Are Neutral Characters more selfish then Evil ones?

[TheCrowing1432]

Because we all know arguing alignment is such a good idea.



So we're all familiar with the alignment chart. We have the Good/Evil Axis and the Law/Chaos Axis.


Law values structure and rules, Chaos values individual freedom. Good is...well Good and Evil is Evil. In DND Evil and Good are tangible qualities.

As Rick says in Rick and Morty



Rick: Hey, Morty, let me-euh— let me-euuh— let me ask you a question real quick. Does evil exist, and if so, can one detect and measure it?
Morty: Um... [Rick scans the vintage microscope]
Rick: Rhetorical question, Morty. The answer's "yes, you just have to be a genius."


Good and Evil characters are generally pretty similar, they champion their own ideals and do things in order to achieve them. Difference is, Good characters often dont commit crimes in order to do so. Evil characters traditionally lie, steal, murder, enslave and do many other things that are morally wrong. Selfishness is usually associated with being Evil but is not a requirement, in fact LE can be easily argued on NOT being selfish.


Neutral characters on the other hand are not overtly concerned with others. They try to maintain the status quo. CN characters just value freedom no matter what, as LN value the law.

TN are almost completely self absorbed as they dont dedicate themselves to a cause of any description.

As a quote from Spoony in one of his videos

"Neutral characters dont really care who the lord of the country is, they just care how many taxes they have to pay"

This lends itself to the belief that Neutral characters are inherently more selfish then other alignments, even Evil which is supposed to be a negative trait. Now this doesnt mean that Neutral characters cant care about others, I mean even they have family and friends, but it IS an interesting tidbit that the Neutral character might put more stock in his own needs then the Evil one.

What does the playground think? Am I completely wrong on this one?

[Godskook]

Usually, the good/evil alignment is take to mean:

1.How willing you are to look out for others, with good being everyone, neutral being tribalistic, and evil being self and maybe near family.
2.How focused on "fighting greatest bad thing" versus "preserving greatest excellent things". This comes out of the cosmic backstory in 3.5, where the initial war is between Law and Chaos, and Asmodeus is on the "good side" of it, but is far too willing to throw everything into the meat-grinder to win. Hence, faustian pacts and such.
3.How focused you are on "rules as written" versus "rules as intended", with LN disliking both to some degree and preferring to develop rules that have no difference between the two.

I can't think of a singular interpretation under which the good/evil alignment puts the most "selfish" as being the most "neutral".

The law/chaos alignment is easier to deal with, as increased chaos attunement means more freedom to "do what you want", and thus a more selfish person will always prefer to be more chaotic unless the reward scheme somehow doesn't favor it locally.

So, imho, CE is the most selfish, and the line that goes from CE to LG describes how selfish/unselfish you are, overall.

[Troacctid]

Good characters will help strangers at their own expense. Neutral characters will help friends and family at their own expense, or strangers if there's no expense to anyone. Evil characters will help themselves at the expense of others.

So no, neutral characters are not more selfish than evil characters.

[Ashtagon]

The premise of the question kind of assumes that evil characters perform evil deeds for the sake of evil as an ideal (and conversely, good people do good things for the sake of good as an ideal). I'm not sure that's correct.

Both of them perform these deeds for the same reason: doing so tickles the pleasure centres in their brains. They don't sign up to Team Good/Evil and then do deeds to reflect that allegiance. Rather, they do things that make them feel they have a place in the universe, and their alignment is a reflection of their deeds.

[Âmesang]

To paraphrase another video of the Spoony One's, (true) neutrals are Grey Lanturns; the Guardians of Not Giving a $%&#.

Well, that's basically how I played a true neutral ranger, anyway. She did lean more towards good than evil but only with regards to obvious cases, but typically she only helped out if she expected something in return. I was trying to aim for an overall "survival of the fittest" mindset who's ability to do good depended on individual circumstance (such as helping a kindly old woman to rescue her cat).

Honestly it makes me think she'd have to do a lot of leaning 'cause otherwise her only reason to adventure would be to just follow every one else… because. :smalltongue: Well, she did have the goal of discovering more about her past (imagine Aragorn who knew nothing about Nümenor; the result of me having no clear direction and the referee making things up as he went along).

