|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
My point is that it is the common use of the world which is openly contradictory.
If you apply it to some scenario like not telling your gf she's put on a few pounds because it will turn her into a spiralling tormenting machine against you is 'selfish' instead of 'selfless', I'd agree with that on some level. But ...
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Addressing poop's example: I don't want to live in a world where someone would see me in peril and ignore that if they had a chance to help me. Therefore I will take certain risks to help people whom are in peril because that's the vision I have for the world I want to create with my choices.
The gain to you here is so unlikely to be realized (most of us live an entire lifetime without needing anyone else to risk their lives on our behalf, never mind the person whose life we saved before) compared to the risk (drowning to save some idiot you don't even know who probably should've learned to swim before they went on a lake), that overall risking your life just isn't worth it in any 'selfish' way. I guess you could add the positive of being a hero but that's a pretty short-lasting thing really, and won't help you if you die in the attempt. It's probably going to get your name in the paper and not much else in the long run.
It's also a bit unrealistic to think that your own behavior has such a great influence on society as a whole that it's going to get your life saved in return whereas if you'd just let the stranger drown and then found yourself needing help ten years later, the person coming to your rescue would go 'wait a minute, i remember some time ago a person not bothering in this situation. I was going to save them, but nah, fuck it let them drown.'
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Do you do things that are good for me?
No.
How wrong you are to be selfish! If you were a better person, you'd act for my benefit, instead of your own.
That's not really a reasonable expectation though is it? How is he supposed to help you, and moreover, why help you over someone else he might already be helping? Is he even aware that you need help if you haven't asked for it? And if so, is he in a position to help? What should he be doing, sending you money over the internet?
I think in a more reasonable case people are pretty willing to put in an effort for the benefit of someone else. For example, if someone asks you how fluid dynamics works and you answer, why are you doing that? What are you gaining and why not just go 'fuck off and read a book I got tin cans to explode' or whatever?
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That's not my usage of the word, that's the common usage and you keep ignoring this point.
We're not ignoring it, we're pointing out it's kind of a prop that you're using to change the nature of the argument (presumably unconsciously) into one about the normal vs. MMM definition of a word. This is where you are kind of doing a reductio ad bananum.
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The common usage is a fucked up language of guilt and manipulation. Just because we now have the phrase "virtue signalling" to attach to the sentiments of guilt and manipulation doesn't mean that it was any less used to virtue signal before that phrase was popular.
It might help to give an example of what you mean by 'virtue signalling' here. Do you mean if I help an old lady across the street I'm really being selfish because I want to virtue signal that I'm a nice person? I think of virtue signalling as more in line with hypocrisy, where a person says one thing but acts in the opposite way. If I'm actually being nice and sacrificing my time for someone else's benefit, it's a bit cynical to view that as 'selfish' imo.
|