My supporting POV on selfishness motivating human moral values

[Tonus]

When you say most people "don't think like that", surely you know that is a very naive generalization, right? Do you really believe that people, in general, operate without an agenda of some kind or at least on some small level?

I think that we all do, on a subconscious level. But we also don't like to feel as if we are doing things that are socially unacceptable, so we will consciously resist the idea that we are selfish.

But I agree with the point that you can expand selfishness until every action is selfish. If helping another person makes you feel good, are you acting out of selfishness? If being generous makes the community stronger and therefore benefits you, are you acting out of selfishness? If everything we do is motivated by selfishness on some level, then selfishness is simply a common state and not worth defining. I think we make those exceptions in order to differentiate between 'selfishness' that benefits the group, and selfishness that harms the group.

Example- I give generously of my time and money to help the poor, and it makes me feel good (selfish) and look good to the community (selfish) and the benefit to the community applies to me as well (selfish). On the other hand, let's say that instead of doing that, I occasionally beat up people and take their money. It makes me feel powerful (selfish) and benefits me financially (selfish). Those are not equivalent, even if we define both as selfish. In particular, the community and the individuals within are much more grateful for the former display of 'selfishness' than the latter.

...except for the well-paid police force that the latter version of me makes necessary, anyway.

[smax]

Then you would seem to have a very poor grasp of it.

I understand empathy fine, I just see it as a clear product of self interest. Empathy is the ability to share the feelings of another. But, the fact is, you aren't that person, you are you. So, really, what you are doing is attempting to share the feelings of another, and you are using your own framework to simulate that feeling. That's why people typically do not empathize with people or beings that they do not understand. There's little or no basis to begin that process. You need some kind of common ground to justify the process of empathy, and that is rooted in selfish interest. Example: this person is sad because she just lost her loved one. I feel bad for her and can imagine how she is feeling because I would feel bad if I lost a love one. This person is with me on my feeling that losing a loved one is a negative experience.  

Yes, hence why I don't make a habit of squishing them, and often help spiders and moths out of the house when I can. 

And how many sleepless nights have you had over the ones who didn't survive this loose policy of yours?

As for humans, yes I do, because I happen to be one of them and automatically come equipped with, and I feel I must bold it this time...empathy. I really had little choice in the matter, it was hard-wired into my DNA.

Care to offer any, and I feel I must bold this, compelling evidence?

To a point, yes. I am capable of empathising with even the likes of Hitler and Stalin to a certain extent.

If it's "hard wired" into your DNA, why is it merely to a point?

I truly hope it is

And there we have it. At the heart of your objection is merely an individual emotional desire to view the world in a way that you feel favors you.

[smax]

Thanksgiving is LITERALLY the celebration of Native American slaughter.

No, it isn't.

Yeah, how often do you get together and celebrate Thanksgiving with Native Americans?

[smax]

The whole point of the theory and this discussion is to examine the root of moral values. And, it sounds like, as you examine the root of your own actions, you are coming to realize that selfishness (self-interest) is at the root. 

People also associate the word "selfish" as socially negative and as something commonly accepted as an unappealing characteristic. Therefore, in the pursuit of self interest, the word "selfish" is naturally rejected by the self serving individual.

I definitely do not find selfishness at the root of my own actions. Even though I'm a selfish person, most of my actions are done out of boredom, or an effort to combat boredom and my moral values come from a wide myriad of places.  It's not a 'selfish' thing to deal with one's own boredom because there is no selfless alternative. It's not more selfish or selfless to remain bored. Selfishness has nothing to do with it and I think you and the other people who make this argument are just inserting selfish motivations everywhere where there are none. What I am finding more and more is that you've expanded the definition of selfishness to the point of ridiculousness. If Squashing a spider, not squashing a spider, eating a dog and not eating a dog are all selfish actions than it's a pointless definition that can be used on anything. NOT that everything is selfish.

Your problem is, you want to simplify the matter and say "Either eating a dog is selfish or having one as a pet is. NOT BOTH!!!". 

The reality is, both actions are clearly motivated by self interest. Until you understand that, I doubt there is any chance of you understanding the concept of selfishness being at the root of moral values.

