Is anything done without a self-centered purpose?

Author: Critical-Tim
Morality
human nature
Selflessness
Kindness

Posts

Total: 67
Topic's author
#1
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
Topic Description:
I would like to explore different case scenarios where a person could be viewed as being completely selfless and virtuous. Then we will examine closely whether they received something in return.

We will cover the following questions to get started:
Can humans truly act selflessly?
Does anyone truly act selflessly?
Should anyone truly act selflessly?


Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
  • NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
  • Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
  • Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
  • Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
  • Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
  • Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
  • Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
  • Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.



Topic's author
#2
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions. This can range from straightforward transactions, like buying something, to more complex situations, such as fostering mutually beneficial relationships. Even when giving seemingly selflessly, individuals often receive intangible rewards, like a sense of virtue or emotional fulfillment. In essence, I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.
Topic's author
#3
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
My favorite quote: "A man's worth is determined by how much truth he can tolerate." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I believe it has impacted me because I can see it in myself and everyone around me. We seek to understand the world, thus we build a structure to interpret it, but the world always changes, and we gain deeper understanding as we learn. The world cannot remain constrained to our past understanding, but we feel it necessary to persist when it is time to let go. I now having identified this flaw in myself can actively seek to fix it. People are naturally bent in a subjective flaw of imperfection; it is only by actively striving can we force our naturally bent nature to stand upright.
#4
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.
Or to avoid negative consequences such as the feeling of guilt for not having taken that action.
#5
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Chinese war heroes at the Korean war have:
  1. Use their body as a shield to block a cannonball so as to blow up where he intended, not where the enemy intended.
  2. Use their body as a conductor so the telephone line is connected and communications can resume, despite their own bodies being electrocuted severely
  3. Sent 1 apple into a trench amidst one of the most active battlefields, almost dying
That is as selfless as it gets. 

Topic's author
#6
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@TwoMan
Or to avoid negative consequences such as the feeling of guilt for not having taken that action.
Which could be viewed as gaining peace of mind.
Topic's author
#7
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yes, I agree that is a selfless as society could possibly achieve.

The question is whether they received something in self-interest physical or not. Of course, some people regret realizing that the cost was not sufficient for the reward, but I'm referring to people who intended to receive something.

It seems that you described truly horrific and physically demanding events in war that were unnecessary and voluntarily accepted.
What was it they were really doing? They were not killing themselves for no point. Instead, they had a mission one that they were willing to put their life on the line for even knowing that there was almost certainty or there was certainty of their death. They were willing to risk everything in order to achieve that goal. Why was that goal so incredibly important to them? Did they no longer value their life, or did they value other lives more than their own?

I believe that one obtains meaning through the pursuit of one's aspirations. I believe that these soldiers gained a sense of meaning and purpose that was missing in their life beforehand. They would never have another opportunity again to amount to something because in the past they viewed themselves as useless and pointless existing beings. Instead, now they could do something that would save many lives by giving up their own which is the definition of selflessness as you care about others more than yourself. However, in doing so one gains a sense of meaning that is associated with becoming the hero and I believe that it is meaning that they received in return. Meaning is a powerful force and to recognize people will sacrifice their own life to die with meaning is imperative. In other words, I don't think they volunteered to kill themselves for no point I believe they had a point, and that point was what they believed was worth dying for and what they believed was worth dying for was their aspiration and it was in that pursuit that they obtained meaning. To live without meaning is to never live, but to die with meaning is to have lived for a moment.
#8
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim

We will cover the following questions to get started:
Can humans truly act selflessly?
Does anyone truly act selflessly?
Should anyone truly act selflessly?
1. No.
2. No.
3. It's not a matter of "should." They can't. Every action one takes is necessarily subject to one's own evaluation. Performing an act to one's own benefit doesn't necessarily exclude the benefit of others. Social interaction is predicated on the nexus of maximizing one's own utility while minimizing the suffering of others.
Topic's author
#9
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
Could you explain the reasoning behind your response of "No?"
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
We're examining the human condition yet again.

Relative to the self, and the conflict/balance between the nature of the instinctive and the nature of intellect and conceptuality.

And as ever, we could always expand the discussion to include the universal role of the intellectual species.



Can we truly act selflessly.

Perhaps in extreme circumstances, we are programmed to put the survival of the species before the survival of the self.



