# Are all human actions motivated by self interest?

Is every human action motivated by self-interest? Even when we help a complete stranger do we do it becuase it makes us feel good (and hence we are doing it out of self interest)? What do you think?

It depends on the human. Why does it make anyone "feel good" though? It makes me "feel good" because it makes the other person feel good. That is why. This motive transcends "self" and "nonself" motive. It simply exists. I sponsor 6 children in 4 countries. To most people the little bit of "feeling good" is vastly outweighed by spending $100-$200 a month on cherity. Common sense tell you that I do not do it for my self interest, but obviously I do it to bring some warmth into the children's hearts.

Originally posted by mtkirwan
Is every human action motivated by self-interest? Even when we help a complete stranger do we do it becuase it makes us feel good (and hence we are doing it out of self interest)? What do you think?

unless feeling good is your only motive, then i think it is no different then having sex to feel good.

but if you do it because the person is in need of your help, then this is simply human compassion: this is the way of living where one agrees that everyone has as much a right to be as happy as ones self.

a compassionate persons thoughts could be something like this:
"what if i was in need of help (this thought puts you in his position, feeling how he feels, then how he would feel if you helped him)? i would feel good if someone were to help me if i were ever in need of it! i will be the one to help this person."

-or-

"this person need help. he deserves to be helped just as much as i would if i were in his position, i will be the one to help him."

if you argue that "what if i was in need of help?" type of thinking is self interest then i guess this passive form of self interest is required for everyone to be happy. if you dont care about yourself, you are in no position to care about others anyway.

I believ that no matter how self-less or alturaistic and action is, the action is done for one's own self interest.

Yes. We are ruled by self interest, constantly striving to think of new ways to achieve our ambitions and protect our interests. The only conceivable way to get someone to not spend their lives as a machiavellian deceitful power zealot would be to persuade them that by not constantly striving for more power and pleasure they will enjoy an eternity in heaven.

The concept of "self-interest" can be expanded to include, either directly or indirectly, just about any reason behind one's actions. Consequently, everybody can be said to be motivated by self-interest if so desired.

Originally posted by the_truth
Yes. We are ruled by self interest, constantly striving to think of new ways to achieve our ambitions and protect our interests. The only conceivable way to get someone to not spend their lives as a machiavellian deceitful power zealot would be to persuade them that by not constantly striving for more power and pleasure they will enjoy an eternity in heaven.

i am not a machiavellian deceitful power zealot. also i am not a believer in heaven or hell. so it seems an eternity in heaven isnt the only conceivable way to persuade someone to be a good person.

my way of living include my statement of human compassion and living a happy fulfilling life with anyone i am able to share it with.

i dont care for power and money and being deceitful, but quite the unfortunate for me this worlds requisites include money. not to worry =] i have my solution to this problem without being deceitful.

i do have ambition but in no way do i care to protect my interests, every person is their own. your free will entitles you to thinkwhat you will.

The concept of "self-interest" can be expanded to include, either directly or indirectly, just about any reason behind one's actions. Consequently, everybody can be said to be motivated by self-interest if so desired.

Which is exactly why the statement makes no sense.

Which statement?

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Well there are cases where people have given up their lives for others. Soldiers falling on hand grenades to save their buddies, passers-by rushing in front of cars or trains to push a child to safety. This kind of thing does happen. And it's very difficult to see what self interest is gratified by a painful death.

Well there are cases where people have given up their lives for others. Soldiers falling on hand grenades to save their buddies, passers-by rushing in front of cars or trains to push a child to safety. This kind of thing does happen. And it's very difficult to see what self interest is gratified by a painful death.

very good point.

but both the examples you give are very much the type of death that is instant.

it might also be possible the quick reaction to the circumstances are the reason why one didnt have enought time to evaluate their own self-interests.

but also it might be that their own self-interests evaluated in the limited time given due to the circumstance be inaccurate to them if they were given the time to evaluate. this is impossible since they die, but not in the case if one happens to survives their act of heroism.

if this type of act could be classified as heroism it could still be in ones self-interest to become a 'hero'. even when it means they could never live to appreciate this.

there is always the fact that someone did something in risk of their lives simply because they valued their life less than whoever they are placing their lives on the line for.

it is complicated...

Which statement?

The statement that all actions are motivated by greed/self-interest/what-you-want-to-call-it.

People often perform actions without thinking of how it will benefit them or detriment them. This is often referred to as "instinct".

