Humanity: One Versus Many

Peguy said:
Well whatever. LOL!

Anyways did you check out that link I posted?
Click to expand...


No, I see it. Thank you! I will check it out.

:m172:
 
NeverAmI said:
Sometimes I word things incorrectly, I sometimes use words without knowing their full meaning. It has always been a problem of mine. I am more than welcome to any enlightening observations though.
Click to expand...

you, me and eternity.

I really don't have a vast knowledge on the subject, but from my own experience I have found myself doing things that arn't just good for other people but actually have negative inpacts on myself. Put simply I can't just not do something. i have a mentality of "If I don't do it, the who will."

This seems to counter the idea that were whole self serving, unles you see self as the whole of humanity. which seems to be your case, if this is true then do you ever do things taht put aside your needs and the needs of humanity as whole? if so then the idea that we act soley to fufill our primary needs and wants can be thrown out the door.
 
TheLastMohican said:
It has nothing to do with "secret plotting," nor does it mean that we cannot act to benefit others without directly benefiting ourselves. But the very fact that a particular person is doing something means that that person is wanting to do it on some level, and therefore he must have some interest in it. Consider a soldier jumping on a grenade: his friends in the foxhole are not carrying on his genes, and he is acting to ensure an end to his own life... so what drives such action? Well, he knows that if he absorbs the blast, then his friends have a good chance of surviving, whereas none of them would have a good chance if no one jumped on the grenade. So he is acting to minimize the harm done by the grenade, not to his own person, but to all the people in the foxhole as a group. We do have evolutionarily ingrained urges to help other humans, and the soldier is acting on those based on an emotional judgment.
Click to expand...


What proves it was an emotional judgement? Of course you are going to see emotions surging in anyone in a war situation, the mental activity in a state of war is by no means an ideal test environment.

I believe the decision could have absolutely no emotional investment. Perhaps the soldier believes they will most likely die anyway, but on the off chance they don't then doing this will ensure at least someone walks away. Also, he may assume no one else will be willing to make the sacrifice and him sacrificing himself is the most logical choice because either they would all die or only one will.
 
Last edited:
TheLastMohican said:
It has nothing to do with "secret plotting," nor does it mean that we cannot act to benefit others without directly benefiting ourselves.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree.
 
Group selection was prematurely written off in the 60s by scientists that were caught up in the cultural tide of individualism. Groups can operate as units of selection just as much as individuals can. Groups made up of mostly altruists inevitably outcompete groups made up mostly of selfish individuals (think of team sports).

This series might interest you NAI:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/2009/10/truth_and_reconciliation_for_g.php
 
NeverAmI said:
What what proves it was an emotional judgement? Of course you are going to see emotions surging in anyone in a war situation, the mental activity in a state of war is by no means an ideal test environment.

I believe the decision could have absolutely no emotional investment. Perhaps the soldier believes they will most likely die anyway, but on the off chance they don't then doing this will ensure at least someone walks away. Also, he may assume no one else will be willing to make the sacrifice and him sacrificing himself is the most logical choice because either they would all die or only one will.
Click to expand...
Emotion provides the belief that their survival is good, and that it is a goal worthy of sacrifice.
 
I don't really believe in altruism. I don't think it's possible for people to do anything without some benefit in mind.

Perhaps there is enlightened self-interest in helping other people to one's detriment... But the benefit received is the notion that one is building character, and then that person can feel good about themselves within a culture that holds generosity and self-sacrifice as virtues. I don't think that the good feeling people get from helping others negates the goodness of their deed. It's not easy to make sacrifices to benefit another person, so it is commendable.. but it's not possible for someone to selfishly give to their own detriment and expect absolutely nothing for it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I could live a fulfilled life, and do it alone. I need other people in my life. I feel that we need other people to live, and we instinctively help others to keep the group going.

Sometimes I help others with some sort of benefit in mind. I've volunteered for things because I know it will 'look good'. Other times I simply make rash decisions to help others without a second thought. A few days ago walking across campus I tackled a kick out from in front of a bus (the idiot was listening to his headphones and never looked before crossing the street. Sure, I felt good afterwords, but it was never my [conscious] intention to feel good. Last year I saw a girl get hit by a car, and ran over to see what I could do to help her. I didn't think about what I was doing until after the event.

Both times that I acted rashly, I did it without consciously thinking about any sort of personal benefit. I felt good after, and maybe that's a reaffirming thing to make sure I do such things in the future, but any good that came out of it was a by-product of the action.

I believe we're all connected at some level in existence, and for what ever the reason is, most of us work to benefit the whole.
 
Restraint said:
But if you're not happy and fulfilled, and don't feel "free" to make others happy, but do so anyway, even sacrificing your own well being, then how does this factor in the whole self-interest/selfishness paradigm?
Click to expand...

