This thread hasn't proven that good is impossible yet, waiting. . . waiting. . .

It's useless to even wait. You know why, it's because it will NEVER happen. :D

fine i had time to sit and think over your proof over a glass of wine tonight. here goes

Fredrich Nietzche's will to power. he stated that there are only two types of people slaves and masters. masters rule over the slaves. to counter act this the slaves invented morals and religion to try to limit the masters power.

aristotle's pyrmid of virtue. for ones psyche to be in good health one must balance the soul between will and appetite (desire). all your actions are based off of either fullfilling or denying your appetite. all things in moderation. all our actions are based on desire.

hume in a very simplistic metaphore we (humans) are all just wind up toys that god created in the begining of time. there is no good or evil because we are just following a set pattern. free will is just a illusion. can't do good if we are just wind up toys. (the matric reloaded philosophy behind the Prophecies)

Jean-Paul Sartre we are born on this earth without being given a chooice. we learn the most terrible knowledge that we will die. we and all those around us are finite. there is no good nor evil just chooices. while we are alive there are no rule books that we can judge ourselves "good" nor "evil". we have our institions to guild us but they cannot tells what is truly right for us. ie thou shall not kill. what if there is someone trying to kill us. the rules to live by that the christian god wrote down in what we call the commandments. i would use other religions but it would take too long to explain those religions. sorry.

Sigmund Freud id, ego, super ego. id = selfish desires. ego= that which controls the id. super ego ethics we learn from our culture.

like i said this argument has been aroud for a very long time.

more later.

I still dont see why something is not a good deed if done for personal reasons.. again I think its all in your beliefs and opinions.

I don't see the proof in the opinions of dead philosopher's and myths, so where is the solid proof?

What if they dont?

oh and hobbes in social contract. we are brutish and violent and the only reason we are together at all is because we need what others have. we make contracts with others to our mutual benifit. i dont want to die so i wont attempt to kill you if dont attempt to kill me.

Hah! That's your proof? I can't wait to see the rest because that showed no good, solid proof.

Spacemonkey, he is proving one thing. And that is 'Don't take the opinions of dead philosopher's seriously.' I mean cmon, don't you think that the statements you've posted sound the least bit ridiculous? All philosophy is is opinions. And if that is your proof than you have proven nothing, Frog.

ahh a deciple of decarts. lol

what type of proof are you looking for? here are great respected philosophers and psychologists who wrote their great works from thousands of years ago to the 1980's arguing in their own way that selfish desire is behind all actions that humans do.

i have taken examples from people here in tthis post and showed that selfish desire is behind all the "good" acts from sacrificing one self for others to charity.

can you be more specific in what you want?

I want you to prove it, as you said you could, did you not? I don't wanna hear the opinions of professional opinion givers I want you to prove to me in your own words that good is impossible. And I'm starting to think that it's impossible for you to prove that good cannot be done. You have to have some proof that it's impossible, otherwise you woulden't have started the thread in the first place, right?

you may be right. its all about if your think that there are times when selfishness is not bad. my argument hinges on this simple belief. if you want to kill my argument all you have to say there are times when selfishness is good. me i say no because of the defintion of the word selfisheness. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself by dictionary.com. i say this cannot possibly good but who knows i may be wrong.

This is pointless. You cannot, absolutely cannot, assume to know a person's reasoning for taking an action. Just because an act could have been selfish does not mean that it was. Sure you can examine a given situation and come up with many selfish reasons that a person took those actions, but that does not mean that those were in fact the motivations for their actions.

You say that if you take away the reward for the action then the action would not be perfomed, but you also say that everything is predetermined and therefore there is no free will. If this is true then wouldn't the action be performed whether or not the reward was still present?

Your logic is very flawed. Until you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that all actions are indeed motivated by selfish desires you have proven nothing.

Coulden't have said it better myself, Da Munk.

* chuckles*
me: look outside the sky is bule.
you: no it isnt where is your proof.
me: look out side
you: so you say. where is your proof that is blue? i see no proof
me: here is a chart that says the color up there is blue
you: i want proof. this chart is not proof. where is your references.
me: this leader in his feild of physics say it is so
you: all you have proven is that we shouldnt trust those people. where is your proof.
me: what kind of proof do you want
you: i want hard, concrete proof that it is blue.
me: so have you see whos on second. no whos on first. (albert and constello)

Haha! That was funny.

Getting pretty desperate eh? Comparing that to this thread, they aren't even close in comparison. You'll never find something even close to proof, just except it and give up.