Also, doesn't the burden of proof lie on those claiming that all actions are greed-motivated?

jammieg
Well as I sit here pondering this question in my spiked leather S&M suit I wonder what is the bit of truth people seek to find in trying to be selfish or selfless, which is the better way, what is the difference? Maybe selfishness is better since it's mostly what people do even when they put on the front of kindness they often expect something in return for giving something you probably didn't want anyway. On the other hand if everyone acted according to what they could get out of things wouldn't it make it harder for them to see the things the might stand to benefit everyone and not just themselves?

...I don't know if the path of pure selfishness is better because I haven't done it, but I do know it works for some people and they seem to be able to rationalize away all guilt to make sometimes great gains, in a sense they bore in mind the philosophy of screw or be screwed, in the buisness world they probably call this perfect sense.
I'm inclined to take a very biased approach to this but instead I would say that the art of selfishness can lead a person to become very rich and even famous if they can manipulate and lie and maintain a pretty appearance well, but am inclined to think that this is another sign of the decline in morals of the country or maybe it's the start of even better morals, which is better cooperation or domination?
Where do these basic concepts stem from?

Last edited by a moderator:
On the other hand if everyone acted according to what they could get out of things wouldn't it make it harder for them to see the things the might stand to benefit everyone and not just themselves?

Why would anybody that's concerned only with what they can gain from a situation care about the good of society?

Soldiers in war are clinging to remnants of humanity, and their only grip is their fellow soldier. Jumping on a grenade isn't so surprising. But then, I've never been in a war, so I have no right to make such statements.

I doubt people who save babies are very concerned with being recognized as a hero.

It can be argued that acting selflessly is simply acting to maintain one's set of ethics, which can be viewed as a selfish act.

Also, doesn't the burden of proof lie on those claiming that all actions are greed-motivated?

So what's the default case? I think arguing burden of proof in a discussion like this is kind of silly.

I'd say that this is not the right question to ask. Are the actions that humans choose to take generally beneficial to society?

All that stands between the establishment of the claim that all human actions are motivated by self-interest is the example of a human giving up life in favour of another human. And there are various explanations for this which support the self-interest line.. : one may desire to become a hero, one may not have the time to think it through, one may believe in an afterlife and therefore seek eternal happiness by such an act, and one may be satisfying his own self by doing such a thing (which, in turn, is seeking self-interests).

Prove you are selfless, jog a mile in a public area in complete nudity, immediately.

There are reasons why people do selfless things such as they wish to be part of society, because they are worried that their sudden rise to power is being observed and tested by those who wish to maintain discipline in the government, because of their emotion, because of their religious beliefs or because they want to prov they are selfless. All of these reasons are due to the fact that they think it will give them pleasure or alleviate pain. By pain and pleasure I do not just mean physical pleasure and pain such as sex or torture, but emotional pleasure and the increased chance of you gaining pleasure or evading pain in the future.

I believe no other factors affect judgement otherwise we would be purposeless or feel pleasure once and strive to feel it again, or of course feel pain once and strive never to feel it again.

Ok, First off self-interested acts does not always require us to live in order to achieve our goals. One can just as much die to hurt people as easy they can die to save people. Look at terrorism for an example, they are willing to die to kill. Of course they saw good in thier actions and we all have good intentions. Of course the thing with morality is knowing the consequences of what we intend to do. People may lie to themselves to justify thier actions though. When it comes to selfish and self-less acts you have to remind yourself that both have the word "self" in them.

Life versus Value. Which is worth more to you? If it's life it is also value. Value is above life. Therefore your values can also mean that losing your life is acceptable if you value hate, love, right, wrong, good, evil or anything else more then you value your own life. But value is in our own self-interest.

the_truth, no offense, but you post reminds me of dubya bush and his "you're with us and against us". An important concept in logic is the difference between merely contradicting and what is known formally as "contrary" opposition (being on the complete opposite end of a spectrum). To prove something false, you do not need to show the "contrary" fact to be true, only a contradicting fact.

Example:

Let's say that someone claims, "I am super-humanly intelligent."
To disprove this person, you do not need to show him/her to be a moron. You only need to show that the person's intelligence is not above the level of genius.

Another example:

Someone claims, "All desks are brown."
To counter (contradict) this claim, you do not need to show that all desks are not brown. Rather, you only need to show that at least one desk is not brown. The statement, "Some desks are brown, and some are blue" contradicts both the claim, "All desks are brown" and its contrary. (For simplicity in this example, assume that all desks are only of one color.)

