237 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm saying that the sole motive behind your choosing to do anything at all is ultimately "because you want to," which is why I equal free will and selfishness.

[Jorji Costava]

Some quick thoughts on the whole business about selfishness. I don't think it's true that if an act is motivated only in very small part by self-regarding desires, then it can be correct described as "selfish." This seems a bit like saying a singer's performance was bad because he or she hit one slightly false note in an otherwise flawless set.

I'd argue that like courage, selfishness is a 'thick' concept in the sense that it isn't just descriptive. When we call something courageous, we are typically expressing a kind of positive attitude toward that thing, and when we call something selfish, we are expressing a negative attitude towards that thing. So to say that someone's donating to charity is selfish just because a small part of that person's motivation might have been to feel good about herself seems incorrect. It implies that donating out of a sincere desire to help others is morally on a par with never sharing your toys with anyone.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm saying that the sole motive behind your choosing to do anything at all is ultimately "because you want to," which is why I equal free will and selfishness.

This faces problems on two fronts. First, it isn't clear that an action is free merely because it's the action you wanted to perform. Secondly (stealing from James Rachels here), isn't exactly what makes you unselfish that you want to help others? Selfishness isn't a function of whether or not you want to do what you do; it's a function of what goals your wantings are directed towards. Wanting to help only your self is selfish, while genuinely wanting to help others seems straightforwardly unselfish.

Lastly, I'll close with a thought relevant to DA and consequences: I say that the end-o-tron (pick a dialogue option/push a button in the last ten minutes, get an ending based on that) is a bad idea. Seems like it's been pretty popular since Deus Ex, but I have reasonably high hopes that DAI will be able to avoid it. Thoughts?

[Fast Jimmy]

osbornep wrote...  

Some quick thoughts on the whole business about selfishness. I don't think it's true that if an act is motivated only in very small part by self-regarding desires, then it can be correct described as "selfish." This seems a bit like saying a singer's performance was bad because he or she hit one slightly false note in an otherwise flawless set.

 

I'd disagree with this comparison. Mostly because you are equating a measure of quality, i.e. the accuracy of a singer hitting the correct notes, with that of whether or not an act is selfish.

One is how good something is done, the other is simply a description of how human behavior works. Correlating the idea that behavior is selfish with also being wrong or incorrect, like a singer hitting the wrong note, shows an assumption against individualism that isn't congruent with both simply psychology as well as undeniable logic.

I'd argue that like courage, selfishness is a 'thick' concept in the sense that it isn't just descriptive. When we call something courageous, we are typically expressing a kind of positive attitude toward that thing, and when we call something selfish, we are expressing a negative attitude towards that thing. So to say that someone's donating to charity is selfish just because a small part of that person's motivation might have been to feel good about herself seems incorrect. It implies that donating out of a sincere desire to help others is morally on a par with never sharing your toys with anyone.

I don't know why you are using the word "we" because I am not assuming selfishness is a negative. To do so betray a bias which is the product of social conditioning that isn't based in reality. People acting in their own self-interest is an incredibly beneficial aspect of human nature.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm saying that the sole motive behind your choosing to do anything at all is ultimately "because you want to," which is why I equal free will and selfishness.

 
This faces problems on two fronts. First, it isn't clear that an action is free merely because it's the action you wanted to perform. Secondly (stealing from James Rachels here), isn't exactly what makes you unselfish that you want to help others? Selfishness isn't a function of whether or not you want to do what you do; it's a function of what goals your wantings are directed towards. Wanting to help only your self is selfish, while genuinely wanting to help others seems straightforwardly unselfish.

You are somehow trying to shake off the stink off "selfish" nature, as if it was a mark of shame. Granted, choosing your own desires over the good of others is destructively self-centered, but that doesn't mean that any action taken by an individual doesn't have a selfish component to it, nor that this is an inherently negative thing. An action can be rooted in too much selflessness, such that both yourself and others who are dependent on you are much worse off. If being selfless can sometimes be good, being selfish doesn't always have to be bad. 

Lastly, I'll close with a thought relevant to DA and consequences: I say that the end-o-tron (pick a dialogue option/push a button in the last ten minutes, get an ending based on that) is a bad idea. Seems like it's been pretty popular since Deus Ex, but I have reasonably high hopes that DAI will be able to avoid it. Thoughts?

I have the same thoughts. Endings that hinge on one final choice alone to color and influence the majority of their endings do little to make me feel like the entire game experience was worthwhile. I'd rather take the DA:O/FO:NV route, where a choice can be made which has influence on the endings, but where things are much more defined by the player's choices and actions throughout the game. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 septembre 2013 - 12:56 .

[Angrywolves]

The unselfish good.
How refreshing it is.
Dependent on the players' character.
Good.
Evil
Indifferent
Some of each.

[Jorji Costava]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd disagree with this comparison. Mostly because you are equating a measure of quality, i.e. the accuracy of a singer hitting the correct notes, with that of whether or not an act is selfish.

There are obvious differences between the two cases, but I don't think they're relevant to the structural point I'm making. The point is that the inference, "My act has a component of self-interested motivation, therefore my act is selfish" is a bad one. It's parallel in structure to "Sue's performance had a bad note, therefore Sue's performance was bad." The fact that something has a small component of X doesn't all by itself mean that the thing is X, flat-out.

