BF2S Forums Important question

I think in the end we're talking about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

When a soldier dives on a grenade to save his squad mates, his only reward is a quick death, I'd say that is truly selfless.

You could argue he gets something, posthumous respect, his name remembered through history.
Thats why people do a lot of things after all.

If that is his motivation for diving on the grenade, then no, it isn't selfless at all. But I'm willing to bet most of those who have done that weren't thinking "boy, I'm gonna get a shiny medal for this" when they did it.

FEOS say YES. Go deal with the mentally handicapped for a while and you'll see multiple examples of selflessness.

I read something about the reasoning around soldiers heroic acts of self sacrifice. It was argued that in the military soldiers can end up regarding their fellow soldiers as almost a part of themselves, You are your unit. In a similar way to the way that parents or lovers would regard their child/partner as almost an extension of themselves when they get that close to them and will therefore sacrifice themselves in order to save what is in some way another part of themselves.

Anyone who has served in combat have any thoughts on this idea? Is it a load of academic BS?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kinda sad to think that the saints in our society are just the most well-trained members of society, not the best humans.

I agree with that completely

Although I may still think a person can be selfless.  Like someone said, its just very uncommon.  But I do get where you're coming from now.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Happy endings do not justify corrupted means. If people were open about being completely selfish in their every act it would be one thing, but people stroking their egos because they think they are such a good person is another.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kinda sad to think that the saints in our society are just the most well-trained members of society, not the best humans.

That.  Is.  Absurd.

These sound like the rantings of a person who is both elitist and depressed.

I voted "no" on technicality, but I think it all depends on how you view it.
I think you have to think of "selflessness" and "selfishness" in relation to how people popularly think of these words... So yes, there are "selfless people," but every action someone takes is in the pursuit of their own happiness and wellbeing.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because you're putting their life first because you value their life more than yours. You are selfishly deciding whose life is worth more than others. If you were given the option to trade your life for either a close (but not genetically related) friend or someone you have never met in your life, who would you choose?

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to care for other people, I suppose.  How can you call self-sacrifice selfish?  That is the most absurd thing I have heard all month.  In the case you propose, I would save a dear friend or family member.  I posed that in my post before.

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what it means to care for other people, I suppose. You are only sacrificing yourself because in your personal opinion the other person is better than you are. Who are you to make that choice? What if someone else thought you deserved to live more than the person you are saving? You're playing God, and that is selfish.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Wolves cannot survive on their own, only in packs. It is in the individuals best interest to help the whole.

So why wouldn't the wolves just eat with the strong who killed the prey, instead of bringing some back for the others.  You missed my point.

Women and children.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Sacrifice themselves to warn others? How does that work?

A prairie dog will stand up and screech in warning, calling attention to itself, but saving the rest of its comrades.  This is usually the last thing it does, as the bird will kill the most visible, easy prey.  I guess the prairie dog is only in it for the glory.  That selfish bastard.

I can't find anything anywhere about a prairie dog intentionally committing suicide for such a call. I have found lots of references to this warning call, but any deaths from it are probably unfortunate, unavoidable consequences for the prairie dog.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Strong pack members are always a welcome addition. Though less likely than taking in members of their own species, it's still in their best interest to accumulate as many strong hunters as possible for the good of each individual.

Righto.  Only ulterior motives here. 

Proof otherwise?

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Humans are animals, animals do not show altruistic behavior.

Incorrect.  Maybe you don't exhibit altruism, but others do.

I refuse to accept that if I do a good deed, I am actually being selfish.  This proposition is so ridiculous that it's actually irritating.

I refuse to accept that we didn't go to the moon. The proposition is so ridiculous that it's actually irritating.

SenorToenails wrote:

That.  Is.  Absurd.

These sound like the rantings of a person who is both elitist and depressed.

no u

I'm not depressed, contrary to popular belief I am far from an elitist, now you're just firmly rejecting ideas alien to you.

SenorToenails wrote:

Vilham wrote:

But its not selfless. He did it because he wanted to save his mates. Therefore he did it for his own reason.

No such thing as selflessness.

Therefore, every action is selfish?

Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we call a bad definition!

lol...

Just because something you do isnt selfless doesnt mean its selfish. Thats like saying every action is either good or evil. naive and stupid idea.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what it means to care for other people, I suppose. You are only sacrificing yourself because in your personal opinion the other person is better than you are. Who are you to make that choice? What if someone else thought you deserved to live more than the person you are saving? You're playing God, and that is selfish.

I disagree.  But maybe the hypothetical situation of "one lives, one dies" is a bad example.  What about the dropped wallet?  Am I playing God by deciding that person would want their wallet back?

No, but you're only doing it because it either a) fits your narcissistic tenancies or b) helps you fit in to society.

What would happen if you consistently committed directly selfish acts at the expense of others? You would be quickly shunned, and that is no advantageous to you as an individual.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Women and children.

You define caring for young as selfish?  That's a new one.

Only new to you. Maintaining cohesion as a group is to the benefit of all the members.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I can't find anything anywhere about a prairie dog intentionally committing suicide for such a call. I have found lots of references to this warning call, but any deaths from it are probably unfortunate, unavoidable consequences for the prairie dog.

It's putting themselves at greater risk for death, not jumping off a cliff.  But that warning call is pretty selfish...

That greater risk pays because every memeber of the group knows that if one sees a predator, he warn the rest. They know that they are all watching each others' back.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Proof otherwise?

I can make outrageous claims too.  Should I demand proof from you?

Fine, not proof, but reasoning. I provided a logical explanation that you just refuted with no reason. I would love to hear one.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I refuse to accept that we didn't go to the moon. The proposition is so ridiculous that it's actually irritating.