I'd agree that chaotic evil is the most selfish since it combines the individualistic mindset of chaos with the ruthlessness and drive of evil; though for one character in particular I've been trying to focus the Suel's dedication to family as a dedication to the party but only because she sees her teammates as tools and pawns to be manipulated, and she'll be damned if she'll let anyone break her favorite toys.

"You here this now, whoever's responsible for this, you turned my partner, Troy, into jelly! I will have you destroyed for this! He was mine to toy with and destroy as I please in a humorous fashion; nobody outdoes Dr. Insano, do you here?! Nobody! I must plan my vengeance… but first it would be a shame to let all of that tasty jelly to go to waste… oh, it looks like strawberry… Nurse! Fetch me the English muffins!"

[Albions_Angel]

I think a lot of players (certainly most I have encountered) play Neutral chars as either Evil/Good alignment (ie, they play good characters, but use the "HEY! I am a Neutral Character" excuse to then go and loot everything not nailed down) or do play Evil-lite characters. "Why would I save them? Whats the benefit for me? They can just die for all I care."

While thats fine to do, to my mind, Neutral is basically what everyone is IRL. Mostly good in that they dont get into trouble. And they will help someone out, and will sort of expect help in return at some future point. But unlikely to jump in to stop a mugging unless the odds are in their favour. Unwilling to upset the status quo because its alright right now.

Its easier to see in a scenario. Lets say you are riding through a village, and some local is being shaken down for money by an armed group.

A good character will usually do one of 3 things. They will either instantly run in and defend the local at all costs (your classic, well meaning but unthinking paladin), or they will intervene and try to deescalate the situation, find out whats going on and try to solve the issue (maybe he is being shaken down because he is a tax dodger, so maybe the good guy will pay his debts and try to convince him to do better in future), or they will run to alert the authorities.

An Evil char typically also has 3 things they will do. Join the armed group and split the profit. Save the local and then demand payment themselves. Walk away grinning and thinking "this is the town for me".

A Neutral character in most peoples games that I have seen will either do the last of those evil options, or some variant. And thats ok, thats the bystander effect in play. But a neutral char should also be considering "hmm, will it ingratiate me with the village to save him? Can I take those guys without too much risk? Is there someone nearby I can tell? Should I wait and help the guy afterwards? Should I move on and hope to get out of here quickly?"

I guess a simple way of putting it is a good guy asks "Whats the right thing to do?", an Evil guy asks "Whats the right thing to do for ME?" and a neutral guy should be asking "Whats the BEST thing to do?" where BEST covers all the options, its the optimal outcome, both for them and for everyone else, doesnt jeopardize the mission, or attract attention, or upset the current standing if it works. And it makes the neutral char feel good about their choice.

[The Insanity]

No. ktuirtuyd

[Eno Remnant]

There's a quote floating around the playground that I'll paraphrase here: "Neutral looks out for Number One. Evil looks out for Number One while stepping on Number Two."

Evil tends only to give of itself in order to get something back. Selfish generosity, if you will. It's all for your power play, your goal. Working for the cause is working for yourself, because the cause offers something you want.

Those Neutral on the Good/Evil axis are a little less likely to pursue a cause as opposed to those who are Evil, but that's a minute difference. I started a thread on the forum recently about Chaotic Neutral religion, and it's full of examples of Chaotic Neutral characters that are willing to sacrifice some of their selfishness for the betterment of the cause.

So technically, yes, I would agree with the premise. But I must also state that it's an insignificant difference.

[Draco_Lord]

I think we need to first look at what it means to be selfish. And how the different alignments acts in regards to that definition.

So personally I am going to define Selfish as self serving, as in you are putting YOUR own needs before EVERYONE else. There is no question of morality involved, as in if the act is good or evil, it is purely who you are trying to help.

And honestly, I would say that Neutral and Evil are both tied on that. Evil can swing on the selfish spectrum, mostly Lawful Evil. A Lawful Evil character who just wants to see their empire build power, willing to do what they must to destroy their enemies, is not selfish. A powerful mage adviser to his king, who will happily see a thousand sacrifices made to keep his empire at the top might not be selfish, we are now boiling down to why they are committing evil. And that question makes it very flexible. The why doesn't matter with alignment. A person who keeps another enslaved is evil, regardless of if they are doing it to protect them from a worse fate. A person who murders one to save another has committed an evil act. It is not selfish.