[CapnAwesome]

I definitely do not find selfishness at the root of my own actions. Even though I'm a selfish person, most of my actions are done out of boredom, or an effort to combat boredom and my moral values come from a wide myriad of places.  It's not a 'selfish' thing to deal with one's own boredom because there is no selfless alternative. It's not more selfish or selfless to remain bored. Selfishness has nothing to do with it and I think you and the other people who make this argument are just inserting selfish motivations everywhere where there are none. What I am finding more and more is that you've expanded the definition of selfishness to the point of ridiculousness. If Squashing a spider, not squashing a spider, eating a dog and not eating a dog are all selfish actions than it's a pointless definition that can be used on anything. NOT that everything is selfish.

Your problem is, you want to simplify the matter and say "Either eating a dog is selfish or having one as a pet is. NOT BOTH!!!". 

The reality is, both actions are clearly motivated by self interest. Until you understand that, I doubt there is any chance of you understanding the concept of selfishness being at the root of moral values.

Like I've repeated half a dozen times with no reply, you've just changed the definition to the point where it doesn't matter and can apply to anything and then fit it into everything. I could do the same thing with almost any motivation. I'll take boredom.

People aren't eating their pet dogs because the dogs provide them something to do and alieviate boredom in the future.
People eat dogs in some country because eating alleviates boredom.
People squash spiders because the temporary fear and combat of fighting the spider is really better than being bored.
People don't squash spiders because having them around with provide small moments of entertainment that will prevent future boredom.

Now I don't actually believe that, but this is exactly what you are doing, except with selfishness. You are squeezing selfish motivations into everything, even when most of the time it's really a stretch. Also saying that I'll understand what you are saying when I've already accepted your basic premise is circular and dumb. As is this whole concept, which I think I am done debating.

[smax]

When you say most people "don't think like that", surely you know that is a very naive generalization, right? Do you really believe that people, in general, operate without an agenda of some kind or at least on some small level?

I think that we all do, on a subconscious level.  But we also don't like to feel as if we are doing things that are socially unacceptable, so we will consciously resist the idea that we are selfish.

But I agree with the point that you can expand selfishness until every action is selfish.  If helping another person makes you feel good, are you acting out of selfishness?  If being generous makes the community stronger and therefore benefits you, are you acting out of selfishness?  If everything we do is motivated by selfishness on some level, then selfishness is simply a common state and not worth defining.  I think we make those exceptions in order to differentiate between 'selfishness' that benefits the group, and selfishness that harms the group.

Example- I give generously of my time and money to help the poor, and it makes me feel good (selfish) and look good to the community (selfish) and the benefit to the community applies to me as well (selfish).  On the other hand, let's say that instead of doing that, I occasionally beat up people and take their money.  It makes me feel powerful (selfish) and benefits me financially (selfish).  Those are not equivalent, even if we define both as selfish.  In particular, the community and the individuals within are much more grateful for the former display of 'selfishness' than the latter.

...except for the well-paid police force that the latter version of me makes necessary, anyway.

I agree with everything in your post, except the notion that selfishness loses meaning because of it's universal applications. You have to remember that we aren't talking about good or evil, or what does or does not benefit the overall collective. We are talking about the source of what motivates people. 

You give generously while another guy takes aggressively. Both actions are motivated by selfish interest, it's just a different point of view, different set of circumstances, and very likely a different child hood and place of environmental development that are at work in the different applications of selfishness. 

I believe the theory that selfishness is at the root of moral values, and I think it's the most clear answer to the question: where do moral values come from?

That said, I think people have a difficult time talking about the source of things and would rather talk about surface level issues. For the record, and somewhat on the surface, I prefer your approach to satisfying your selfish interests over that of an aggressive taker. Your way of satisfying self interest also serves my self interests. Selfishness, given enough deep consideration by the individual, will ultimately prove to serve others as well because the individual needs others for friendship, conversation, love, work, service, and whole host of other things.

[Aristocatt]

Disproving weak egoism seems pretty much impossible. However the extent to which you need to dilute egoism to make it intellectually air tight makes it, from a pragmatic perspective, worthless. I generally think that discussions of morality should have some pragmatic application.

