Assembly of Light Bearers point debate

[alikundalini]

I’ve been reading the page of ALB, and one of their main points of power is recognition of selfishness in all acts (no matter how selfless it may be).

At first glance, this is good knowledge and hard to accept, but it makes complete sense as to some extent we do something because we feel good, even a litte.

My countering thoughts are, what if I’m doing something completely for someone else’s sake? What if I feel completely gut wrenched about a decision, but I do it because it benefits someone I hold dearly? That would be contradicting this point. Thoughts?

[Mulberry]

Also look up posts with the keyword hedonism. It’s the same argument that helping others makes you feel good therefore it’s just hedonism. We’ve had this conversation a few times in the forums 14 years.

I debated in school on the side of yes it’s hedonism, and not a single person in the class agreed with me. I’m probably a terrible debater

Sometimes, you do the right thing even though it didn’t serve you and doesn’t make you feel good though. And sometimes after you did that you even regret it.

So, I think it depends on the situation, and a black and white stance on topics of morals is really just simple-minded and reductionist, helping nobody and progressing nothing.

[Prophet]

I recall having a discussion with someone online about this many years ago. He said that all forms of altruism are inherently selfish at its core. That humans constantly seek the satisfaction of doing good deeds and that is considered selfish.

So yeah, what they’re saying resonates with me to some degree.

[Bruh]

@alikundalini

What if I feel completely gut wrenched about a decision, but I do it because it benefits someone I hold dearly?

So I think the response would be something along the lines of since you hold them dearly, benefiting them feels good. You are not doing it for that person, you are doing it because of your own feeling of “holding dearly.”

But the thing I have a problem is that psychological egoism (which is what this belief is called) is kinda… pointless.

So I remember when I was in highschool I heard that all action was motivated by the need to be important. I thought about it for days, going over over everything people did and seeing that it fit, even things that on the surface contradicted. I had the thought that:

@alikundalini

At first glance, this is good knowledge and hard to accept, but it makes complete sense

Then I heard of psychological egoism. Went through the same thought process and came to the same conclusion. At that point I was realized something was amiss. How can these both be true at the same time?

The reason is the way these beliefs are proven.

1. Find an example that contradicts your theory.
2. Reframe the example to match your theory.
3. Wow! The theory holds up.

So it could be

1. In a country plagued by famine a mother goes without food so that her children may eat.
2. In a country plagued by famine a woman goes without food to preserve her genetic lineage and feels pleasure at seeing children eat.
3. Wow! Psychological egoism holds up.

The thing is that since you can reframe anything to be anything there is no way to falsify it. Thus it can’t really be tested. People do this for egoism, importance, altruism, environmentalism, hedonism and who knows what else. You can make up your own.

A second problem I have specifically with psychological egoism, is the particular way it reframe examples. You show someone doing something selfless and it is reframed as them fulfilling some personal value, thus they are getting pleasure from it. At that point you could just reword it as “people are motivated by their motivations” and it suddenly becomes way less profound.

A third problem is that I can’t really use this information. If I meet two people, one leaning more selfish and the other more selfless, I will treat them differently because different things make them tick so to have smooth interactions I adapt to their styles. But then someone walks in and says they are both selfish. Great, what am I suppose to do with that information? They still have different personalities, and knowing that deep down they are the same makes no difference. IDK, a theory that explains everything, explains nothing.

Fourth, it is just kinda a weird framing of things. Aristotle thought that someone who does good and wants to do good is superior to someone who does good but has to force themselves. But I guess in modern times this has been reversed. What was once virtuous is now selfish. Imagine finding out your significant other was only nice to you out of obligation, would you be happy that they are being so selfless? or heartbroken?

I guess the conclusion here is that example you gave could be reframed to still be selfish, but I don’t think it matters.

[LvxMferre]

Ask yourself honestly. Would you make that gutwrenching decision and put yourself through it if nobody would ever know what you did? Would you do it for a complete stranger without even so much of a thank you back?

I think the main point I take from this is that full self-sacrifice in the name of altruism is pointless. It’s great to help others, but don’t forget to help yourself along the way, because admit it or not you’re being altruistic (at least in part) for yourself anyway

[LvxMferre]

Oooh and for reference, I work a physically and mentally challenging job for shit pay at an NGO. So these are questions I ask myself regularly as well.