 Quote:
Originally Posted by Katczinsky  Boomboy, all actions for the sake of self-interest is already a philosophy; it was popularized by Ayn Rand and is called objectivism. Though most philosophers don't really take her seriously.
Obviously, everyone wants happiness; it's a link between all humans. But I don't think all actions are specifically for the purpose of self-interest. Genuine compassion puts the interests of others before yours'. Granted, Buddhism says one can obtain enlightenment and happiness, but the key to enlightenment may never be obtained if you seek enlightenment for your own satisfaction. Buddhism essentially teaches the total abdication of one's own self-interest for the interests of others (true compassion) as a precondition to enlightenment. In other words, you've reached enlightenment once you truly don't care about enlightenment and happiness for your own sake, but so that you may be in a position to help others.
Now, I'm sure there are ulterior subconscious yearnings for the happiness of self, as it is biological. But not everything is purely self-interest. Compassion (interest of others before the self) is actually just as biological too. Surely, without compassion, the human race wouldn't have survived its evolution. Just because own 'feels good' when they're being compassionate doesn't mean the motives behind the person were purely in their self-interest (otherwise, it really wouldn't be compassion in the first place, and one wouldn't get the 'reward' of 'feeling good').
I guess what I'm saying is that, to say that people act in their own interests is being obvious. But to say that ultruism doesn't exist is just being naively pessimistic. | Studies show that most people spend 95% of their time thinking about themselves. And whilst I admire Buddhist concepts if you are trying to reach enlightenment that would be for your own slef interest and happiness despite the path you take to get there.
I don't think people do very much without the thought of self as its primary focus and I don't think this lessens acts of compassion Does it really matter if someone does something because it not only helps another person but it makes them feel happy too. Human beings are by our own nature selfish and motivated by self interested like all other animals. We just like to pretend we are more noble but we aren't really but if this makes us happy then we are pursuing happiness and there is nothing wrong with that. Its the dishonesty when we try to pretend we are something we are not that makes us unhappy. I do things for others because it helps them and that makes me feel happy about me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Ultruism doesn't truelly exist and to say it does when it clearly doesn't in naively hopeful when everything around us shows the complete opposite and even our own nature shows us the opposite. We do thoings because in the end we feel happy with ourselves, motivation doesn't matter
As for Rand she really explained in some ways the true nature of modern society which is all about the individual and but further making sure you loom after any responsibility you choose. Of course there are some whacked out stuff in her concepts but much of it is the basis for modern thought even if people like to pretend she isn't. A link on the Rand Society website "Since the mind is an attribute of the individual, the continued existence of each person is ultimately, up to himself. People morally ought to think for themselves. This is the doctrine of rational egoism, or rational individualism. It is each individuals' moral responsibility to "look out for number one." If a man is persuaded, on the other hand, that his existence is not up to him, but to others (society, the government) he will be transformed into a helpless parasite, demanding that others sacrifice for him. It is morally up to each individual to look out for number one, but not only number one. When we choose to bear certain responsibilities (such as responsibilities to our children or spouse) we are morally obligated to come through for them. Objectivism says that there are no unchosen moral obligations to others or to "society." Objectivism rejects altruism, the theory that the most noble of actions are those that benefit others by means of the sacrifice of one's own values. No one has any moral claim to your time or money simply because they might need it. Now, actions intended to benefit others may well be simply benevolent, or expressions of compassion or charity, which are good. Morally speaking, you can't tell whether an action is good or evil just by looking at who benefits from it. Rand rejected this "beneficiary criterion" of moral value. The other side of the coin is that Objectivism rejects predation--actions taken to benefit you by means of the sacrifice of others to yourself. By rational egoism, Rand meant that morality consists in acting in accordance with the general principles that make human life worth living, and pursuing those values which are in our rationally determinable actual interests, whether we happen to feel like it, or not."
Last edited by Gadgetory; 10-25-2007 at 05:57 PM.
|