So, how does this relate to your post?
You stated, "Prove you are selfless, jog a mile in a public area in complete nudity, immediately." This, I assume, would be to show that a person could be absolutely selfless. This is the contrary to "All actions are motivated by self-interest." However, you do not need to show the contrary, only a contadiction. If it is not true that all acts are selfless, it does not mean that all acts are self-motivated, and vice-versa.

Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
not necessarily...think of the sacrifices parents (human or animal) will make for their young...

Originally posted by Kerrie
not necessarily...think of the sacrifices parents (human or animal) will make for their young...

this can also be of self interest thru the belief of the parents living on as their children.

complicated matters these are =]

Originally posted by elibol
this can also be of self interest thru the belief of the parents living on as their children.

complicated matters these are =]

I have a hunch that this thread will be an unending list of rephrasings.

Anyway, I think that most parents don't think that they will in any literal way live on through their children. Perhaps, if they believe in an afterlife, they may think of the joy of seeing their children alive, or perhaps the parent would think of the sadness of living without one's child. However, such a thought as one of the ones just described would have to be active in the parent's mind at the time of the sacrifice for it to be considered self-interest. I highly doubt, to say the least, that this is the case in all occurences.

This is an issue of goals. If I do an action to help someone else it may very well make me feel good. But if feeling good was not my goal, it was not what motivated me to do a good deed, what motivated me was helping that person. The “feeling good” is merely a secondary byproduct of the effect, with the cause being the identification of a need.

jammieg
If people are completely self interested then it is a very borad even selfless selfishness, one way to better understand the difference between these is by doing them. If after careful consideration oneself has to die to save 10 it's a selfless act in my view(or a covert selfish justification for martyrdome), on a small scale imagine this construction outhouse placed right beside a dumpster such that everyone who goes in bangs their hand openning the door the first time or at least once and has difficulty getting out, yet for days it sits there, the more selfless person might see this sooner and take the little time and effort to figure out they can push it a few inches out of the way and it will at least keep others who follow from having to bang their hand or spends their daily irritation requirments on this, unless of course they figure that nobody set it right for them so why should they waste time to set it right for others?
An extremely selfish person seldom gets used and almost never put out to do these things or feel any need to correct humanity's trivial problems, this saves much time and effort and makes sense in evolutionary terms for selfishness to primarily dictate one's actions, and if one can only blind themselves to seeing what good deeds to do well the best way of doing that is to never do a good deed unless you're sure you get more out of it, as opposed to sure others get more out of it than it would slightly cost one other to correct (you), for no good deed goes unpunished, unless you like that sort of thing.

Hi. I've been browsing on this thread, though it wasn't as thorough considering my limited time. However i'd like to share views. I may not also be able to visit the net as much, so understand that in case there are reactions with it, it may be replied at later times.

I guess the Essence of Life is about the "Self, minus the selfishness".

Awareness of one's self is necesary , so do the need for survival of the self, however it does not have to be equated with selfishness. One may go for the worse temptations of the dilemma of selfishness, but it can be assured that he will gain enemies in the process. Not because it is inevitable, but because he deserves to have enemies. Gaining selfishly at the expense of others may not necessarily let one go scot-free. With the way things are going on in this world, sucking starving chidlren of other countries by preying on their fragile economies for selfish profits may defintely be a despicable behavior, no matter how one hides with neat suites.

When one sees things with broader perspectives, selfishness may not be an excuse. Even nature should not be used as excuse. Even sharks and crocs can be deemed more noble than their human counterparts. Crocs can live a year without eating much, when full sharks just relax or frolic with little fishes. Not so with some human gluttons.

Perhaps the concept of selfishness may be equated with ignorance to the broadar perspective of Life's mysteries, and selfishness ought to be equated not for survival of humanity (with rapid exploitation of limted resources for the appetite of a materialistic lifestyle, humanity may cease to survive, ironically in the name of survival), but for the survival of belief systems and ideologies that thrive on selfishness for its survival, with humanity as its prey.

I just thought of something.

Most people try to fight the idea of all actions being motivated by self-interest by showing examples of altruism. This is a good method...but no the only one!

There are actions that are neither altruistic nor selfish. What about when a person who is upset with him/herself bangs his/her head on the wall, saying, "I'm so stupid!", throwing a tantrum, etc.

I find it hard to believe that such an act is is either selfish or altruistic.