Neutral on the other hand is always selfish. Neutral is always about what the person making the decision wants. They will help you, if you pay them. They will serve their king loyally, because they like their job. And I think this is where this debates boils down to. Neutral is always selfish, evil is not. Because ultimately there is no great neutral act you can commit to help others. E

[Slithery D]

All alignments are equally selfish, as they act to maximize their individual utility function. Evil hurts people because it makes them feel good. Good does nice ints for people because it makes them feel good. Both are selfish motivation from the perspective of the actor.

[OldTrees1]

No.

There are 2 kinds of people*: those that seek to do good and those that are motivated by amoral motives. This prime motive says nothing about their actual alignment. Some of the most memorable Evil characters and most disappointing Neutral characters are driven by a misguided sense of what good is or of how much good they actually do. Less memorable are the Good and Evil characters that coincidentally happen to do mostly good or evil as they pursue some amoral motive. So while a Neutral character could be motivated by amoral motives, this is no more selfish than the Good and Evil characters motivated by amoral motives.

*(obviously false but please bear with me)

[CharonsHelper]

I thought that there were 3 types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't.

[Draco_Lord]

I thought that there were 3 types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't.

No, no, no. There are 10 types of people, those who know binary and those who don't.

[nedz]

No, no, no. There are 10 types of people, those who know binary and those who don't.

No, no, no. There are 10 types of people: those who know binary, those who don't and those who weren't expecting a trinery solution.

[Quertus]

Because we all know arguing alignment is such a good idea.



So we're all familiar with the alignment chart. We have the Good/Evil Axis and the Law/Chaos Axis.


Law values structure and rules, Chaos values individual freedom. Good is...well Good and Evil is Evil. In DND Evil and Good are tangible qualities.

As Rick says in Rick and Morty




Good and Evil characters are generally pretty similar, they champion their own ideals and do things in order to achieve them. Difference is, Good characters often dont commit crimes in order to do so. Evil characters traditionally lie, steal, murder, enslave and do many other things that are morally wrong. Selfishness is usually associated with being Evil but is not a requirement, in fact LE can be easily argued on NOT being selfish.


Neutral characters on the other hand are not overtly concerned with others. They try to maintain the status quo. CN characters just value freedom no matter what, as LN value the law.

TN are almost completely self absorbed as they dont dedicate themselves to a cause of any description.

As a quote from Spoony in one of his videos

"Neutral characters dont really care who the lord of the country is, they just care how many taxes they have to pay"

This lends itself to the belief that Neutral characters are inherently more selfish then other alignments, even Evil which is supposed to be a negative trait. Now this doesnt mean that Neutral characters cant care about others, I mean even they have family and friends, but it IS an interesting tidbit that the Neutral character might put more stock in his own needs then the Evil one.

What does the playground think? Am I completely wrong on this one?

Stealing and telling lies are chaotic acts, not evil ones. Robin Hood, one of the archetypes for chaotic good, was known for "rob from the rich and give to the poor". Whereas a lawful evil is no more likely to steal than a lawful good.

If something comes up for a vote, I can see a good character caring about how it will affect everyone, an evil character caring about how it will affect them*, and who will suffer, and a neutral character just caring about how it will affect them*. A lawful perspective cares about how it will affect society, a chaotic perspective cares about what freedoms it will give or alter, and a neutral perspective... cares about how it will affect themselves*.

*and those they care about.


Good characters will help strangers at their own expense. Neutral characters will help friends and family at their own expense, or strangers if there's no expense to anyone. Evil characters will help themselves at the expense of others.

So no, neutral characters are not more selfish than evil characters.

Evil characters will also hurt themselves if it hurts others more - or sometimes just if it hurts others at all.

[Jormengand]

I see good as prioritising others and therefore being selfless, evil as prioritising oneself and thus being selfish, and neutral prioritising whoever gets the most out of it, treating oneself just like others, and therefore being rationally self-interested. Which can actually make neutral more good than good in a sense.

[Renen]

I think it depends somewhat.
Evil zealots for example, would probably do things for their God with 0 concern for their own well being.
Where as a neutral character, even a zealot, might be abit more laid back about the whole zealotry thing.