Where are you going with this?  What does the moon landing have to do with this?

Sorry, I ganked myself with double negatives. I meant to say that we did go to the moon.

My point was that the fanatical, almost illogical way you're approaching to the discussion is similar to the way conspirators argue we didn't go to the moon.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

no u

I'm not depressed, contrary to popular belief I am far from an elitist, now you're just firmly rejecting ideas alien to you.

Actually, I'm not.  You are defining all actions as selfish.  That is a misuse of the word, but you are clearly rejecting that idea.

The line of thought you're arguing is the societal norm. I think it's pretty safe to say the people identifying with my line of thought are in the minority, at least on these forums. I've changed my mind from your stance to mine over the years, I don't know how I'm rejecting it.

SenorToenails wrote:

Vilham wrote:

lol...

Just because something you do isnt selfless doesnt mean its selfish. Thats like saying every action is either good or evil. naive and stupid idea.

I never said everything was black and white.  But implying that all acts are selfish somehow is naive and stupid.

NOT SELFLESS DOES NOT MEAN SELFISH. Seriously. You say "I never said everything was black and white" and then in the next sentence you say it is!

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, but you're only doing it because it either a) fits your narcissistic tenancies or b) helps you fit in to society.

What would happen if you consistently committed directly selfish acts at the expense of others? You would be quickly shunned, and that is no advantageous to you as an individual.

oook.

What is your definition of selfish?  I give the wallet back because I would want someone to give it back to me.  Does that make me fit into society?  Sure.  But so does paying for items in the store, instead of stealing them.  Is that the only reason that I do it?  No.  Am I doing it because I am narcissistic?  Ask anyone I know--I'm not self-loving. 

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Only new to you. Maintaining cohesion as a group is to the benefit of all the members.

New to me indeed.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That greater risk pays because every memeber of the group knows that if one sees a predator, he warn the rest. They know that they are all watching each others' back.

Is that narcissistic?  No.  Does it help them fit into society?  Sure, but I fail to see that as selfish.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Fine, not proof, but reasoning. I provided a logical explanation that you just refuted with no reason. I would love to hear one.

Those examples are off the quote frames, so I won't deal with them right now.  Let's resolve the issues at hand before we get to anything new.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Sorry, I ganked myself with double negatives. I meant to say that we did go to the moon.

My point was that the fanatical, almost illogical way you're approaching to the discussion is similar to the way conspirators argue we didn't go to the moon.

I understood your intent, but this is not an issue with empirical evidence.  The moon landing is.  You can claim that I am irrationally arguing my point with great zeal, but that doesn't make it correct.  I apologize if my points aren't clear--I'm a busy man, and I tend to the message boards in short sittings (most of the time).  This is an issue of interpretation and definition.  I'm sure Varegg can attest to just how tenacious I can be on these types of issues.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The line of thought you're arguing is the societal norm. I think it's pretty safe to say the people identifying with my line of thought are in the minority, at least on these forums. I've changed my mind from your stance to mine over the years, I don't know how I'm rejecting it.

The way you portray every act as selfish is misusing the term "selfish".

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, but you're only doing it because it either a) fits your narcissistic tenancies or b) helps you fit in to society.

What would happen if you consistently committed directly selfish acts at the expense of others? You would be quickly shunned, and that is no advantageous to you as an individual.

oook.

What is your definition of selfish?  I give the wallet back because I would want someone to give it back to me.  Does that make me fit into society?  Sure.  But so does paying for items in the store, instead of stealing them.  Is that the only reason that I do it?  No.  Am I doing it because I am narcissistic?  Ask anyone I know--I'm not self-loving.

My definition of selfish is to act solely on your own needs and desires. I didn't say there is anything wrong with being selfish or fitting into society. It's natural.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That greater risk pays because every memeber of the group knows that if one sees a predator, he warn the rest. They know that they are all watching each others' back.

Is that narcissistic?  No.  Does it help them fit into society?  Sure, but I fail to see that as selfish.

They aren't doing it without benefit, they are only doing it so they can be afforded the same protection. If they could be given protection with no risk to themselves, they would do it.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Fine, not proof, but reasoning. I provided a logical explanation that you just refuted with no reason. I would love to hear one.

Those examples are off the quote frames, so I won't deal with them right now.  Let's resolve the issues at hand before we get to anything new.

k

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Sorry, I ganked myself with double negatives. I meant to say that we did go to the moon.

My point was that the fanatical, almost illogical way you're approaching to the discussion is similar to the way conspirators argue we didn't go to the moon.

I understood your intent, but this is not an issue with empirical evidence.  The moon landing is.  You can claim that I am irrationally arguing my point with great zeal, but that doesn't make it correct.  I apologize if my points aren't clear--I'm a busy man, and I tend to the message boards in short sittings (most of the time).  This is an issue of interpretation and definition.  I'm sure Varegg can attest to just how tenacious I can be on these types of issues.

It's not like the moon landing couldn't be faked. I don't think it was, but it still could have been.

The rest is true, though I'm sure Spearhead can attest mine.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The line of thought you're arguing is the societal norm. I think it's pretty safe to say the people identifying with my line of thought are in the minority, at least on these forums. I've changed my mind from your stance to mine over the years, I don't know how I'm rejecting it.

The way you portray every act as selfish is misusing the term "selfish".

How is it misusing the term? If ever act ever done by a human being fits the definition, it's not misuse.

heh this was actually a subject of debate in an Ethics class. It was me saying yes vs. 12 students and a teacher saying no. I brought up soldiers, the Grenade example etc. and we debated for a few hours.


Yes. It is, however rare.

Disagree, still be faked but off topic, yes but not specifically what you are referring to?