These kinds of arguments, to me, feel like the arguments people bring in support of a rhetorical God. Congratulations, you have defined the universe and all the laws within it as being some kind of God. You still haven't differentiated yourself in anyway from atheists, except in your definition of God. The rhetorical account of god always seemed like a cop out for people who don't want to be ostracized for their lack of belief in a logical(e.g. unmoved mover), or active(e.g. biblical) representation of god.

[smax]

Like I've repeated half a dozen times with no reply, you've just changed the definition to the point where it doesn't matter and can apply to anything and then fit it into everything. I could do the same thing with almost any motivation. I'll take boredom.

People aren't eating their pet dogs because the dogs provide them something to do and alieviate boredom in the future.

People eat dogs in some country because eating alleviates boredom

People squash spiders because the temporary fear and combat of fighting the spider is really better than being bored.

People don't squash spiders because having them around with provide small moments of entertainment that will prevent future boredom.

Now I don't actually believe that, but this is exactly what you are doing, except with selfishness. You are squeezing selfish motivations into everything, even when most of the time it's really a stretch. Also saying that I'll understand what you are saying when I've already accepted your basic premise is circular and dumb. As is this whole concept, which I think I am done debating.

Without self interest, boredom isn't even a consideration.

[smax]

Disproving weak egoism seems pretty much impossible.  However the extent to which you need to dilute egoism to make it intellectually air tight makes it, from a pragmatic perspective, worthless.  I generally think that discussions of morality should have some pragmatic application.

These kinds of arguments, to me, feel like the arguments people bring in support of a rhetorical God.  Congratulations, you have defined the universe and all the laws within it as being some kind of God.  You still haven't differentiated yourself in anyway from atheists, except in your definition of God.  The rhetorical account of god always seemed like a cop out for people who don't want to be ostracized for their lack of belief in a logical(e.g. unmoved mover), or active(e.g. biblical) representation of god.

I think the word "dilute" is poorly used here, especially when you offer no position on the matter at all, other than to object to the method of presentation. Basically you want a discussion, which should search the deep meaning behind individual actions, to be limited to a surface level discussion. 

In other words, you would rather not consider the source of morality, and would rather just focus on the commonly accepted right/wrong or good/evil subject matter of morality, which is a surface level discussion. That would be the pragmatic thing to do, right? 

Hey, stealing and rape and murder are wrong and not doing those things is right. I don't care how we reached that general consensus, the important thing is that we got there. Boo yah!

Glad we cleared that up. Saved ourselves from really considering the matter. Case closed.

[KevinM1]

How many people do you think are charitable and like to help people and yet do not have any expectation of, in the very least feeling better about themselves as a result? And, for many others, there are even more significant motivations at work, like personal recognition or having someone feel like they owe them an unspoken debt of some kind.

I call those people assholes.  They're not to be emulated, or placed as an example of how normal people act, IMO.

Doing charitable acts because you like the warm fuzzies?  Sure, that's acceptable.

But, maybe I'm weird, but when I donate money and/or time to a charity, my biggest concern is that the people involved get the help they need.  I don't do it for the feelings, but sometimes the feelings crop up afterward naturally.  I think that's an important distinction.

When you say most people "don't think like that", surely you know that is a very naive generalization, right? Do you really believe that people, in general, operate without an agenda of some kind or at least on some small level?

You seem to think that people act with a selfish agenda all the time.  I know, with absolute certainty, that I don't.  Most of the time?  Sure, self-interest plays into it to a certain extent.  But it doesn't motivate all my actions.  I expect nothing in return from my friends or family, and a lot of what I do I simply do.  Whether it's listening to them vent, or helping them with a computer issue, or whatever.  And I don't even get warm fuzzies doing a lot of it.  It's just something that I have the ability and time to provide, so why not?  It's no big deal.  It's not even a way of alleviating boredom.  I have plenty of things available to me for entertainment.

And I'm not trying to pull some sort of "I'm more moral than you" crap by saying this.  Nor am I being obstinate for shits and giggles.  I honestly don't do everything with the expectation of getting some kind of feedback - emotional or otherwise - in return.  Maybe I'm deficient, I don't know.