sense that it gives off carbon dioxide and allows for plants to perform photosynthesis and respiration, which gives off oxygen for others. All actions have repercussions, and whether the repercussions are negative or positive depends on the intention of the person who performs the action. Actions such as breathing, eating healthily, and choosing a career that utilizes one’s strengths are all selfish acts (benefiting oneself), but help others at the same time. It is not truly altruistic because it is helping others, but it is truly “selfish.” Whether an action is done to benefit others or onesel, it can always be selfish because benefiting others is benefiting oneself.

[Mike Z]

I think that humans have grown to be self-interest inherently, but that is not how we were originally intended to be. I think that we were created to serve and praise a most-high God, but we have made everything revolve around us. There are times I agree that we can change our actions to become selfless, and the organ donor premise is not a bad idea, but I would say that maybe blood donation is a better suggestion than that. Blood donors get absolutely nothing for what they do, but they make a huge difference in the world. The stats are that every donation saves about three lives. Granted they aren’t making a huge sacrifice, but they are still giving up something completely for the benefit of others. The golden rule is an excellent example of how we can use that self-centered mindset to motivate people to do good, and that shows how we do tend to look out for ourselves. However, there are times in life when a person has nothing to gain in a situation and they still do it. How can we question whether people only serve themselves, when there is no motivation behind their actions?

[Sara]

This statement could not possibly be true. If people only ever acted in their own self interest there would be no such thing as love. Unconditional love. Ask almost any parent if they were placed in a situation in which they had to decide between their life or their child's, they would without hesitation risk themselves and help further their child's existence. If we only always acted in our own self interest there would be no such thing as compromise. I realize that as stated above acting in one's self interest does not have to mean there is harm being done to another, but in many cases there would be. The infamous child drowning in the pond, you would save the child even though there is no benefit to you. The child gets to live and you are uncomfortable in your wet shoes for the rest of the day. Believing that humans only ever act out of their own self interest is, in my opinion, being very pessimistic about the human race. I realize that humans as a whole are very egocentric, however the world would be a cruel and selfish place if no one ever did a selfless act.

[Tom Carberry]

To say that people act purely out of their own self interest is ridiculous. I can understand how one could say that people should act out of self interest only, but to claim that people cannot perform completely unselfish acts is just wrong. Someone with this mentality has no way of explaining how someone donates anonymously to a charity. Some people act morally because they think it is the "right" thing to do. Whether or not they are making these decisions with the right judgment is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that people do perform unselfish acts that do not warrant any personal gain.

[Mike McArdle]

After reading Sara’s post about parents sacrificing their own lives to benefit the existence of their own child, right away I agreed with her. However, after thinking about it for a minute I decided that even that action isn’t completely altruistic. I think parents have a natural obligation to do whatever it takes to help further their child’s existence. While it may appear as an altruistic act to die for your own child, I believe that in the very end a parent will have a sense of satisfaction knowing he or she did everything they possibly could. At first I was going to refute the statement that everyone acts in their own self-interest by using Jesus Christ as an example. I thought more about it and realized this: this man died for our salvation, but was this a complete altruistic act? What one parent would do for his child, Jesus did for the world. Don’t you think he may have gained just a little bit of satisfaction from doing so? After all, if any of you were given the chance to die in order to save the world, would you take it? So I must side with the above statement. There is no such thing as a completely altruistic act, and every human being acts out of their self-interest in one way or another.

[Brian Joiner]

While thinking about the above statement one might first feel that people do act out of their own self interest all the time. After looking deeper at it you realize that it is a ridiculous statement that is easy to prove wrong. There are many different ways people act altruistically even if it does not seem that obvious. People are willing to donate things even though there are no benefits for them. For example people gave money after hurricane Katrina and it was necessarily in their interest too. People may not consider this to be altruistic and their argument may be well they can write it off in their taxes. My response to this would be well they could, but there are people who give more then they can write off just for the sake of helping others. They don’t need to benefit from their giving. Another argument against this example may be that people feel better about themselves so that’s why they donate. My response to this would be although some people feel better about themselves after donating others do it just to help others who are in need. They do not need to feel joy to donate money. Through this example it is clear to me that there are people out there that do act out of their own self interest; some act altruistically.

[Brian]

In response to Ron's argument I believe that all human beings in some way, act in their own self interest. It does not make sense for someone to do something that they are not motivated by. In Ron's example, he uses a person donating an organ. If the donator is either dead or alive, there is still some self motivation for doing this. It could be because the donator wants to be known as a kind and generous person. Or maybe, and I believe that in most cases where the donor is still alive, they are donating the organ to a family member. This can be in the donor's self interest simply because they do not want to see their family member die. In the other case when the person has already died, The donor may want to leave a mark on society and want someone to always feel like they owe something to them for saving their life.

