People only do good things for selfish reasons.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 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 months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
No one does anything purely because it is good or the right thing to do.
If a man saves a child from a burning building, but tells no one about it, it is still a selfish act as he is doing it to keep the child's death off of his conscience.
But it is still technically selfish as they are thinking of them self.
After all, if you didn't like seeing them happy, you wouldn't do it.
With gratification, the person is doing the act to feel the gratification of it, therefore making them concerned for themselves.
I just accept that in life people are concerned with themselves.
The only reason people do nice things is because they want to and/or they like to.
If someone doesn't want/like to do nice things, they won't do it.
A person who says "no need to thank me" is more likely to receive something in return
The mother isn't selfish because they received something back. The mother is inherently selfish, as all people are.
First of all, where did I say I didn't accept it at one point?
Where did you do this? I don't see any example, all I see are definitions and explanations of the definition.
Sure, unless doing something good for other people benefits them.
Another thing to understand about my point is that people don't even understand their own reasoning. While they think they care about others, they are, in actuality, only caring about themselves. What they think they're doing when they care about others is really just them benefiting themselves.
But what if the thing they do for their self is something they do for someone else?
I feel like you still don't understand my point. The reason why people do things for other people is because they want to. Their only reason is that they want to, though they may not realize this. If someone doesn't want to, they won't do it, which proves my point.
Yes, but they might not expect something in return from the other person. Maybe the thing they expect is to feel good about what they've done, or they expect not to feel guilty.
What I am saying is that some people don't accept this fact, but I do.
I have stated, multiple times, that there isn't anything wrong with that. My argument is not "people do good things for selfish reasons and that's bad." I'm just debating the fact.
I said: Does that really constitute them not caring about the homeless person but only carrying about themselves?You said: Yes. They act in their own self-interest. They aren't bad for this, it's just who they are.
People are genuine if they believe they are. But the underlying truth is that people do things for themselves only, even if those things benefit others and even if they don't know it.
When people do things for others, they don't realize it, but they are doing it because it benefits them, not the other person.
That means that they are selfish.
It does mean they are selfish because they are still getting something in return.
I'm sorry but this is false. Where did cause and effect come from? That has nothing to do with this.
How does that statement contradict itself? Most people apply to my argument.
No, this still means they are selfish because again, the reason they are giving their money away is to get something in return even if they don't know it. Like I said, it could be something small as feeling good.
That would then make the celebrities selfish.
This comes down to a semantic debate. I can tell that pro is using a definition of selfish that Ayn Rand would use. A definition that means (not altruistic) among other things. Pro argues that since everyone derives some benefit from seemingly unselfish things than it qualifies as selfish. I agree with his definition. If you give your kidney to a person needing one than it is usually out of a desire to help the person. The desire is the selfish motivation.
Con provides a definition that contradicts this view of selfishness that me and pro both have. His definition means that as long as an act is not with disregard to others it does not qualify as selfish. Pro never challenges this definition, leaving Con to win this semantics battle as even pro does not seem to disagree with the assertion that people can think with regard to others, even if they derive benefits from doing so, such as the pleasure of seeing a person get a new Kidney or to use an example from the debate, somebody saving a life when they will get no credit.
everybody is banned here,LOL
vote
vote
---
***