Are human motivations purely selfish?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
You've offered two examples that don't fit into my method.
1. Babies.
According to you, babies will "altruistically" share with others. While this may appear to be the case, I'm not sure that babies have a clear conception of their actions' effects. I would call these actions arbitrary at best since they're not really done to be kind. I've seen babies do kind things when asked, which might indicate selfless action, but I think it's more of a social construct of "mommy asked, so do it." Babies can't really be asked their motivations, so you'd have to do more extensive research before you convince me on this one.
2. Purposeful (Potential) Self-Sacrifice
Your example is stopping a robbery at the chance of getting shot. As you say, this example is in direct contradiction to #2. However, it doesn't contradict #4. If your moral belief is that you should stop the robber, regardless of the risk of death, and your moral conviction is greater than #2 then you will put yourself
in harm's way. But you must remember that morals are selfish in that everyone follows their own morals, not others'.
Lastly, you cannot simply lump all behavior into selfishness. You have to PROVE why it is there. Why is helping someone cross the street selfishly following morals instead of being altruistic? Why is following social norms selfish? You have simply made claims without backing them up with real proof.
I would say that babies' actions are arbitrary. They can't be predicted or explained, and are generally inconsistent. Until you form mental patterns, your actions aren't motivated. So the baby is sharing its toy(s) for literally no reason at all.Alternatively, I could also argue that the baby does have a motivation: experimentation. Although entirely unaware of formal experimentations, the baby gathers data and extrapolates meaning by experimenting, much the same way as a baby or child (or impulsive adult) might push a button in order to find out what it does.Thus, the baby is gathering data in order to benefit itself, a.k.a., selfish motivations.
You are obviously not listening. I specifically said that #4 can "overcome the three more obvious selfish actions if you have a strong enough conviction."It's all a matter of priority. Not everyone ranks the importance of the different types the same. That's why a criminal will go against #3, in service of #1.
I don't see why not. I've covered my bases, as they say, and until you come up with a legitimate exception, I can consider my hypothesis valid. I'm not trying to force this on you as fact, but until you disprove the claim that "human motivations are purely selfish," I will press my case. That's how all debaters do it. The "you simply can't" argument doesn't work. But go ahead and try to prove me wrong.
You: All actions are selfish.Me: So helping someone across the street is selfish?You: Yes, because it is satisfying one's own morals.Me: Where's your proof that?You: I said it, and you can't provide an exception.Me: What makes you an expert?You: Me.Me: *plugging in headphones*
A theory is all that this is. We're not here to do scientific experiments, and I'm not here to try and hide behind URL links like some people (not you) do.
You haven't provided any evidence that what I'm saying isn't true.
You haven't provided any evidence of what a baby's thought processes are. I have taken the actions that you listed and came up with possible explanations.
And science does provide evidence that babies are not capable of advanced processes. At best, babies are likely just making arbitrary actions in curiosity to see what happens.
Animals have been proven to do this much, and several studies have shown similar intelligence levels between infant humans and certain animals like dogs. You haven't even provided an alternate explanation.
1. Do your morals not tell you to help people? Do you not gain satisfaction from following your own morals? I do. Obviously, everyone's thought processes could be entirely different from mine, but the practice of empathy and putting yourself in someone else's shoes is imperfect because you're still thinking with your own thought processes and how you would react to those circumstances.
2. I never said that I'm an expert. Don't put words in my mouth. What makes you a greater authority to doubt me, anyway? Debaters assume authority because humans respond to confidence. And I am confident. I will show my confidence. I won't hesitate or second-guess myself.
That's five theories, four of which corroborate my own. None contribute to your argument.
Pros issue here, is that he spells out what his position is, and the criteria under which actions can be judged, and not once did he provide a justification for his position or argument to fundamentally support that his position is correct.
What I mean by this, is that pro proceeds to assert that all motivations are selfish, then sets himself up to shoot down all counter examples. At no point that I can see does pro attempt to explain the reasoning for this position, and justify it logically or systematically.
While I won’t necessarily agree that pro has lol the burden of proof, he has at least some of it, and his focus in what rather than why really lets him down in this discussion.
Importantly, pros position is eroded by his first response - claiming babies behaviour is arbitrary. This acknowledgement is basically conceding that in this case the motivations of the mini human is not solely racist and thus a single example of what appears to be not purely selfish action has been encountered. Pro himself repeatedly makes the case, that babies actions are not purely selfish - and they in fact do not fit into any social construxtZ
As a result, the remaining parts of the debate and arguments are largely moot, as the debate resolution is clearly negated by this example.
Arguments to con.
Conduct from both sides deteriorated and turned petulant towards the end. Watch that.
Argument point.
Pros argument was that seemingly selfless behaviors were actually selfish in nature. Pro main points are: Pleasure and Gain, Preservation, Public image, and self image. While this does account for the model without selflessness, it does not rule out selflessness. Let's look at Con.
Con makes an intuitive argument concerning selfless behavior in babies. Pro responded by casting doubt saying that we can't know if they're being selfless, but this also brought Pro's side into question as well, I believe this maybe the fatal error for Pro. But I'll read on.
Con then shows that Pro's 4 standards can have contradictions and Pro made no effort to provide a standard for handling this.
Con then points out that Pro has not proven the argument which is true at the moment.
Pro then goes onto completely sink his own argument in round two by saying
"According to you, babies will "altruistically" share with others. While this may appear to be the case, I'm not sure that babies have a clear conception of their actions' effects. I would call these actions arbitrary at best since they're not really done to be kind. I've seen babies do kind things when asked, which might indicate selfless action, but I think it's more of a social construct of "mommy asked, so do it." Babies can't really be asked their motivations, so you'd have to do more extensive research before you convince me on this one."
By saying that the behavior was arbitrary, Pro is essentially admitting that it's not selfish which indirectly concedes the debate topic. Not only did Pro not retract or amend this statement, but Pro actually goes on to assert the same thing again later on in the debate. This combined with Con's initial critiques is enough to aware the Argument Point to Con.
Tied in all others.
Most humans are selfish and there is nothing wrong with this. Otherwise, you would see everyone sponsoring as many children as they could. People care most about themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with this.
lol. I love it.
Hey, it looks silly, but it's a good rhetorical device if you want to get a bunch of questions off the table real quick in order.
"Me: What makes you an expert?
You: Me.
Me: *plugging in headphones*"
I took inspiration from you :D
Thanks.
i copy and paste what the person says then hit quotes button
How do you do the quote-y things? My attempt failed.
I haven’t.
Don't forget.
I would probably take Pro's side in the topic but I would also add that I believe altruism can be reached by purely selfish means.