Though one can only be an altruist, if one can afford to be an altruist.
Topic's author
#11
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you suggesting we should view human nature from a darwinian perspective, and what do you believe this would imply?
What do you mean by one can only be an altruist if one can afford to be an altruist?
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Altruism depends upon the survivability of the altruist.

I wasn't necessarily implying financial affordability.

Though financial affordability is obviously a modern necessity.



Pre Darwin, Darwin or post Darwin.

My thoughts and ideas generally centre around the universal purpose/chance conundrum.

And as you have probably noticed I tend to run with universal purpose.

Whereby everything from start to finish has an inbuilt purpose/strategy.

So species and species survival and development comes with an inbuilt purpose/strategy.
#13
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions.
This is an overly simplistic attempt to make altruism into its opposite, selfishness, and it is an extremely weak argument to present it “as if” by definition it is the “sane” and “rational” response.  Human beings simply are not "reducible" to something that the word “rational” can circumscribe, we are much more than that, that word is essential, but it is by no means exhaustive.  We are not just rational beings; we are also sensate, emotional, and spiritual beings, and because of the uniquely human way that we experience reality, we live in a universe imbued with values, meaning and purpose. 

This can range from straightforward transactions, like buying something, to more complex situations, such as fostering mutually beneficial relationships. Even when giving seemingly selflessly, individuals often receive intangible rewards, like a sense of virtue or emotional fulfillment. In essence, I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.
Your belief is not consistent with observations, human inclinations are not primarily selfish, altruism refers to behavior that benefits another individual at a cost to oneself, and your simple mechanistic explanation of expectations of later reciprocity cannot account for all altruistic behavior.  There are plenty examples of sacrificial behavior that in no way benefits the individual, what expectation of return can the man who throws himself on a grenade to save others have?

Rather than “seeking something in return for their actions”, I think the source of “good deeds” lies in the individual transcending the realm in which their own materiality is located and extending our awareness and being to include the experience created in others by our actions.  Rather than giving in order to get something, many people adopt a perspective that defines life as good in terms of the contribution made to others. There is a realm in which we are truly one with our fellow man, it has nothing to do with religion or dogma; it is simply a matter of adopting a perspective that defines self in more expansive terms, and it is ia matter of human nature to do so.




Topic's author
#14
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you believe the purpose of all living creatures is to live, or do you believe there is an overarching purpose that necessitates living?
Topic's author
#15
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that altruism does not mean acting selflessly. Instead, I think it might mean spreading your stability among a community.

As I was saying above, and as far as I can tell, every action that is made has a self-centered purpose, yet people are still considered altruistic. How can this be?
I still notice that in altruistic people their motives still had a self-centered purpose, but the difference lies in that they distribute their stability among a community so that if anyone is misfortunate, they share the load.
Topic's author
#16
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Sidewalker
I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions.
This is an overly simplistic attempt to make altruism into its opposite, selfishness, and it is an extremely weak argument to present it “as if” by definition it is the “sane” and “rational” response.  Human beings simply are not "reducible" to something that the word “rational” can circumscribe, we are much more than that, that word is essential, but it is by no means exhaustive.  We are not just rational beings; we are also sensate, emotional, and spiritual beings, and because of the uniquely human way that we experience reality, we live in a universe imbued with values, meaning and purpose. 
I have removed sane from my quote because I believe it presents the wrong idea, that the majority of people are insane because they act altruistically. The idea I'm trying to present is that all altruistic actions have a self-centered purpose but yet the self-centered purpose. I'm not trying to idea that selfish and altruistic people are the same. I'm trying to understand how a person is considered altruistic, even though they receive something in return for their actions.

Interestingly you highlight how the universe is imbued with many values and meanings that people clearly see, but what fascinates me is that it does not appear we can choose what we value but that it is given to us, almost like we are a puppet of our desires. I imagine a truly divine being as acting in a way I suppose that would act least like that of an animal, controlled by their emotions. I recognize people are not controlled by their emotions and they have the ability to think about their actions but I also notice that many people have a harder time than others in controlling their emotions, letting their emotions control them. If we are to define the difference between human and animal that we have the ability to act on our thoughts and deny our emotions, this might imply that different people have different levels of divinity??