I think heres your problem..

self·ish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slfsh)
adj.
Concerned Chiefly or only with oneself: “Selfish men were... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights” (Maria Weston Chapman).


selfishness

\Self"ish*ness\, n. The quality or state of being selfish; Exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that Supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.



When you do something for someone else, or do "good", even if it makes you feel better.. generally you will not do it Exclusively for your own interests or happiness. There is still concern regarding the person(s) you are helping.

There may be a small amount of selfishness in the deed, but the fact remains you are helping someone else and in so doing improving their quality of life... this part of the act is Not selfish.

Therefore... if the motivation for doing the act is more heavily weighed with helping someone, then doing it for those feelings of greatness or whatever, then by the definition from dictionary.com the act is not selfish.

I think that makes sense... =)

Edited for various gramatical errors...

finally someone with a good logical argument against my argument.

ok does that happen? does our concers for others outway our selfihs desires? this leaves the realm of philosophy and enters psychology.

self image one of our most important concepts in mental health. self image is how we see our selves and how we believe others see us. i am a good person a good person does this.... if we do the act there is no problem we feel no anxiety, guilt etc. if we do not then we feel a almost physical pain that is the emotional upheaval caused the painful realization we are not who we thought we are. so we make up reasons to make our actions fit our versions of our self image. i didnt save the boy because he was not really a good boy or i couldnt have saved him... ect. our belief in who we are is so powerful that it can makes us do amazing or really stupid things.

here is another point. when someone says that Mr. Everyone just died in a car accident what is the usally first responces. was he drinking, was he wearing a seatbelt. we dont really care that he die (unless he was very close to us say a beloved family member) we just want someone to comfort us saying that cant happen to us. we do this to protect our self image that driving a car is safe for us. our self image is ruthless in protecting oursleves. we will even commit suicide to protect our self image. worse our self image is at a unconscious level. so we dont even relalize we are doing it.

when we do these acts we call good we, are in the end, just trying to protecting our self image.

I think it certainly can. I think it might depend on the situations, but it also depends on whats are more important to you. Your desires, or someone elses well being. And sure, you could say that because someone elses well being is important to you, that when you defend it, you are being selfish because it is important to you.

However I dont think that is always the case... or even mostly the case for that matter. I think it really depends on your own values and morals.

I think for this to be true there has to be time for thought. There are situations where you rely on instincts alone. Do you think that the passengers who faught back when their plane was highjacked so that it would not result in an even larger catastrophe were thinking, "Sweet if we take down this plane before they can crash it into something we will be hero's!". I dont think so. I think there are times where people snap, and when it happens reasonable thought is gone. They are fighting for something they believe in and in their hearts they know what is right. When they brought down the plane they were protecting people they had no emotional connection with.

I appologize if that example offended anyone... it was all I could think of at the time.

Personally when I hear of an accident... I usually think, "Its so sad stuff like this happens all the time", and I think of how fortunate that I am. I myself was in an accident, a really bad one, and I was lucky as hell I am still here today. I think having such an experience has led me to accept that shit happens... and there is not much we can do about it when it does. Perhaps this has given me a different outlook on things.. but I dont remember thinking differently before hand. I counted my losses and moved on, knowing they could have been worse. I know the next time I drive a car, it could be the last thing I do. Well, I do it anyway. I do not try to pull illusions in front of my face.

You have taken examples from people here in this post and showed that selfish desire MAY BE behind all the "good" acts from sacrificing.....

My point is exactly that; since you have not shown that these acts ARE selfish or badly motivated, than you have proven absolutly nothing. Only an all knowing being (ie God) could actually prove this one way or the other by actually KNOWING what motivated each persons good deeds. You have only guessed what motivates each person.

Human philosphers and pshyco-babblers are also guessing.

Guys? Is it just me.. or Did Frogman stop responding to my Logic? I joined the debate, yet now he doesn't respond back. Did I say something that he can't argue back? I don't believe I've left this yet.. unless of course, I've finally proven you can't be 100%... which is all I needed to prove.

I think it is just that he finally realised that he can't prove what he said he could so he gave up as he should do.

Listing quotes of people is hardly evidence. From a writer's standpoint, you need to clearly connect and relate these quotes to your point (thesis). You need to explain why the hell we should care about these quotes and how it proves your theory.