The main issue I struggle with on this issue is the idea of receiving "emotions" as the benefit of performing altruistic acts. On a subconscious level we have notions of what being a good person is, and that is often helping people without any regard for self, giving money, and stuff like that. Even if you preform an act with no conscious thought "This makes me a good person" I think that subconsciously, you may want to consider yourself a good person and as such, perform an altruistic act; making the act of altruism false.
 
Reon said:
The main issue I struggle with on this issue is the idea of receiving "emotions" as the benefit of performing altruistic acts. On a subconscious level we have notions of what being a good person is, and that is often helping people without any regard for self, giving money, and stuff like that. Even if you preform an act with no conscious thought "This makes me a good person" I think that subconsciously, you may want to consider yourself a good person and as such, perform an altruistic act; making the act of altruism false.
Click to expand...

Suppose, for argument's sake, you don't care on a conscious or subconscious level, whether or not doing something makes you a good person, how does that factor into the equation?
 
Restraint said:
Suppose, for argument's sake, you don't care on a conscious or subconscious level, whether or not doing something makes you a good person, how does that factor into the equation?
Click to expand...

Then that would be an altruistic act. I do find that to be a hard set of circumstances to fulfill, humans are emotional creatures.
 
Restraint said:
Respectfully disagree.
Click to expand...

Is the thought of someone doing some act in which to help others without the intent of any sort of reciprocating actions? One cannot be good for the sake of being good? Does that mean that if I were to hold a door open for you that means more than just a courtesy? People whom help other for only the sake of helping do exist.
 
I think ultimately I am more likely to help someone that has something to offer such as an attractive woman or someone that seems interesting. However, sometimes I help simply to help. It really isn't an emotional thing. Someone needs help, I understand their situation, it makes sense to help rather than to ignore it.

I don't know. I suppose I do expect a "thank you." GIVE ME MY THANK YOU DAMNIT!
 
kavalan said:
Is the thought of someone doing some act in which to help others without the intent of any sort of reciprocating actions? One cannot be good for the sake of being good? Does that mean that if I were to hold a door open for you that means more than just a courtesy? People whom help other for only the sake of helping do exist.
Click to expand...

When i said, i "respectfully disagree," this ^^ is what i meant. My impression was that LM was saying just the opposite.
 
Hmm I find that acting to benefit others naturally benefits me. I find that i.e. helping others is not what so ever driven by intentions of benefiting myself, consciously or unconsciously (!!), other than the fact that when I can help others I become very happy. In other words mutually benefitial. Unless helping others is a basic need of mine, then I am definetly driven by it. When people are way up high or down low, then I am too. In some way, I am my environment.. :)

However, I see why the concept is frustrating though. When it comes to sacrificing for the sake of something as 'big' as humanity, it falls apart! I think this is because one thinks of oneself in relation to all of humanity, which is then extremely tiny and may seem pointless.
 
Last edited:
NeverAmI said:
So my question is, do you believe that ultimately, underneath it all we are completely driven by our own basic needs? I personally I see a community, humanity as a whole, as more important than myself. I see the survival of humanity as the ultimate achievement. This does touch closely to the basic survivalist instinct shown by others, but it is about the survival of humanity as a whole, and not necessarily the survival of myself.
Click to expand...

I find that self interest is far stronger in me when things are not going so well. I know some people revel in the realities of hardship because it inspires them to "do good", however I am largely the opposite.

I can sympathise with your view, neverami, that the ultimate goal is the survival of humanity, and that such a nation and aim is hardwired into us as a species. However, with the gifts of reflection and thought, I think we are able to question the point of our continued existence when we take into consideration HOW that existence is maintained.

I'm not sure where I stand on this but I know I have the capacity to both despise and love humans, collectively and individually.
 
I do not think we are driven solely by our own needs, and I think the more truly human we become the more we can act and think outside our own self-interest. In fact, I think this happens all the time. Most discussion I've seen trying to deny this generally degenerate into hypothetical nit-picking of sub motives hidden beneath other sub motives to try to isolate a shred of self-interest just to prove a point.....I think such minute theoretical shreds of sub-sub-self-conscious self-interest are not even worth measuring. I think it best just to live in one's highest self and seek the kind of inner liberation that sets all the calculating aside.
 
Last edited:
I kinda always hated the saying "treat others the way you want to be treated". To me it was saying that if you want to be treated well, then you have to treat others well. I kind of see it as selfish in some sense. I know a lot of people treat others well just because it's the right thing to do (and yes, I'm positive it's the right thing to do), but I feel like some people only treat others nicely because they want to be treated nicely.

Everyone deserves respect, and I don't act nicely towards others because I want them to act that way to me. I just do it because it's right.
 
Restraint said:
When i said, i "respectfully disagree," this ^^ is what i meant. My impression was that LM was saying just the opposite.
Click to expand...

I see. What I read from his entire post was that if you split hairs enough there does exist some self gain whether or not you were wanting it. Which is true they me be quite abstract gains but nonetheless they are there. I was thinking that you were disagreeing with the notion that there doesn't have to be self gain as was part of the statement you quoted.

My bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top