I challenged this; I went to the root of each act. I stated that the "selfless" are not selfless, and that selfishness creates "selflessness". I think it is not so detached, but more realistic and tangible than the idea of "the most". The root defines the rest, as it is the base of the structure and this is where I aimed. The way I perceive that people perceive the thing is illusory and basic.
Definitely. Your observations are correct, however, these phrases are used for the sake of easy understanding. They are illusory and basic, just like most language. Like, if I say "pig", you may think of a fat, pink animal in a barn yard, but I'm thinking of a brown fuzzy razorback. We use the phrase "pig" for the sake of basic understanding, and then through more communication about the object, our understanding becomes less basic and more complex. Sometimes being brief, but vague, has more utility than being long-winded, but precise. This is why we created words for people who appeared to be more self-servile vs. altruistic.
However, you're talking about the utility of being "selfless" vs. "selfish". They can be interchangeable for some in a practical sense? Yes. Sometimes a "Do it yourself" attitude works quite well. You can be focused on your own concerns, finances, work, play, while I am focuses on mine, and we become better suited in the long-hall - Stronger and more apt without using each other as a crutch. However, there are other times when making personal sacrifices for the needs of others produces a better outcome.
Like, imagine if you and I went to a local McDonalds. I asked you to selflessly refill my drink, while you asked me to selflessly refill yours. It's a win-win, but we might be better off refilling our own respectively because we mitigate the hassle. But, let's say that we refill each other's and we do a better job because we somehow know what's best for each other. Maybe I got you decaf because you would turn into a crazed maniac if you had too much caffeine, and maybe you got me unsweetened because I was turning into an obese glutton. If we hadn't helped each other, then perhaps we would have made poorer decisions for ourselves. This happens every day in the real world. However, it is also quite possible to make poor decisions for others.
How is that? Perhaps you are basing this off the chemical bit? That seems to me, what you're doing. That was a secondary approach to the selflessness concept, that was designed to combat the nobility of the actions themselves. The primary argument was the desire to act.
Yeah, but I'm talking about the desired outcome. Like, let's say I'm in the secret service and I "selflessly" throw myself infront of the president when he's being sniped at. I die, but then he lives and starts a nuclear holocaust. I just acted with altruistic desire, but the outcome was far from beneficial.
Which one is more important, the desire or the outcome?