Also:
If you have only ever done good deeds for selfish reasons, that just makes you selfish. Not everyone. If you have done a good deed for a selfless reason, then you are evidence that your theory is flawed.

sorry been caught up in studying. man i thought i was taking it easy this semester. gahhh.

anyway. motdakasha got your point.

i wouldnt want to turn this in but for simple pleasure of this argument here is a really rough argument

lets start with Fredrich Nietzche

"what is harmful to me is harmful it self" Nietzche (beyound good and evil) states when he is talking about morality. "such morality is self glorifacation." i am leaving out a lot due to the time.

"Where the good begins.-- Where the poor power of the eye can no longer see the evil impulse as such because it has become too subtle, man posits the realm of goodness; and the feeling that we have now entered the realm of goodness excites all those impulses which had been threatened and limited by the evil impulses, like the feeling of security, of comfort, of benevolence. Hence, the duller the eye, the more extensive the good. Hence the eternal cheerfulness of the common people and of children. Hence the gloominess and grief - akin to a bad conscience - of the great thinkers." Nietzche http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html

on social contract by http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm

"...The foundation of Hobbes's theory is the view that humans are psychologically motivated by only selfish interests. Hobbes argued that, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. Without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people's selfish interests."

freud's theories on PSYCHOANALYTIC approach to psychology.
http://www.expandmind.com/freud.htm

"Freud believed the unlearned biological instincts influenced the way people think, feel, and behave,( especially sexual and aggressive impulses conflicting with society’s demands) were the chief environmental contributions to our personality.

unlearned biological instincts are called desires.

this proves that i am not alone in thinking that good is just selfishness with a pleasing outcome.

can we know what makes other people do "good deeds"? we can infer from past behaviors of both that single person and all of humanity. this is how one predicts how another is going to react to a situation. we may never know why is B.S. yes we can by using our scientific techs, experence, and our rational mind. ex. why does a person have sex. 1) pleasure 2) procreation 3) companionship 4)power ect... why does a person do good deeds 1,2,3,4 ect. we can know why a person does a good deed by using our minds.

i am to burnt out to put this all together i can add a lot more philosophers and psychologist who think that good is just selfish desires. maybe later when i have more time.

*frog limps towards. his pond pulls his lily pad over him, and begins to snore. ribbet...ribbet...*

motdakasha
have you really ever done a true good deed? really think about it. think about all the reason why you did that good deed. from simple pleasure to self image. i am not saying that you have not. i am not attacking you. just asking you to evaluate all your good deeds. i have and its was a very hard truth to come to realize that all my acts are selfish in nature. to be selfish is to be alive. its not really bad nor is it good. it just it.

When I give blood.. I do get a small sense of satisfaction after the deed is done. However, I do not give blood for that pleasure. I do it because it may save 3 lives. Not to mention my blood type is one that seems to be in high demand.

Going back to the definition thing... I think the possibility that I might save lives (good thing) outweighs the small sense of satisfaction (apparently bad thing) I get afterwards. To be selfish, an act must be done specifically for the (in this case) satisfaction or sense of pleasure. I do it to save lives.

Now I'm not saying that there might not be some people that do infact do it for that reason, as there are many egotistical people like that out there.

But...

It depends on the motivation. You are assuming that people will always do it for the selfish motivation. This is not true.

Again here... you leave out the possibility that they do these, just to do them. Even to do them simply to please someone else. I dont believe that there always has to be some secret hidden selfish motivation.

A lot of times I dont think about stuff I'm doing... just as an example I had to get fillings at the dentist. While he was drilling I found myself thinking about completely random things that had nothing to do with the dentist. I almost even forgot he was drilling. I dont know why but this is how I think about stuff. I never sit there and contemplate my actions or why I am doing something. After I do something I might be like, "Why the hell did I do that" but thats still after the fact and its something different anyways.

err I hope that last part made sense and you can see the relation I was trying to point out.

ok - for example...

I once picked up a hitchhiker and was giving him a lift along his way. As we neared my home (a log cabin along the Alaska highway) I realize that it is nearly dark. This hiker has told me along the way that he is hitching back to Alaska due to the fact that he was mugged earlier and robbed of all travel money.

I invited him in to my cabin, fed him, etc. Thought he'd have no luck hitching after dark, so gave him a blanket and the couch for the night. In the morning, I packed up what I could find for a lunch, and slipped in what cash I had in my pocket.

I've thought about this example a fair bit. I lived alone at the time. I had very little extra means. No-one knows about this deed. I have searched my soul and can say that I was concerned for this mans welfare. Not much more to it.