[CharonsHelper]

Stealing and telling lies are chaotic acts, not evil ones. Robin Hood, one of the archetypes for chaotic good, was known for "rob from the rich and give to the poor". Whereas a lawful evil is no more likely to steal than a lawful good.

One of the most common out of context references.

The classic Robin Hood story didn't have him stealing from the rich in general. He primarily (there are enough random stories that there are exceptions) stole from the corrupt government tax collectors etc. because they were overtaxing the populace and basically returned the money to those who earned it in the first place.

Basically it was a more righteous variant of the classic 'stealing from a thief isn't really stealing at all'. Which fits CG perfectly. Technically he was stealing, but he was really just righting a wrong. There are even several stories of him helping nobility who were a bit down on their luck.

If he was just stealing from the rich in general, I don't think he would be CG. Probably CN.

[Starbuck_II]

All alignments are equally selfish, as they act to maximize their individual utility function. Evil hurts people because it makes them feel good. Good does nice ints for people because it makes them feel good. Both are selfish motivation from the perspective of the actor.

Not always. What about if you help others because you were told by your parents that is the thing to do. Also, it doesn't feel good to help others: it feels all goosebumpy.
Just asking...for a friend. :smalltongue:
I'd say that person is good.

[Strigon]

This whole shtick again?
Really, it's very simple. The only time you can say "Evil characters are more X than any other alignment" is when X is the word "Evil". Any other time, it depends on exactly who we're talking about. But sure, let's generalize for a second.

A Neutral character will, in general, do whatever they can to achieve their goals, so long as nobody gets seriously hurt. These goals could be selfish, or they could be for somebody else they care about or are loyal to. It just probably isn't sheer altruism motivating them.
An Evil character will, in general do whatever they can to achieve their goals, full stop. Sure, some might not be willing to hurt certain people, or want to limit the damage, but in general they won't stop because a stranger might get hurt.
These goals could also be selfish, they could also be someone they care about or are loyal to, and heck - they could be for the Greater Good. But without getting into more specific, you can't say.

Really, we should say that a particular Evil character can be less selfish than a particular Neutral character, but that shouldn't be a revelation to anyone.
You might even go so far as to say that Evil characters simply have less restrictions, but I don't even know if I'd go that far.

EDIT:

Not always. What about if you help others because you were told by your parents that is the thing to do. Also, it doesn't feel good to help others: it feels all goosebumpy.
Just asking...for a friend. :smalltongue:
I'd say that person is good.

Nobody's arguing that that person isn't good, we're only arguing that this person is still doing what makes them feel best. The only way a person would be truly, ultimately selfless is if they got no pleasure out of helping anyone else, but still went out of their way to do so anyway.

[Slithery D]

Not always. What about if you help others because you were told by your parents that is the thing to do. Also, it doesn't feel good to help others: it feels all goosebumpy.
Just asking...for a friend. :smalltongue:
I'd say that person is good.

You're doing it out of a selfish desire not to feel guilty or disappoint your parents. Or because you absorbed their lesson as your own and feel self righteous about it. In any case, you're doing good because it makes you personally feel good or less bad. Which is the same reason evil people hurt people. It's all selfish.

[Slithery D]

Nobody's arguing that that person isn't good, we're only arguing that this person is still doing what makes them feel best. The only way a person would be truly, ultimately selfless is if they got no pleasure out of helping anyone else, but still went out of their way to do so anyway.

Exactly. Only emotionally blank autists, sociopaths, sleepwalkers, etc. are truly selfless.

[Clistenes]

I think very few people actually do stuff because they are loyal to the abstract concept of Evil. There may be a few nihilists who do that, but if you look at our own world, most evil people don't claim loyalty to Evil. A rapist doesn't rape because he's loyal to Evil. A mugger doesn't assault people because he's loyal to Evil. Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi didn't do what they did because they claimed loyalty to Evil.

Evil people do what they do because because they like sex or money or power or because they get a kick out of other people's suffering, or because of some ideal that generally isn't "loyalty to the abstract concept of Evil".

Likewise, Neutral people usually will do what they do because of their own benefit, but they aren't willing to go as far as Evil people. And they often help their friends and relatives for free.

