Are human motivations purely selfish?

Yeah I agree. I actually lean closer to the other side of this argument, But I think I would enjoy debating it from either side.

This is one of those topics that could really go anywhere. Maybe we can consider the implications of free will vs deterministic philosophies, Maybe we get into the implications of evolutionary biology, Or maybe, We can just start simple.

I propose that human motivations are not always purely selfish, Because humans are capable of selfless acts of kindness.

Sometimes, On a really good day, Humans will do a good thing. And they won't do this good thing because it made them happy, Or because it brought them admiration, Or because of societal pressure, They do the good thing simply because it was a good thing to do. I think there is something to be said for human compassion.

Looking forward to your response!

Your original premise is that human motivations are PURELY selfish. This implies that all humans are always selfish, 100% of the time. Given this assumption, I think it's fair to say that if we find solid evidence of human behaviour that isn't selfish, Then I could claim victory.

BTW, You never want to leave yourself with the "sharp end" of a premise like this; it leaves you strategically vulnerable the rest of the match. Not trying to be preachy, Just a good debating tip.

----

My opponent has used the classic "there's always a possible explanation" argument. The problem with this argument is that it is susceptible to "Infinite Regress"[1].

Have you ever heard a two year old ask why a million times? Why did the good Samaritan do the selfless thing? Because he had a strong moral code. Well why did he have a strong moral code? Because it was in his brain. Why was it in his brain? Because his neurological atoms organized themselves that way. Why did the atoms organize themselves that way? Because particle physics. . . . And on and on it goes until we reach a point where the questions stop meaning anything. I could make up the most altruistic person that ever walked the earth, And there would always be another possible justification for their behaviour. This line of reasoning always descends into chaos.

In fact, You can break down any concept into nothingness using this strategy. Neither one of us can win the debate trapped inside the endless why loop (programming joke anyone), So I'll attempt to maneuver around it instead.

------
Argument 1

Let's construct a hypothetical situation where Bob must choose whether or not to do a good deed for Kelly. If he does this good deed they will both feel happier. If he does noting, Nothing changes. In this instance, Bob's selfish needs are perfectly aligned with his selfless needs; the selfless choice and the selfish choice are the same choice. In this instance, The concept of selfishness and selflessness no longer exist because they cancel out.

Proof: Let's say Bob does the good deed. You can't claim that the act is selfish without also claiming the act selfless. This creates an obvious paradox. Therefore, The act was neither selfish or selfless, And hence not all human behaviour is selfish.

---
Argument 2

If all of Bob's choices are predetermined (by his biology or environment or whatever else), Then Bob has never truly made a choice. I would argue that selfishness necessarily involves making a choice. If all of Bob's actions were pre-programmed like a machine, Then you could argue that bob Never did anything selfish, Or anything selfless, Because Bob lacked the ability to make a choice in the first place.

Again, Bob's deeds where neither selfish or selfless, Therefore not all human behaviour is selfish.

---

By the way I had to get very baked to come up with this. It sounds clever to me now but it might just be crap lol. Let me know.

Your move!

[1]http://www. Informationphilosopher. Com/knowledge/infinite_regress. Htmlh

Argument 1

My opponent: "You can't prove that his actions are selfless. "

I agree. I specifically proved that his actions were neither selfish or selfless.

I only need to prove that Bob is capable of performing one single non-selfish act. - which I've accomplished.

One non-selfish act, Would mean that human motivation is no longer PURELY selfish.

Therefore, The premise is broken.

--You went on to explain that bob might be selfish some other times, But that is irrelevent. You need to defend your premise.


Argument 2

My opponent: "I'm going to ignore this. Your argument can't be that neither of our arguments really exist due to choice being an illusion. "

Well that's a bummer.

You've made an excellent point. I think that Argument 1 proves that the act was not selfish, But it doesn't speak to the motivation behind that act.

You've also stated that I can't argue predetermination or the "choice is an illusion" argument, So I expect you won't use these arguments either.

Argument 3:

What about instances of self sacrifice? A soldier jumping onto a grenade to save his comrades? A friend pushing you out of the way of a moving car, Only to be hit themselves? A monk setting himself on fire to make a political statement for the betterment of his people?

How are the motivations for these acts selfish? No one would value momentary happiness over there own life. Some good deeds are done not because they make the person good, They're done simply because they are good.

You could argue that their morals or eithics made them do it, Buuut then we're back to predetermination - see argument 2.

Good call on the definition. We probably should have defined that in R1 haha.

"Once again, Self-gratification through moral adherence. "

I would argue that setting yourself on fire or jumping on a live grenade are not motivated by self-gratification.

"Do instinctive actions count as motivated? "

I would argue that there are cases of planned self-sacrifice, (the monk setting himself on fire), And therefore, Are not a result of instinct. I still don't see how that could be considered selfish.

---
Summary of my arguments

Argument 1: It can be shown that some actions are neither selfish, Or selfless, Although that doesn't speak to the motivation behind the action.

Argument 2: If choice is an illusion (predetermination), Then you cannot lable an action as selfish, Because there was no choice involved.

Argument 3: Acts of (planned) self-sacrifice are not selfish, They serve the betterment of the people at the expense of the martyr.

---

I believe that humans are generally selfish. I don't believe that 100% of human actions are selfish. If you think that I've demontrated this, Please vote Pro.

Thanks all for reading, And thank you to Michael for a fantastic topic choice.