This can range from straightforward transactions, like buying something, to more complex situations, such as fostering mutually beneficial relationships. Even when giving seemingly selflessly, individuals often receive intangible rewards, like a sense of virtue or emotional fulfillment. In essence, I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.
Your belief is not consistent with observations, human inclinations are not primarily selfish, altruism refers to behavior that benefits another individual at a cost to oneself, and your simple mechanistic explanation of expectations of later reciprocity cannot account for all altruistic behavior.  There are plenty examples of sacrificial behavior that in no way benefits the individual, what expectation of return can the man who throws himself on a grenade to save others have?

Rather than “seeking something in return for their actions”, I think the source of “good deeds” lies in the individual transcending the realm in which their own materiality is located and extending our awareness and being to include the experience created in others by our actions.  Rather than giving in order to get something, many people adopt a perspective that defines life as good in terms of the contribution made to others. There is a realm in which we are truly one with our fellow man, it has nothing to do with religion or dogma; it is simply a matter of adopting a perspective that defines self in more expansive terms, and it is ia matter of human nature to do so.
Your example of a person throwing themselves on a grenade to save others is excellent, and many would consider them an altruistic individual. I recognize some people if had a grenade would throw themselves on it voluntarily with no alternative purpose, but I see your example necessitates the saving of others, not a simple suicide. It is possible that the person has been told they would receive treasures in heaven such as kamikazes, but I see your example necessitates the absence of a religious dogma.

First, I would say that hardly any atheistic people would throw themselves on a grenade for any reason except to escape the world and not to save others. However, I am aware some atheistic people find meaning and value in life worthwhile. Some even find meaning through serving others and value through their heroic actions. I would suggest that an individual who sacrifices themself for others without being religious is doing so to live a life that is meaningful.

I do not believe a person would live a long life if it was meaningless. Instead, they would either end their life because a world with intrinsic suffering that has no meaning is rationally unbearable, or they have found their meaning and even if the pursuit leads to death a short meaningful life is better than a long meaningless one. To put it simply, it doesn't seem reasonable that an individual would throw themself on a grenade to save others and not gain a sense of value or meaning, and remembering that a meaningless life is not worth the suffering it is the rational self-untrusted action that one should gain meaning even at the sacrifice of their life.
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Firstly, let me reiterate...I do not believe.

In this instance I am aware of two basic options, namely purposeful and purposeless, and one can provide arguments and reasons or both.

Though interestingly a third option arises, namely purposeful purposelessness, and I think that in this option is where my preferred ideas are founded.




I think that altruism does not mean acting selflessly.
I would agree.

As I stated, altruism has to be affordable in every sense of the word.

And I would also suggest that altruism must also be self-rewarding.




Topic's author
#18
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Would you explain further about purposeful purposelessness; I haven't heard of it before.
On the surface it seems contradictory, but I'm certain it means something more intuitive.
#19
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
Could you explain the reasoning behind your response of "No?"
Because "interest" is inextricably linked to the self. Because "experience" "perception" and "perspective" is inextricably linked to the self. Can one do something for someone without little to no concern for the self? No, because the act itself is motivated and carried out as a result of one's interest.
Topic's author
#20
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
Do you think it is possible for people to act without self-interest, such as out of morals, ethics, or otherwise?
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Well.

You won't of heard of it because I made it up.

Let me explain.

So everything, as in a primary universal creation event, is/was a purely chance occurrence and therefore essentially purposeless.

Nonetheless, the evolving purposeless universe created it's own purpose, whereby it was able to successively re-create itself.

Within this context the evolution of intelligent and manipulative structures is probably the  key factor.

Intelligent and manipulative structures are the GOD that perpetuates the universal and material sequence, if you like.

Whether or not Earthborn humans are the ultimate manifestation of manipulative structures and therefore the ultimate GOD, will depend perhaps on two factors.

1. A.I...As in Earthborn alternative intelligence.

2. A.I...As in Alien intelligence of some other origin.


Perhaps sounds a bit Sci-fi.

But I think in essence, as reasonable a hypothesis as any other.


Though, the beginning remains unanswerable.