Also, being Neutral doesn't prevent you from pursuing an ideal: You can be dedicated to Nature, to Knowledge, to Magic, to Law, to a deity or even to becoming as strong as you can. You can be Neutral and make great sacrifices in the name of your ideal. Think of a guy who risks his life in order to find a forbidden tome of dark knowledge, a swordmaster who challenges every other master he finds, risking his life every time, an artist who works all day long because he wants to create a masterpiece, a druid who fights to preserve the forest he lives in...

[Segev]

Absent other context, the easiest way to tell a neutral person from an evil one is to ask whether they have any qualms about hurting others or allowing others to be hurt for their personal benefit.

A neutral person is likely to let others suffer for his own well-being, but he probably will wince at it and may even be upset by it. He will assert that he isn't doing anything wrong by not sacrificing himself (whereas a good person will usually feel guilt if they don't), but he will still be upset by it. A neutral person also won't ACTIVELY harm others "too much" for his own benefit. (He might take the last bit of candy, or even let another take his place by taking the last bit of antidote, but he won't actively throw somebody in the line of fire to protect himself, nor will he willfully sacrifice many people by his own actions for his personal benefit.)

An evil person will feel nothing but smug satisfaction as he lets others pay whatever prices are necessary for his own happiness.

[Bucky]

I make a distinction between "high True Neutral", creatures dedicated to a cause that's orthogonal to the four alignments and "low True Neutral" creatures that aren't dedicated to anything.

Trying to treat them as having the same behavior characteristics is, IMO, a mistake.

[Red Fel]

What's this? Why, what a charming thread you have here.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_magneuV1XG1rzopjno1_500.gif

Are Neutral characters more selfish than Evil ones? A surprisingly good question. A bit misguided, however.

A certain degree of selfishness can be present in virtually every alignment. Even the most Exalted of LGs can have a "What about me?" moment. So to that effect, it's like asking if Neutral characters like the color Blue more than Evil ones. (Answer: Of course not.)

But a greater problem is that of the definition of selfishness. There are two fairly strong aspects of selfishness I'll highlight here, and depending on which one you choose, the answer to your question may be either yes or no.

If we define selfishness as "ruthless self-promotion," then Evil is likely more selfish than Neutral, because Evil is willing and eager to harm others in order to promote its own interests. Evil has, in essence, a larger toolbox for self-promotion, and a greater desire to employ those tools. Neutral can certainly be ruthlessly self-interested, but the fact that there are some lines it still does not cross, or at least not frequently or eagerly, is what separates it from Evil. Because Evil is willing to do more in its own self-interest, we can argue that Evil is more ruthlessly self-promoting, and therefore more selfish.

However, if we define selfishness as "self-interested," then Neutral is likely more selfish than Evil, because Evil, in its own way, cares about others. Specifically, it cares about harming others, but that still means that people outside of an Evil character, and that character's interactions with those people, remain a focal point. A Neutral character's self-interest requires neither a generous service to others (i.e. Good) nor a vicious manipulation or harm to others (i.e. Evil); it remains relatively independent. A Neutral character's focus is, in many ways, more inwards than outwards. In essence, the Neutral character has greater interest in himself - his values, his work, his goals - than others, be that interest positive or negative; he is therefore more self-interested, and therefore more selfish.

Of course, if you're asking me to take sides, I must admit that I have a small bias, almost imperceptible.

[squiggit]

A neutral character may be selfish, but will not harm others in any serious way to achieve those goals usually.

An evil character may be selfish and in turn will likely have no problem hurting you to get their way.

So... no?


However, if we define selfishness as "self-interested," then Neutral is likely more selfish than Evil, because Evil, in its own way, cares about others. Specifically, it cares about harming others
Evil can care about harming others, but that's not a necessity. Just because an evil person has no issue killing someone to get what they want doesn't mean they care one way or the other, or even that they like the idea.

Ultimately the problem I think is that 'evil character' isn't one person. An evil character can be selfish and go to any lengths to get their way, but an evil character can also be completely selfless and just be altruistically dedicated to an evil cause or use evil means (in fact the latter character archetype is pretty fun) and you can say the same about neutrality.

