CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
One is a heroic act borne out of selflessness, the other is a villainous act borne out of selfishness. Yet too much we hear of the latter and too little we hear of the former.
Could you beg that question any harder? You literally just built your conclusion into your definitions. What makes selfishness "villainous", and what makes selflessness "heroic"? If you're doing the "selfless" thing because it makes you feel good about fulfilling your value narrative, then its not really selfless.
Could you beg that question any harder? You literally just built your conclusion into your definitions. What makes selfishness "villainous", and what makes selflessness "heroic"?
I am coming from the position of whatever benefits humans and animals both individually and as a whole; and it is my argument that there is greater benefit in preserving lives than eradicating them - even from a selfish standpoint. Selflessness can be deemed more heroic because it acts for this benefit. Selfishness can be deemed more villainous because it acts against this benefit.
For instance, if several individuals take the latter stance, then humanity would soon cease to exist for no reason save someone’s self-interest and the function of the world itself would be disrupted. Nevertheless, assuming a “selfish” stance, one may argue that so long as it does not affect them it is of no consequence. Fair enough – except that argument would be incorrect as they ultimately will be affected. Their prosperity as human beings will be significantly less in solitude than if in company, esp. since we are naturally social beings. So in that sense, the "selfish" individual is doing his or herself a disservice by taking those lives, and I would imagine that an egoist such as yourself would not wish that to be the case ;)
If you're doing the "selfless" thing because it makes you feel good about fulfilling your value narrative, then its not really selfless.
Are you sure? For lesser things, maybe, but the greatest sacrifice anyone could make is their own life. If selflessness is being concerned more with the needs of others than with one’s own, then simple gratification seems out of step with this. There are many other sacrifices someone can make in order to fulfil the superficial cause of “feeling good” without needing to sacrifice their very existence.
You are still begging the question. I know you are coming from a collectivist position, but reiterating that you are doesn't prove it's validity.
There is absolutely no reason to think that everyone would act purely selfishly. We're evolved to be generally pro-social, but that doesn't preclude us from also being selfish from time to time. Your hypothetical is a strawman. It also fails to establish that the persistence of society is good, so you are once more assuming your values into their defense.
Yes, I'm sure. You're doing it because you prefer to do it rather than not; it is the most fulfilling option from which you can choose, and so you choose it because it fulfills you the most. Otherwise you could not choose it.
You asked for clarification of my original statement regarding selfishness and selflessness so I clarified – what is strawman about that? Moreover, my argument is arguably no less valid than yours: you are assuming a sceptical position that someone engaging in a heroic act does so under the semblance of altruism rather than out of genuineness. That the underlying motive for their behaviour isn’t as honest as they would have others believe but serves their own need(s); is that not a value you subscribe to?
I shan’t deny that we can act for selfish reasons on occasion, though. Yet society appreciates heroism far more than it does villainy and it’s reflected in the esteem we accord certain professions (i.e. firemen, police, military) and disdain we hold certain activities (i.e. criminality); so they are not simply my own values. However, will you not consider the possibility that the selfish motive (if indeed there is one at all) is no more than a by-product of a selfless one? So someone may decide to save a life because they believe it is the right thing to do, and just happen to feel fulfilled in performing that action.
Depends on the life. If it were my children or my husband or anyone of my family I would rather die to save them. If it was a strangers child I would rather die to save them. If it was a child abuser or animal abuser....they can kick the bucket HARD because they are on their own.
So the value you place in other life is directly proportional to how closely related that life is to you, or how closely that being conforms to your subjective personal values? No judgement, but curious if you have a rationale what it looks like.
It sounds pretty horrible I admit. I'm not going to advocate the deaths of any person but I can't say I would die to save the life of a person who I know lives to hurt/kill others.
I don't think it sounds horrible, really. I wouldn't put anyone before me. As an egoist, I'm actually more interested in those situations where you would die for others. If you don't mind elaborating.
I think it will always depend on the situation, so bear with me while I try to explain. Before I had children I don't think, key word think since I was never put into a situation that required a life and death scenario, that I would have hesitated jumping into a burning building to get any person out or choosing to die in the place of another.
With kids now, I would. Not because I am afraid per say, but because I wouldn't want to leave my children alone. They would of course have my husband, their father, but my reason for wanting to live for my children outweighs my thoughts on dying for another person. That being said, if it would take my death to save my children or a loved one, although I'd be sad to leave, I would still like to think I would do it. For my children for sure. I would of course try everything I could to stay alive in the process. But hey, here's hoping I'm never put in that situation
Thanks for the clarification. Does it seem accurate to say it is an emotional motivation that has evolved with you as your relationships have changed (you)? As an egoist, I can get behind that philosophically. I'm a bit of an oddball even among egoists because I don't think egoism precludes fatal acts of altruism. But that's a longish bit of explanation if I keep on going, and I don't now if you're interested.
And, yes, hopefully neither of us ends up in a situation like the ones tossed around in this discussion. If nothing else, upon that agree we can.
I think a person who hasn't constantly changed or evolved in life is a person who has remained stagnant. Before I met my husband I knew of a love between my family and myself. With my husband my concept of love and sacrifice broadened and with my children it has expanded even further. I don't know what my initial reaction would be in many instances. An example~ I would be more spurred into action saving a child from a fire than I would a grown adult. Odd? Perhaps, but to me a child needs more protection. I would like to think I'd save both but given an option of either one or the other I would risk my life for the child.
I don't think an egotist is prohibited from acts of altruism, even an extreme case of self-interest can mesh with altruistic behavior to the benefit of others. I would like to hear your explanation if that's ok with you.