And any previous GOD will either require a previous GOD or a chance event.
#22
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you think it is possible for people to act without self-interest, such as out of morals, ethics, or otherwise?
Doesn't one embrace morals and ethics because of self-interest? That is to maximize one's own utility at little cost?
Topic's author
#23
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I enjoyed the originality of your hypothesis, and it seems quite interesting, as I thought it would be.
Topic's author
#24
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
Do you think it is possible for people to act without self-interest, such as out of morals, ethics, or otherwise?
Doesn't one embrace morals and ethics because of self-interest? That is to maximize one's own utility at little cost?
So then do you believe people only act morally out of self-interest, since people who don't act morally will be outcasts and no longer capable of being trusted or bargained with?
#25
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
So then do you believe people only act morally out of self-interest, since people who don't act morally will be outcasts and no longer capable of being trusted or bargained with?
That's a good way of putting it.

Topic's author
#26
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
That was my thoughts anyway. I believe there are many reasons why someone who acts rationally should act morally. I don't believe morals are meant to be a hindrance to our abilities but rather a safety for our future self. If we act morally, which could be defined as the social standard of what is ethical, then we would be considered respectable members of society and therefore trustworthy and able to be bargained with. This would put us in a much more economically stable position. This is not just limited to money but also to resources, time, and effort.

Of course, if someone does not believe in this trust that initiates bargaining then they will take advantage of you but then you will no longer trade with them and then you will build stronger bonds with people who are trustworthy and reciprocate. I don't believe that kindness is altruistic, nor do I believe that acting morally is. I believe that if someone truly acts altruistically, they are naive but a person who understands malevolence can then know evil and then can truly act good. Someone who cannot act bad can never be good because they never had the choice. It is only once you understand what you are capable of that you can truly be good.

I believe that acting morally and kind to others creates trust that initiates bargaining and decentralised stability that is less easily destroyed than centralized stability.
I also believe that if people were conscious of the reasons for morality and kindness there would be fewer children unwilling to share.
Topic's author
#27
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Athias
I want to share with you a thought of mine which is quite abstract and unprovable but yet thought provoking. It is through my experience that I have noticed the human mind goes through three stages of mental development in many thoughts.

The three stages to understanding:
  1. Ignorant
  2. Conscious
  3. Understanding (same actions as stage 1)
I have noticed this pattern in many belief stages. Whether it is a true pattern or a case of apophenia I do not know, but I do know that I have recognized this pattern.

An example is morality as demonstrated here. The first stage is those who are ignorant and claim morality and kindness are important, and that we must always embody them. They have no idea why other than that it is tradition, and they could not explain how it has helped them or not. They're simply ignorant of rationality and cling to tradition as a substitute for understanding. Second, they begin to be conscious of their surroundings and start thinking outside of the norm. They may ask questions such as, why do we act morally in the first place, does it actually help us? They often find an answer very quickly and it seemingly guides them onto a practical path that shows morality is a nonsensical fairyland reality that only children could believe in. They may even ask themselves if good and evil actually exist. The apparent and scientific answer would be that they do not, instead they are a human construct generated through our emotions. They may even think there is no such thing as morality since there is no standard for morality and it is always fluctuating throughout the Times and the culture demonstrating its emotional existence and non-objectivity. Only after longer thought and deeper concentration can we understand which is the 3rd stage. We start to realize that by acting morally and kindly we decentralize our resources and stability, which forms us into an empire of our friends and family. We then start to understand the advantages of an empire over a centralised nation, recognising the practical importance of embodying morality and kindness in one's own self-interest. The most interesting part is that after we truly understand what we were ignorant of before our actions change back to stage one. It is true that we understand now but our actions while understanding will remain the same as when we were ignorant and following tradition.

In essence, when we are ignorant, we cling to tradition as a substitute for understanding. Then we become conscious and start questioning tradition, often ending up with a simple and immediate explanation that guides us away from tradition. Finally, after much longer and deeper thought we start to realize that our surface explanation was insufficient, and we gain a true understanding of what we thought we knew from step two, and then our actions with our newfound yet true understanding acts the same as stage one.

Simply put, we first act morally and kind out of tradition without questioning. Then we start to question and believe that our actions were wrong with our newfound understanding. Then with deeper thought and more time concentrating we reach an even deeper understanding that points our actions back to stage one.

As I said above, I do not believe someone can truly be kind until they know they can be evil. Having said that, I do not believe someone can truly be good until they understand what being good means, otherwise they are just naive.