[Elricaltovilla]

Oh man, this is a great opportunity to talk about one of my favorite concepts: Enlightened Self Interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

The TL;DR holds that essentially everyone is acting selfishly, just that their selfish acts happen to also benefit others.

Selfishness is not good, evil or (by some D&D standards) neutral. It just is. A town mayor might outlaw the carrying of weapons in public because he fears armed uprising. As a side effect, less people end up getting stabbed, because there are fewer knives out and about on the town. That other people might not get stabbed too didn't factor into the reason that the law was passed, but the benefit therein still remains.

Another example would be the creation of a poor house. Some bloke gets greedy and decides to offer menial labor to the bums in his city on the cheap, with a place to live as a way to excuse not paying them fairly. As a result, there are less bums sleeping in the streets, and more people have money in their pockets because the bums are working instead of begging, even though most of the money is going to one guy. The result of that selfish, greedy action was an improvement to the quality of life and economy of an entire town, even if that was never a concern of the guy who owned the poor house.

Really, the question this raises is how do you determine what is ultimately selfish? If a selfishly motivated act accomplishes selfless goals, can the act really be said to be selfish?

[Red Fel]

Evil can care about harming others, but that's not a necessity. Just because an evil person has no issue killing someone to get what they want doesn't mean they care one way or the other, or even that they like the idea.

The problem is, if an Evil character causes no harm, at what point can you still call him Evil, and not Neutral? An Evil character's self-interest must, in some way, come at the expense of others, or else it becomes virtually indistinguishable from that of a Neutral character.


Ultimately the problem I think is that 'evil character' isn't one person. An evil character can be selfish and go to any lengths to get their way, but an evil character can also be completely selfless and just be altruistically dedicated to an evil cause or use evil means (in fact the latter character archetype is pretty fun) and you can say the same about neutrality.

This.


Oh man, this is a great opportunity to talk about one of my favorite concepts: Enlightened Self Interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

The TL;DR holds that essentially everyone is acting selfishly, just that their selfish acts happen to also benefit others.

Selfishness is not good, evil or (by some D&D standards) neutral. It just is. A town mayor might outlaw the carrying of weapons in public because he fears armed uprising. As a side effect, less people end up getting stabbed, because there are fewer knives out and about on the town. That other people might not get stabbed too didn't factor into the reason that the law was passed, but the benefit therein still remains.

Another example would be the creation of a poor house. Some bloke gets greedy and decides to offer menial labor to the bums in his city on the cheap, with a place to live as a way to excuse not paying them fairly. As a result, there are less bums sleeping in the streets, and more people have money in their pockets because the bums are working instead of begging, even though most of the money is going to one guy. The result of that selfish, greedy action was an improvement to the quality of life and economy of an entire town, even if that was never a concern of the guy who owned the poor house.

Really, the question this raises is how do you determine what is ultimately selfish? If a selfishly motivated act accomplishes selfless goals, can the act really be said to be selfish?

And this. Everyone is capable of selfishness.

I just happen to think that some of us wear it better.

[Troacctid]

Ultimately, evil is willing to hurt other people to help itself, while neutral is not. That makes evil the more selfish alignment.

[Elricaltovilla]

Ultimately, evil is willing to hurt other people to help itself, while neutral is not. That makes evil the more selfish alignment.

I'm not sure that's a good definition. Especially given the nature of D&D, hurting others in the name of Good is extremely common. I don't want to draw on cliché to make a point, but paladins slaying goblins to protect a human village strikes me as a good example.

[Troacctid]

I'm not sure that's a good definition. Especially given the nature of D&D, hurting others in the name of Good is extremely common. I don't want to draw on cliché to make a point, but paladins slaying goblins to protect a human village strikes me as a good example.
Paladins slaying goblins to protect a human village is hurting others to protect innocents, not hurting others to help themselves. Totally different. A good character doesn't hurt people for her own personal gain. A good character puts other people before herself—that's like literally the definition of the alignment.

[Elricaltovilla]

Paladins slaying goblins to protect a human village is hurting others to protect innocents, not hurting others to help themselves. Totally different. A good character puts other people before herself—that's like literally the definition of the alignment.

I refer you to my previous post on enlightened self interest. The paladin is gaining some benefit for choosing a side, however subtle or miniscule it might be.

For a more specific example, how about Akira Kurosawa's film Seven Samurai?