I've stated my motivation, but I'll allow the reader to judge for himself if this is a "good deed".

Like I said, most deeds are somewhere in the gray area, but I think everyone has done (or will do) at least one good deed whether or not they know it. Someone I thought of as a good friend, despite the fact I had only met him once and we only communicated via internet, committed suicide on 10 September 2001. On 6 September 2001, he had written a suicide note to all of his friends on a particular site. He attempted suicide, but according to him, the thought of his friends from this particular online community was enough to make him rethink suicide. I was in that note, which consisted of "I love you" links to names of people. At the time, I wasn't aware of this note. I wasn't even aware that he was suicidal, but he was a good friend of mine. I care about him. The evening before he killed himself he thanked me for being his friend in a coded, roundabout way but I didn't realize it at the time. I was not aware of the importance of our friendship or that I mattered that much to anyone until I got a phone call from the east coast on 10 September.
So while friendship may not be something you call a good deed, I'm very certain it was "good" in the eyes of my friend, and to me as well. My friendship with him played a role in delaying his suicide which he was so set on committing. How can it be a selfish act if I wasn't even aware that my friendship had any impact on anyone?

I know I argued before that it is possible to do a good deed, but I lied. I have seen the light of 3leggedfrog's logic, and I have come to the realization that I have never done a good deed. All the good I have ever done in my life was from selfish impulses that only served to line my wallet, promote me in my business, and increase my standing with everyone in the world. I thought that when I held the door for one of my co-workers that I was doing it selflessly. Well, turns out the entire company was on the other side of the door, and they cheered my name for 10 minutes afterward. So, I really did it for the praise of the people.

The other day, when I returned a wallet I found, I thought the deed would go in secret, but actually the residents of 6 apartment buildings were all looking out their windows at the same time, and threw confetti and roses on the ground at my feet. So once again, I did something for public accolades.

Yesterday, I swerved to miss a deer that surely would have been killed if I had struck it. Lo and behold, the heavens themselves opened and the Lord shone his countenance on me and bellowed "Well done, my good and faithful servant!" Another good deed done selfishly.

3leggedfrog is absolutely right.

oh it is a good deed no doubt about it. but you were not really doing it for him but for yourself. this goes back to when someone dies in a car wrech. we ask questions like was he drinking, was he wearing a seat belt. ect. you did this act of kindness for your own sense of comfort and security. this is like a person is looking at handicapped person in a wheel chair. why does one stare at the person in a wheel chair. why does one look away.

motdakasha
ok why were you his friend. we know why he was yours. to him you gave him comfort to know that there were people out in the world that cared for him. you eased a unbearable pain that he was living thought at the moment even though the pain in the end was too much. that was his motivation to be your friend what was yours. what did your freindship consist of. why did he think you were one of his good friends.

johnnymysto all sarcasm aside yes all your actions were selfish in nature. you opened the door for coworkers most likely because one it was culture programing and two to insure that they have a continued self image of you as a "good" person. returning a wallet was also another self image promotion purely to your self that time. the deer well it could be you just wanted to avoid damage to your car or you did not want to cause pain to the deer. before you say ha a good deed. it was in reality you who you wanted to avoid causing pain. empathy is understanding and or feeling anothers pain. you knew what pain it would cause if you hit the deer. so by avoiding the deer you avoid the pain both you and it would have felt.

booboo giving blood was pure self imaging inhancement. a good person gives bloood. i gave blood. so i must be a good person.

I was his friend because he was an easy-going fun loveable person with an extremely magnetic personality. He was fun to talk to.

"that Supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others."
a) being his friend didn't advance any of my interests as he lived across the country and i only talked to him via a chatroom.
b) he did not advance my power in any way.
c) being his friend did give me happiness, but not irregardless of others. which means that selfishness is not what this friendship was based on even if it did turn out to make us both a little happier because of the fact that is was a mutual happiness.



You, sir, are a lost cause.

once again..

\Self"ish*ness\, n. The quality or state of being selfish; Exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that Supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.

Please read the defintion. EXCLUSIVE regard to ones own interest or happiness. Exclusive.. here are the definitons of it that apply here.

"Not accompanied by others; single or sole."
As in the single or sole motivation to do something... whereas it is not accompanied by any other motivational factors.

"Complete; undivided"
same thing

You would be telling me then, that the sole reason I gave blood was to improve my self image. This my friend, is not true.

