Egoism

[Innocentius]

Yes, yet another philosophy thread...

The subject of selfishness was raised in Sasaki's thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=91889), which is a topic that always interest me. Now, my thesis is as follows:

All our actions happen for a reason. I am not talking about a rational reason, just that it happens because of something. Now, all our actions are triggered by electric impulses from the brain and some claim all our actions to be impulsive, but let's not get caught up on that, the point is: what triggers these impulses?
There must be a reason why our brain tells us to do certain things, and that reason must, in my opinion, be plain and simple egoism. Everything we do, every step we take etc. is done because our brain consider this to be good for us in some way, consiously or subconsiously. I'll take a few basic examples to prove my point that everything we do is done for an egoistic reason.

1. You buy yourself a coffee (assuming that you like coffee).

It's quite obvious. You enjoy the taste of coffee, it gives you energy, it's nice and warm and so on.

2. You buy your friend a coffee (assuming he/she likes coffee).

Consiously, most people do this to be nice, but in the long run, your brain is aware that this favour will earn you a favour in return, and moreover, this act will be appreciated by your friend who will be keen to you. Also, the sheer pleasure of feeling like you are a nice person is a positive effect that your brain strives after.

3. You buy a complete stranger (who you've not even spoken to) a coffee.

About the same as above, you will probably not get a favour in return, and you can't know if this person enjoys coffee, but you've done something nice, which will make you feel good about yourself. An alternative is that you would do this for your own amusement, as it's quite odd to hand coffee to strangers.

I think this theory is applicable to pretty much every situation, and from my way of seeing things, everything we do means we're being egoistic, thus I'm not condemning egoism as something entirely negative. But maybe I'm just cynical, what do you think? Discuss.

[Husar]

I've had similar thoughts to yours and can't currently come up with anything that would make you look wrong except maybe that sometimes you don't know whether the other person will appreciate what you do but you still do it because you think it's good for that other person. Parents tend to do such things. But then you could claim they're being egoistic because they just want the best for their genes. :shrug:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Everything we do, every step we take etc. is done because our brain consider this to be good for us in some way, consiously or subconsiously.
Very true! A lot of scientists have essentially also scientifically proven that some forms of altruism are indeed part of our genes, and that some forms of altruism is beneficial from an egoistic point of view, as contradictory as it may seem. I actually believe that in many cases, a 100% pure egoistic struggle will take you closer to most moral ideals, than an 100% pure and honest struggle to serve mankind and follow these ideals will.

The European politics of the post-Medieval age are another good example of how altruism as a purely egoistic pursuit pays off a lot, with the constant forming of coalitions against anyone going on the offensive that becomes too powerful. All countries would have been slightly more healthy today if none had ever gone on the offensive with Imperialistic dreams, but as it has been now, the countries that defended against such aggressors are at least healthier than the aggressor after an Imperialism attempt has failed (all rules, however, do have exceptions).

It all comes down to the mechanics of game theory, see for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma at wikipedia. If you keep playing rounds repeatedly, the best result for each individual is usually achieved by both sides cooperating all the way through. In fact, a lot of real-life politics can be compared to this game:
ENEMY ATTACKS, YOU ATTACK: you lose only a little
ENEMY ATTACK, YOU DON'T: you lose really, really much
YOU ATTACK, ENEMY DOESN'T: you win really, really much but not quite as much as you lose in the scenario above
YOU DON'T ATTACK, ENEMY DOESN'T ATTACK: you both win, but not very much, and not nearly as much in the scenario where you attack and the enemy doesn't

Despite the fact that the expected utility of "you attack, enemy doesn't attack" being much higher than "neither attacks", having an agreement to choose "neither attacks", and the needed trust for this, creates the best end-result for both sides, unless the victim of attacks doesn't retaliate etc. Good strategy is:
* Nice - The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not attack before its opponent does. Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.
* Retaliating - However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must always retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Never Attack. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such softies.
* Forgiving - Another quality of successful strategies is that they must be forgiving. Though they will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to play attacks. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
* Non-envious - The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).

However, if there's no communication whatsoever between the sides, so that you can't make any agreements at all, it's always optimal to screw the opponent. A political parable could be: "try to avoid cutting off diplomatical connections with a country".

Now if these things were taught in schools and actually understood by the masses, then maybe some idiots would learn not to trust and vote for aggressor leaders for their own countries...

[Papewaio]

There must be a reason why our brain tells us to do certain things, and that reason must, in my opinion, be plain and simple egoism. Everything we do, every step we take etc. is done because our brain consider this to be good for us in some way, consiously or subconsiously. I'll take a few basic examples to prove my point that everything we do is done for an egoistic reason.


I'd say it has evolved by trial and error and as such can make wrong decisions. Considering that Game Theory shows that the tit-for-tat strategy is often number one and that that strategy is one of the simplest... it would not take much to evolve a brain to look after that side of things.



3. You buy a complete stranger (who you've not even spoken to) a coffee.

About the same as above, you will probably not get a favour in return, and you can't know if this person enjoys coffee, but you've done something nice, which will make you feel good about yourself. An alternative is that you would do this for your own amusement, as it's quite odd to hand coffee to strangers.


This is what community is... where complete strangers end up looking after each others welfare in a system which exchanges favours... be it welfare or community spirit or Lions or some other community system.

The Selfish Gene is a good start in explaining why we do 'altruistic' things.

[AntiochusIII]

I think this theory is applicable to pretty much every situation, and from my way of seeing things, everything we do means we're being egoistic, thus I'm not condemning egoism as something entirely negative. But maybe I'm just cynical, what do you think? Discuss.If you don't mind egotism then why are you cynical?

[Innocentius]

This is what community is... where complete strangers end up looking after each others welfare in a system which exchanges favours... be it welfare or community spirit or Lions or some other community system.

Yes, again it's the favour - favour in return thinking, if we bring it to community level. What's good for them is good for me.


If you don't mind egotism then why are you cynical?

Well, first of all I said that egoism isn't necessary something negative, it can be however if it's taken to the extreme. Of course, I myself am quite egoistic, to a degree where most people would consider me egoistic in an "ordinary" sense: all we do might be egoistic, but generally when we speak of egoism we think of greed, thirst for power and such things. Screw them, as long as I'm fine, that sort of thing.

And me being cynical goes back to me being asocial and my trial and error thinking: everyone I've met so far is an idiot in some way (or he/she's just hiding it very well), so it's safe to assume that everyone I'll ever meet is an idiot, until they prove to be otherwise. Anyway, let's not get too deep into that stuff.

[AntiochusIII]

Well, first of all I said that egoism isn't necessary something negative, it can be however if it's taken to the extreme. Of course, I myself am quite egoistic, to a degree where most people would consider me egoistic in an "ordinary" sense: all we do might be egoistic, but generally when we speak of egoism we think of greed, thirst for power and such things. Screw them, as long as I'm fine, that sort of thing.Precisely. You first made the interesting claim that egoism might not be negative after all, then you assert your cynicism. That contradicts each other. If you are cynical of egoism then you view it as negative, but resigned to it as inevitable.

[Innocentius]

Precisely. You first made the interesting claim that egoism might not be negative after all, then you assert your cynicism. That contradicts each other. If you are cynical of egoism then you view it as negative, but resigned to it as inevitable.

It's not necessary contradictory, one can hate people for several reason. I'm not cynical of egoism, and I don't think I've ever said that. If I have, I misunderstood myself.