[Red Fel]

I'm not sure that's a good definition. Especially given the nature of D&D, hurting others in the name of Good is extremely common. I don't want to draw on cliché to make a point, but paladins slaying goblins to protect a human village strikes me as a good example.

Here's how I would illustrate it. Garth, Nathan, and Elvis all want the cookie. Garth is an all-around decent person, however, and there are lines he absolutely will not cross in order to get the cookie. Nathan is fairly amoral, and will do what is necessary to get the cookie, but he won't necessarily enjoy doing so, and would prefer not to cross certain lines if it's avoidable.

Elvis is a horrible person and would happily crush Nathan's skull under Garth's boot, with Garth's foot (and only the foot) still in it, to get that freaking cookie.

Who wants the cookie more? The one who won't do certain things for it, the one who will do anything but with some reluctance, or the one who will do absolutely anything, with gusto, to get it?

If we define selfishness as a ruthless self-promotion, as a focus on one's own goals and desires to the exclusion of all else, Evil gets it. Evil will do whatever it takes without compunction or remorse.

[Troacctid]

I refer you to my previous post on enlightened self interest. The paladin is gaining some benefit for choosing a side, however subtle or miniscule it might be.

For a more specific example, how about Akira Kurosawa's film Seven Samurai?
The paladins are risking their own lives to protect others with no thought for personal gain. That's the opposite of selfish by any reasonable definition. I'm sorry, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

[Elricaltovilla]

The paladins are risking their own lives to protect others with no thought for personal gain. That's the opposite of selfish by any reasonable definition. I'm sorry, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

They agreed to go to the village because they were told they would be paid. Over the course of the movie each samurai finds a reason to defend the village other than the money they were originally promised. One for love, one for his past, one for his honor, one because he has a death wish...

All of them have selfish reasons for protecting the village. Those reasons are atypical of what you would consider selfish, but they aren't doing it for the villagers directly. Their reasons are personal.

[Red Fel]

The paladins are risking their own lives to protect others with no thought for personal gain. That's the opposite of selfish by any reasonable definition. I'm sorry, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

One could make an argument that no true altruism exists, given that you get a "good feeling" whenever you do a good deed, and that heroes are frequently greeted with adulation and accolades, and that as such even someone risking life and limb for no physical reward reaps a benefit from his act. But that risks getting a bit too philosophical for my liking. Let's all just agree that, as always, I'm right and my words are to be heeded with the same reverence and attention one would pay to an air raid siren or the direct speech of one's patron deity, if any.

[Strigon]

One could make an argument that no true altruism exists, given that you get a "good feeling" whenever you do a good deed, and that heroes are frequently greeted with adulation and accolades, and that as such even someone risking life and limb for no physical reward reaps a benefit from his act. But that risks getting a bit too philosophical for my liking. Let's all just agree that, as always, I'm right and my words are to be heeded with the same reverence and attention one would pay to an air raid siren or the direct speech of one's patron deity, if any.

I don't know whether I subscribe to this, entirely. I wouldn't entirely discount it, of course, but as with many philosophical principles I find it hard to say I agree wholeheartedly to it. Certainly it raises a good point, but it does have a few quirks.

For example, what of those who sacrifice themselves - not just risk themselves, but take an action to help another, knowing full well that they will die, no question. Sure, some may have believed in an afterlife where they could feel good about their actions, but some certainly didn't. Those people would have made a sacrifice knowing that there was absolutely no way they'd survive to feel good about it, and I'm having trouble reconciling that with this idea.
There's the argument that they were doing it to avoid the guilty feeling they'd get if they survived, but eventually that feeling would go away and then you're stuck with the fact that they threw away a potential lifetime of pleasure from helping for the sake of another person - and then you get into difficult territory.

'Course, this doesn't change the basic idea. And, for the most part, I agree; I'm often seen as too generous for my own good among those closest to me, but the simple fact is I enjoy seeing them happy more than I do anything else. Is that selfish, though, really? I'd argue no, simply on the basis that the term implies doing something for yourself at the cost of someone else. Simply doing something you enjoy isn't selfish; I don't know that anyone would think drinking a cool glass of lemonade on a hot day was selfish, unless there was a man dying of thirst right beside you. Likewise, doing something nice for others because it makes you feel good isn't selfish; at worst, it's a hobby.