147 days later

#28
Godblessus
Godblessus's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 6
0
0
3
Godblessus's avatar
Godblessus
0
0
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Sources: Ideas formed from compendium books like the Catechism, the writings of St.John of the Cross, the Summa Theologica, the Bible, The stories that preceded the bible, my damn wacky head, quotes from this forum

Critical-Tim: "I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions."

Me: "I decided to take the question what about insane persons? to its logical conclusion"

Below is the argument

()()()()()()()()()()()()())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()() Proof 1 ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()((()()()()

(1)  Can humans truly act selflessly?                                 <I'm not comfortable answering this question if I can't place it in time>

(1a)Can a human being perform a selfless act?           <I like when it can be placed in a mover moved format :)>

(2)  Can a robot lacking autonomy and understanding act from another person's intention and carry out a selfless act even though the programer or commander does not act selflessly?            <I believe that the definition a selfless act is one which does not provide any reward to the mover party that acts on reality of the then moved>
                                                                      {I believe that morality must act on reality because imagination of curing cancer does not cure cancer}
                                                                      { and imagination that leads to discovery can be called learning or discovery dur da dur which I would consider an action}

(2a)can a human being lacking autonomy or memory be considered selfless?

I believe (POSSIBLE CASE) in the existence of bomb defusal robots and that they as robots act selflessly

I believe (POSSIBLE CASE) in the existence of individuals with dementia remembering to do something for a loved one again and again
<In the past their action was not selfless>
<But now its repetition should meet my loosely implied and applied syllogism rules for a selfless act>

I believe (POSSIBLE CASE) in the existence of individuals which experience medically diagnosed depression.
I believe that these persons could donate their life savings and commit suicide without feeling pleasure from the donation. Should this be true, I believe that this demonstrates that good actions can be done even though lack of awareness prevents a reward for the giver party. Done in a private world with no chance of discovery I believe their actions are selfless, yes?

If in a hypothetical world we were to (POSSIBLE CASE)place human robot hybrids (think brain chip controlling neurotransmitters) into robot exteriors (chassis?) and then have them help stranded motorists, the lack of awareness I believe constitutes no pleasure received but the discoverable object which is a human in a case would thus confer virtue on that human, which did charity. Provided you subscribe to moral ideas of measured right and wrong.

<I believe this because if you then give them a memory of what they had done, helping a motorist, and a pleasure on recognition the action would cease the state of selflessness, and become an action done with reward now accessible>

RANT:Therefore, Yes Anyone does truly act selflessly that fulfills those macabre hypothesis, But it would require an outside action of tremendous suffering and harm I would imagine.
Should anyone truly act selflessly?
Yes, in so far as the Object, Intent, and circumstances are good or neutral. 

***Suicide is wrong and I am Catholic and worked as a don't kill yourself operator don't kill yourself on the basis of my argument!!! ***



RANT Concluded!:
:) have a nice day I look forward to having my argument shredded!


Attacking you Critical-Tim in your ideas because if you beat up the biggest strongest guy then you know that you have completed a difficult act. And if I lose then I'll have made an enemy out of meanest kid on the block and I can learn how to win when I take my beatings.

I'm not doing it to be rude. I have tremendous respect for free thinking men like yourself. Like seriously. Woah. Keep doing what you do by reason and will!


Critical-Tim: I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions. This can range from straightforward transactions, like buying something, to more complex situations, such as fostering mutually beneficial relationships. Even when giving seemingly selflessly, individuals often receive intangible rewards, like a sense of virtue or emotional fulfillment. In essence, I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.
^
I agree with you!


Critical-Tim
My favorite quote: "A man's worth is determined by how much truth he can tolerate." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I believe it has impacted me because I can see it in myself and everyone around me. We seek to understand the world, thus we build a structure to interpret it, but the world always changes, and we gain deeper understanding as we learn. The world cannot remain constrained to our past understanding, but we feel it necessary to persist when it is time to let go. I now having identified this flaw in myself can actively seek to fix it. People are naturally bent in a subjective flaw of imperfection; it is only by actively striving can we force our naturally bent nature to stand upright.

^
I disagree with Nietzsche quote I think my argument proves insane people can be extremely useful!
I don't think I'm right until I can't be corrected Nietzsche was a very smart man but I think I have him here...?
If a man must be deliberate then I agree with Nietzsche but I disagree that a man's worth is determined by individual perception. Even a smart man can err and man is not something to risk erring on lightly.