The same thing can be applied to all of the other examples the others have given. Most of which are very good ones.

i'm still not convinced.... each example you tear apart.. you've not proven that there is no such thing as a good deed. again, I submit that it's easily substitute something like evil into your statements.

Oh... if you acknowledged the fact that tirians deed was good... what is your argument. The topic of the thread is about the impossiblity to do good. Regardless of saying that he did the deed for himself, you said it was good. You are contradicting yourself here.

Unless you are changing your argument?

/agree

"you did this act of kindness for your own sense of comfort and security."

I'm not exactly sure what makes you able to presume my reasons, but I can tell you that lying in me bed knowing a complete stranger I just picked up on the highway earlier was in the next room did not exactly enhance my sense of comfort and security. At least not at the time. I admit to having scary "what if" kind of thoughts as I tried to drift off.

Frog, question. You say that all good deeds are driven by the rewards the person will get from the deed right? Well, my question is how do you know what drove the person to do the good deed? That's just it, you don't really 100% know why a person did it. They just did. All you are doing Frog is quoting professional opinionaters, as I said you were before. Face it, you can't 100% prove that it is impossible to do good, maybe you should have thought of a better title for your thread, my friend, because as it stands now, you lied.

I honestly don't even know how this thread is still alive. It's always the same type of "proof" each time. As far as i'm concerned quoting "professional opinionaters" as downwardspiral calls them, is NOT proof.

He does prove one thing Spacemonkey, that he dosen't think for himself and relies on the opinions of philosophers and hoping we'll give in to his logic.

OK I have sat awake many a night (just as many parents have) rocking a small child who is ill. They will receive no accolaids from the child. The child could just as well sleep on their own until they woke from the discomfort. The parent stays there because they know they want the child to be comforted. They want the child to sleep better. Also they want to know when the child turns for worse if that happens. They are there awake even though they are tired because they simply care for and love the child. If they get praise that is an after thought. If they benefit in any way that is only post action/motivation. The primary, initial motive for staying up to rock an ill child to sleep is love. Selfishness has nothing to do with that. Selfishness would do what some terrible parents DO. That is lay the child in a crib, shut the doors, and pull a pillow over their own head to go to sleep.

Good job, raeanna, you just proved a point. And that is that good, is indeed, possible. Thank you.

"Once in a spirit of extreme selflessness, altruism, and generosity I filled a rental car with premium." Emo

Now that is a selfless deed right there.

hmm... :-/

not only is "good" a very broadly defined word- which can mean different things to different people (thank you moelester...) but there seems to be some confusion over whether motive can cause an action to be "good" or "bad"....

i think the only thing we have proven here is that such questions are impossible to answer without some given assumptions... arrgh! :-p

sigh... well what does it matter anyway? people are not good... so nothing a person can do would be all that good either... :-p

I assume your jokeing about people not being good, right?

Mr. Spacemonkey: I'm still here, as I keep waiting for a response from Frogman. As of yet, he ignores my post. I find it funny, because its still defeat if you don't admit it.

reanna, since 3leggedfrog isn't here to respond at the moment (MIA) your actions can be construed as selfish for the propagation of the DNA....

damn... i don't do such a good impression of 3leggedfrog do I?

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the fact that an act is selfish negates the goodness of that act?

It might be argued that it somehow lessens it but how do they quantify that it completely cancels it?

OH and propagation of the DNA would only be a potential end result of the example I gave earlier. A mother or father for that matter is not staying near their child to comfort it in an effort to preserve that child's DNA. If they only have a simple cold they'll likely survive sleeping in their bed as well as in the parents arms. Holding the child isn't for any purpose other than to comfort that child. The parents could just as easily juts go to check on the child periodically and still make sure the child doesn't get worse.

Children need comfort from their parents to to develop "normally." A child who can function in this world is a better guarantee that the parents' genes will continue. Think of the (poor) Rhesus monkeys.
http://www.violence.de/bylinsky/pic5.jpg


"He discovered that an infant rhesus monkey will cling to a soft mannequin monkey rather than to a wire mannequin monkey even when the wire mannequin supplies the baby with milk."
"When an infant was clinging to its surrogate mother the scientists would eject the spines and the infant would be painfully pushed away from its 'mother'."
"Harlow then impregnated some of these socially and emotionally crippled monkeys. When their babies were born Harlow documented all the many ways they killed their own children."

Okay doing "good" is a very general thing and with all comes good and bad. If you want to get technical everything is bad *coughpessimistcough* but true good is just the feeling inside you get when you give a compliment or help someone needy.