There is a rather current philosophical view about human behaviour that theorizes that everything a person ever does, they only do out of self interest. Let me explain this somewhat cynical sounding view. It suggests that when a decision presents itself, people choose based on what they want or need. Even seemingly "selfless" acts are actually just internal self interest. A person might save someone from drowning because they want to be praised or looked upon well. It may even be that they simply wish to be "a good person" and so they act in an attempt to make themselves better. There are a couple of problems I have with this theory that I think should be clairified.
First off, I believe that it is possible that what this theory is pointing to, is not selfishness, but rather is defining understanding, and processing as a means to exist in life. To say that everything we do we actually do for ourselves may be misleading. It might be said instead that everything we do we actually do because we are ourselves. What I mean by this is that everyone (we assume) has what philosophers call "qualia". This is "the experience of being", and it is specific to anything that has it. According to Thomas Nagel, I cannot know what it is like to be a bat, really, because I have my own qualia, and not the bat's. What this idea means is that we all understand that we are seperate entities from the world around us. There is an aspect to us that is quite individual, that no one else really has. It can be said that this "qualia" is internal; some call it an aspect of the mind, others, an aspect of the soul. Regardless, it is fairly commonly agreed upon that I am not you, and you are not me, and because this is the case, there will be things I experience that you will not.
Now the point I am trying to make is that everyone has an experience of life. We exist, and our bodies are basically giant receptors for the constant data our senses detect. We are a biological machine that is designed to take in information. With this information we seek to underdstand it, classify it, and put it to some sort of appropriate use. In this way, we function. Now, supposing that everyone does have an internal experience that no one else shares, it may be safe to say that we all make our own decisions based on what we have (namely the qualia and the input received). I would theorize that it is possible some confuse this very personal understanding of how we experience the world, and personally respond within it, as being an attempt at self gain. It could be simply that "acting in self interest" is more "acting as an individual will given their qualia and specific input". We are not our peers, and as such cannot truly act on their behalf.
A friend of mine that I discussed this with suggested that selflessness may not even be the great moral achievement it is often made out to be. I think on one hand he may be right, also in his claim that it is not possible with the current definition of it. It may actually just describe something functionally impossible, and as such, can have no good/bad value attached. What I also think is that there is a form of selflessness that need not be questioned. I have no doubt that some people react to situations that do not directly benefit them in order to increase benefit to someone else. What is really important about this suggestion is motive, because it cannot be said that ANYTHING that provides a benefit must be selfish. If I am going to gain a benefit from helping someone else, and I can neither help that fact, or do not consciously ponder my desire for that benefit, I believe an act is selfless. The existence of personal gain does not negate selflessness, it really only gets in the way if it is the motivation behind the action. I would not attribute a subconscious desire to a lack of care for others.
This is a highly debated concept, and one I think is often misused by people defending it. I do think that some assumptions are made about the claims that do not follow necessarily from the premises involved. However, this remains a philosophical topic I quite enjoy. In case you hadn't already guessed, I also love the philosophical theories involving qualia. It may have something to do with the fact that, in academic philosophical theory, a being that is functionally like a human but lacks qualia is referred to as a "zombie". Not making that up.
No comments:
Post a Comment