I don't think it's possible for someone to not change throughout their lives, though some certainly change less than others. It's not particularly unusual to choose a child over an adult; my impression from various studies is that most people would do the same.
I'm an egoist, rather than an egotist. Splitting hairs, but it's an important difference to me. Egotism tends to describe personality, usually along rather narcissistic lines. I don't think there's anything wrong with narcissism, but it's not what my philosophy's about. Egoism generally adopts the premise that we have no duty outside or before our own self interest. My take on it is that what constitutes the self interest can be outside of the immediate physical or even emotional well being of the individual, and that what is our interest is merely what we desire. Egoists can put others first, even at great cost to themselves, so long as it is their desire to do so rather than an action they undertake because they think they should owing to some moral standard or other expectation.
I also have an uncommon view of the self, insofar as I don't believe in the existence of a persistent self. That is, I think that from moment to moment our conscious state is a different self than what comes before and what follows. I identify the self as the isolated conscious awareness, but also extend the self beyond the body. This is because I also think that when we engage we affect one another and become part of one another, so that others become a part of us. I'm not sure how coherently I explained all of that, but the gist is that it leads me to regard the self interest as not being necessarily constrained to the physical body that hosts the conscious awareness that is self. Which is another way in which acts of altruism become consistent with egoism, insofar as the self is both bounded and unbounded to the host body.
Hopefully that made some sort of sense... I'm still working on the wording, obviously.
Oh I see. That is a rather important distinction really so I don't think it's splitting hairs.
So if I am understanding you correctly, an analogy would be you constantly molt from your past self to a new self, shedding skin as it where?
I agree that when we interact with others they become a part of our world. The more we interact the more that sphere grows yet it is still YOUR sphere or MY sphere, in that sense it does play with the ego as it is what belongs to you. I feel in many ways like ego is remarkably important, I mean, you are what makes up you. Your interactions are yours and as such they define, distinguish and cause growth to personal and emotional well being, which are part of ego. There's nothing wrong with being an egoist, I do feel that extreme egotism (not egoism as you pointed out) does have little value in society.
Having self-interest is what we do, it's who we are and anyone that says otherwise may not value their own lives as much as they should. If that makes sense.
Molting gets it pretty close, but perhaps a bit more like a tree. With new selves constantly layering on to what came before, with the old selves preserved through physical and psychological memory. I think the present self retains some relationship to earlier selves in the way that they partially affect how the present self is, as does the environment.
I largely agree with the rest of your observations, particularly your final statement. I'd clarify that I take the integration of self and other a bit more literally, in a way that goes beyond their spheres overlapping. I think we literally integrate into one another's consciousness, so it is not that we are not sharing mutual experiences so much as we are becoming one another partially. For instance, the self we are around different people tends to adapt to who those people are; we not only act differently, but the regard they have towards us and our awareness of it changes our sense of ourselves.
Or, in another case, when someone dies I do not think we are mourning them at all but the part of ourselves that dies with them because we lose access to the type of self we are when we are around them. And for me, this is partially what explains altruistic sacrifice for those we are closest to being more common and a stronger instinct than for those we are distant from. It's also informed by Zen Buddhism, the philosophy of which I used to practice quite regularly. So that being an egoist means putting one's self first, but that what constitutes that self is not what is typically conceived of (particularly in Western culture). This is what creates a difference between egoism and egotism, I think.
I do have to disagree with the mourning of death. Not all all of it, I can certainly see your point to it and in a sense I agree but from experience I wasn't mourning my loss of self or loss of partial self when my father died when I was young. I was mourning the loss of my father, I was mourning that I would never see him again and that I would never hear him call out our names to tell us that he loved us and so on. It was a sheer loss of a loved one and in terms of ego, it was the fact that I would never feel his comfort near us again. But mostly it was that he was gone.
Now your idea that integrating into one another's consciousness and that we partially become one another is fascinating. We do, or some of us at least change attitudes and actions by the company we keep. But we also tend to associate better and communicate better with people who we feel accept us as we are. Example: My family is very open about discussion involving religion, politics and so on. We accept each other as who we are and not what we believe and in that we create a very harmonious sub-group. Which is apparently odd for a lot of people but for us it's VERY good stress relief. My in-laws however are VERY....difficult to have open discussion so I find myself holding back a little more...ok a lot more. They are a very large part of my sphere or they have heavy integration, if you like into my sense of self, however my "self" isn't my true self around them.
Phew I feel like I went off course with this, I had a clear path but my coffee is out and my kids are needing some tickles so I'll have to regroup and see what my point was, lol. I hope this made sense.
Tough one I agree. I would have to agree with this. I would not want to die for just anyone. I'd only die to save the lives of people I truly love and care about. Yes, it's selfish and I have no problem to admit that. My love is conditional.
How can you say WHICH life would have been improved the most, and which would have been the better person?? Obviously, this is aimed at the Second Amendment controversy and obviously YOU think the one with the gun would evolve into the "best person". I think that probability would end up on the short side of 50%.
I agree with Winkpickler, below, his/hers is a practical statement, yours is not IMO.
As far as I'm concerned life is all about survival and the continuance of my genetic line. Therefore, if faced with such an unpleasant choice I would have no hesitation in killing anyone or anything, at whatever frequencies necessary to ensure my survival.
Hypothetical question borne out of curiosity: If the lives in question as compared to your own where those of your offspring, what would your decision be then?
Not all lives hold equal value either to individuals or to the whole. This means that the answer depends on what lives are being taken and for whom one chooses to die.
Is it better to live by killing Nazis or to Die saving Hitler?
Is it better to live by killing innocent civilians or die saving Einstein?
The original question lacks the context necessary to answer it.