[Paul Biasco]

I agree the the post before me by Sara. I think that it is no way that all humans act only out of self-interest. To say that there is no such thing as altruism without any end in sight is incorrect in my opinion. I agree with the point about unconditional love. When a mother sees her child injured, she is going to help him 100% of the time, no questions asked. A mother would take a bullet for her child. It could be argued that the reason for this is to continue the gene poll, but this would not do her any good. I can see where some altruistic actions may be means to a different end, such as giving to charity to make yourself feel good or helping someone out for a reason other than altruism or friendship. But I think there are some altruistic actions that are legitimatly kind. Love is the answer to this quote. Most people who are in love, be it unconditional or romantic will always act in a way to help or do something to benefit their love. There is no end to an action in a situation of unconditional love.

[Colleen]

Although I wish I had some argument against it, I too believe that all humans act out of self interest. In relation to the first comment made on this discussion question, yes it is true that donating organs is a very selfless act. However (and this could be way over-analyzing) it can be said that certain people simply donate organs for the reaction they will get from others. The glory of being a selfless person can benefit a person’s ego exceptionally. It’s pretty ironic, but by being a selfless person in this scenario is actually quite selfish. But don’t get me wrong, anyone who is willing to donate their organs to another is undoubtedly selfless. It is the deeper motives that get me to question a person’s integrity and morals. The same can be said for someone who performs volunteer work, are they doing it simply because they enjoy helping others (which can be true) or do they do it because people recognize them as a good person? It is hard for me to be certain whether or not people are completely oriented by self interest, however these conclusions lead me to believe that is true.

[Tom Miebach]

While it is true that the majority of human action can be traced to selfish motivations, to claim that people only act according to self-interest fails to acknowledge a range of social phenomena. Many of the selfless actions described in previous posts reflect the types of human behavior that can not be caused by naked self-interest. However, I would like to add the concept of social activism to this list. The devoted efforts by activists to create positive social change, even if it will not directly benefit them, display another side of humanity other than greed. Many believe it is their duty to correct social injustices and attempt to do so despite the social stigma that goes along with being an activist. Of course, one might argue that these people are socially active in order to receive some type of psychic satisfaction, a feeling of purpose, or some other psychologically pleasurable sensation. This may be plausible, yet I have a hard time believing that this psychological satisfaction outweighs the negative effects of activism on a person. For instance, consider someone who is a radical, perhaps a socialist. This person believes that his or her ideas will make vast change in the world for the better, yet the majority of others consider these ideas to be impractical, flawed, or even crazy. It is difficult walking through life with the constant mental strain of these radical ideas, always examining the problems of this planet, struggling to iron out a solution, and being ostracized on top of it all. Yet despite all of this these radicals continue forward in their quest to build a better tomorrow, a future that they will not even experience for themselves. It is in their self-interest to give up the dream, sell out, and join the mainstream yet they choose the more difficult path on a matter of principle. Call it what you may, but this seems fairly selfless to me.

[Tim Collins]

The quote talks about humans being inherently self-interested which in most cases is true. If you look at the business world right now each CEO is trying to make the most money for himself. Then there are exceptions like Bill Gates who makes enough money and is willing to donate a huge portion of is money to charities that help society’s self-interested. Does he do this because it’s in his self-interest to do so or does he do it because he is being an altruist? I understand that most people watch out for themselves which is fine by me, but I believe their should be more people like Bill Gates that act in ways that better society as a whole.

[Jorge Valdiviezo]

I guess i would have to agree with the fact that we do act out of our own self interest most of the time but in an indirect manner. I dont think it is correct to say there are no altruistic acts because i can personally say ive done things myself for the benefit of someone else not expecting anything in return or doing it for satisfaction of doing a good deed. If acting out of our self interest is such a bad thing at times why is it that both parties can benefit from it. It doesnt seem like such a bad thing after all. If i buy a homeless man a meal because it would make me feel better to not see a person starve then i get satisfaction in knowing this homeless man has something to eat and at the same time hes loving it cause hes prolly mackin on some macky D's. It doesnt seem rational to me that two positives make a negative. If anything it would prolly benefit more people overall if this started a chain reaction dont you think?

[Orlando Chavez]

I don't tink people always act out of self-interest. I used to believe this and i think that humans do enerally act out of self-interest but not always. One example that comes to my mind is fire fighters on 9-11. I don't think that a single fire fighter rused into the towers hoping to be called a hero or getting extra pay. if humans truly acted purely out of self-interest then humans wouldn't be so complicated. Every action would be rational and easy to understand and I don't think humans are this simple. There would be no altruistic actions if humans acted out of self-interest. I feel that psychological egoism is just a desprate way to try to explain human motives.

[Dallas]

I agree to the above statement for the most part, but notion that human beings are only looking out for themselves is not always true. I can only speak for myself but yes, the vast majority of the time, I approach any given situation with the view of manipulating the circumstances in my best interests. However, I can recall many instances where I have put others’ priorities before my own. For example, as the captain of many of the sports teams I have played on, I have had to put the team before myself. I may not have wanted to run extra sprints because a ball was not put away after practice but as a captain I assumed the responsibility. I did not tell the coach who was assigned to ball duty that day and place one of my teammates in a compromising position. Instead, I put my self-interest second and a teammate’s first. In another instance, the decision to put myself in the game over another player was left for me to decide. Even though I wanted to play more than anything, the other player was better equipped to handle the circumstances. Thus, for the most part, I feel human beings act in their own self-interest, but they are capable of acting in the interests of others.