Without committing a Fallacy Fallacy I believe your world view could use a shake because it doesn't allow for the merit of tools as humans. And I would consider myself quite a tool.

If you see something in yourself as well as everyone around you does that make it true or just possible or probable. 

When you say that we seek to understand the world I agree!
But!
I think the word "structure" is too broad and can be used to say a lot of different things. Made clearer for us dummies I think your silique could have a lot more panash!
To say the world always changes is circular reasoning in't?
Because the world by its nature always experiences change even if we do not perceive it

the word world means all that is and all that is does in fact change

So what you said was what always changes always changes

If we simplify the argument to We as all intelligent mammal man attempt understanding of the world and gain a deeper understanding by (tools which are insane like hammers or screws, scalpels, graduated cylinders or concepts held in our brains, they just act and are acted upon)
Some parts of the world can be divorced from all other parts so that the earth becomes the crust becomes a shell of rock and we can go further but we lose the object. Atoms may make up everything but they are only one science. one eye. We have many lenses for the same creation.
In this way some understanding can be held so concrete. Like math or the color green

Some parts of the world cannot be tangibly divorced and cannot be proven or understood by this basis. Were the world flat or an orange we simply cannot know with certainly that higher reality exists using lower reality.

Using your world against you. Yes the world is and will be long after we are gone.

What you see is there but not quite

But it is not a flaw or a vice which can be applied as a global rule to persist in something which is not yet understood. Someday that may be discovery.
And if you are persisting in something understood then you can call that learning.
Funny enough you cannot actively fix this flaw. 
Because you don't know what you don't know
circular reasoning :)
You will never be upright except in the eyes of everyone who agrees with you

I am well aware that I am nitpicking but this a dead thread and I saw how you awesomely you treated personal attacks. So selfishly I encourage you to introduce me to my first online debate by introducing me to the bottom of your foot sharply. Best of luck!

7 days later

Topic's author
#29
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Godblessus
Sorry for the delay, I've been less active lately; but if you get me more engaged I'll check more often :)

I don't really think that we have to disagree when we don't share the same opinion. This is a characteristic of subjective ideas. If I think green is the prettiest color and you think blue, we don't have to disagree since you and I agree I like green the best and you like blue the best. Worth is how much one thing is valued by another, indicating worth is a subjective concept. This can be made clear with the analogy that you may say diamonds have worth, but to the man in the desert water is more valuable, making worth and value contextual and subjective. Back to the quote...
My favorite quote: "A man's worth is determined by how much truth he can tolerate." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I can agree that you don't find the value of a person based on the truth they can tolerate while I still find the value by this. The quote is not wrong or right just the same as if I said green is the prettiest color. In this sense, I don't think we have any disputes.


Attacking you Critical-Tim in your ideas because if you beat up the biggest strongest guy then you know that you have completed a difficult act. And if I lose then I'll have made an enemy out of meanest kid on the block and I can learn how to win when I take my beatings.
I'm glad you find me to have the the strongest arguments, since I put a lot of effort into trying to better and more accurately understand the world. Interestingly, this is not far from my own saying, and I love taking on the best: "Challenge the best and you have nothing to lose with everything to gain".


So selfishly I encourage you to introduce me to my first online debate by introducing me to the bottom of your foot sharply. Best of luck!
Not in the least. I respect everyone who puts effort into understanding. If you can find a better understanding than me I would be delighted to know I now have an even better understanding, but in that I must put my best attempt to prove my current thoughts in order to know they are wrong and must be corrected. I even like, for deep meditation excercises, holding two contrary beliefs symaltaneously. I will imagine I am each contender, by embodying a belief you will find ways of thinking and proving an idea better than you ever could from a distance. I will try and form the best argument for both case going back and forth until I hit a dead end and I can't counter one of the arguments of an idea, and for the time being the one wins. Sometimes a few days later I randomly get a spark and have the counter and the debate goes on. I hope this helps give you an idea on how to better understand, fortify, and challenge ideas in order to find the more rigid of philosophies.
#30
Godblessus
Godblessus's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 6
0
0
3
Godblessus's avatar
Godblessus
0
0
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Wow. Thank you, I would say I approached that discussion with a lot of rude excitement and I'm glad that I burst into your discussion because you are a very articulate and thoughtful man. I appreciate your guidance and perspective and I feel graced.