Of course, you could simply stipulate that you're using the word "selfish" in such a way as to mean that any action which has even the most infinitesimally small self-interested motivational component counts as selfish, but then the thesis that everyone is selfish is just uninteresting. It doesn't have any of the potentially far-reaching political or moral implications that full-blown psychological egoism (according to which we only have self-interested motivations) would have. Psychological egoism (or even just predominant egoism, according to which we very rarely have goals that aren't self-directed) seems to me to be the thesis worth discussing, and I'd argue that there isn't good evidence to support it.

You are somehow trying to shake off the stink off "selfish" nature, as if it was a mark of shame. Granted, choosing your own desires over the good of others is destructively self-centered, but that doesn't mean that any action taken by an individual doesn't have a selfish component to it, nor that this is an inherently negative thing. An action can be rooted in too much selflessness, such that both yourself and others who are dependent on you are much worse off. If being selfless can sometimes be good, being selfish doesn't always have to be bad.

I fully agree that self-interested action is frequently beneficial and not morally bad, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my criticism of Sylvius the Mad's argument, according to which "We all do what we want; therefore we all act only in our own self-interest." What makes an act self-interested (to use a less loaded term) is not the fact that you want to do it but the object of your wanting. I don't see how this criticism in any way depends upon moral judgments about the relative goodness or badness of acting in one's own interests.

I have the same thoughts. Endings that hinge on one final choice alone to color and influence the majority of their endings do little to make me feel like the entire game experience was worthwhile. I'd rather take the DA:O/FO:NV route, where a choice can be made which has influence on the endings, but where things are much more defined by the player's choices and actions throughout the game.

Yay! We agree! The frustrating thing about the ending-o-tron is the way it has of erasing your character's history, as it were. The ending should be a logical consequence of what happened before, and the Big Choice at the end can undermine that if not done properly. The DA:O model is a good one, and I suspect that DA:I will lean on that model to a significant degree (especially in the wake of the ME3 debacle)

[Sylvius the Mad]

osbornep wrote...

This faces problems on two fronts. First, it isn't clear that an action is free merely because it's the action you wanted to perform. Secondly (stealing from James Rachels here), isn't exactly what makes you unselfish that you want to help others? Selfishness isn't a function of whether or not you want to do what you do; it's a function of what goals your wantings are directed towards. Wanting to help only your self is selfish, while genuinely wanting to help others seems straightforwardly unselfish.

But if we dig deeper, the ultimate motivation is always the same.  If you ask why enough times, you will eventually get to "because I want to."

Assigning value judgments to the preferences themselves then seems baseless.

[Jorji Costava]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Assigning value judgments to the preferences themselves then seems baseless.

But the passage of mine you quoted doesn't involve making any value judgments at all about the merits of selfishness or selflessness. The same basic point can be made using the more neutral term "self-interest." What makes an act self-interest is what one wants, not the mere fact that one wants it. Going to the gym and working out is generally a self-interested act. Spending time doing volunteer work with the underprivileged is, other things being equal, not self-interested.

Of course, the latter act may be self-interested if there is some further motive at work, such as the desire to fill gaps in one's resume or to represent oneself as a compassionate person. But the mere fact that you want to volunteer does not by itself entail that there must be such motives.

[Sylvius the Mad]

osbornep wrote...

But the passage of mine you quoted doesn't involve making any value judgments at all about the merits of selfishness or selflessness. The same basic point can be made using the more neutral term "self-interest." What makes an act self-interest is what one wants, not the mere fact that one wants it. Going to the gym and working out is generally a self-interested act. Spending time doing volunteer work with the underprivileged is, other things being equal, not self-interested.

Of course, the latter act may be self-interested if there is some further motive at work, such as the desire to fill gaps in one's resume or to represent oneself as a compassionate person. But the mere fact that you want to volunteer does not by itself entail that there must be such motives.

Right, but then we can't tell whether the act is selfless.  As such, we need to ask why someone is doing volunteer work.  And, ultimately, I think we'll always find the same answer.

If I ask someone who helps the disadvantaged why they do that, they could well say that they do it because they like doing it, or because it gives them a sense of personal fulfilment, or because they know that if they had the opportunity to help, and didn't, they'd feel bad about themselves, so they help to avoid that bad feeling.

I don't see how to draw a line between those and the more obviously selfish motives like doing it to impress a girl, or to satisfy some volunteer requirement in order to graduate from school.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Right, but then we can't tell whether the act is selfless.  As such, we need to ask why someone is doing volunteer work.  And, ultimately, I think we'll always find the same answer.

But Sylvius, don't you always say that knowing another is impossible? As such, according to you, since we can never know whether their motives are selfless, the entire question is moot and the answer to that question unreachable.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 27 septembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm going even farther, though, and asking whether you can tell if your own motives are selfless.

[Angrywolves]

Aren't all motives selfish .
You do a charitable deed, pay someone's medical bill, buy them groceries , something like that.
It helps them.
But you feel good about it too.