[Illven]

A certain degree of selfishness can be present in virtually every alignment. Even the most Exalted of LGs can have a "What about me?" moment. So to that effect, it's like asking if Neutral characters like the color Blue more than Evil ones. (Answer: Of course not.)

Wouldn't a better question be if they like the color purple better? :smallwink::smalltongue:

[SethoMarkus]

Is that selfish, though, really? I'd argue no, simply on the basis that the term implies doing something for yourself at the cost of someone else. Simply doing something you enjoy isn't selfish; I don't know that anyone would think drinking a cool glass of lemonade on a hot day was selfish, unless there was a man dying of thirst right beside you. Likewise, doing something nice for others because it makes you feel good isn't selfish; at worst, it's a hobby.

I would argue against this because a selfish act does not necessitate gaining a benefit at the expense of another. All it requires is for one to engage in something pleasant or beneficial without looking to see if there is another in more dire need of that cool lemonade on a hot summer's day. Thinking of one's self before thinking of others; it can be a passive thing that one isn't even conscious of for the most part. Enjoying the lemonade when one are aware of the dehydrated man isn't just selfish, it's cruel, and that is when it falls into the realm of Evil. Asking everyone around one's self if they need a drink and only drinking it theirself when no one else takes them up on the offer is the only way to ensure it is not selfish (unless they are doing it for the attention and recognition of being a "good, caring, selfless person").

Now, it is a very fine line for the second part of that quote, and it more is a distinction in philosophy only (in practice it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish the two), but it is selfish if one does nice things for others only because it makes them feel good. If one does nice things for the sake of doing nice things or strictly for the benefit of others, and it makes them feel good, I would say it is either only slightly selfish or not selfish at all. (Again, a meaningless distinction in practice, but I felt it was worth mentioning.)

As said before, and what seems to be the growing consensus, any alignment is capable of selfish behavior. Evil may be the most identifiable, and Neutral may have an inclination towards self-interest, but even Good can regularly be selfish and not suffer an alignment shift if only they act in such a way to benefit others as well (even if it is merely a side effect of helping themself). Actually, Exalted characters are the only ones I'm having trouble picturing act selfish, though I'm sure it's possible.

[Strigon]

snip

While I agree that any alignment can be selfish, I must disagree with your assessment that you don't need to put yourself above someone else to be selfish.
Doing something nice for yourself isn't always selfish, any more than doing something nice for someone else is always selfless.

[Segev]

The problem is, if an Evil character causes no harm, at what point can you still call him Evil, and not Neutral? An Evil character's self-interest must, in some way, come at the expense of others, or else it becomes virtually indistinguishable from that of a Neutral character.The distinction being made is that some evil people - as you seemed to imply - actively seek the option which allows them to cause suffering to others, while other evil people - to whom the person to whom you're replying refers - are merely willing to hurt others where it is more convenient than not doing so.

If it is perpetually more convenient to fail to harm others, then the latter kind of evil person is virtually indistinguishable from a neutral person.

The former kind of evil person, however, has "hurt others" as a goal in and of itself. It is the actual causing of pain and suffering and misery that he enjoys.

I'm sure you know a few.

[Barstro]

The paladins are risking their own lives to protect others with no thought for personal gain. That's the opposite of selfish by any reasonable definition. I'm sorry, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

This is an argument along the lines of "blue is the best color".

There was a story by someone famous (I think Lincoln, but I'm not sure). Who told someone that he was selfish in everything he did. While having that conversation, Lincoln noticed a pig caught in a wire fence and badly soiled his clothing in the muck while freeing the pig. His companion pointed out that Lincoln(?) just did something very selfless at no small cost to himself. The response was "If I hadn't freed that pig, his squeals would have echoed in my memory all night. I freed him so that I could go to sleep, and for no other reason".

If you cannot describe the above example as "selfish", then you are simply using a different definition of "selfish" than Elricaltovilla. Neither of you are correct or incorrect, but you are in essence having two very different discussions.

The the question at hand, I currently look at is as follows;
Lawful to Chaotic is somewhat more self-explanatory and not part of this discussion.
Good to Evil is, IMO more abstract mainly because someone acting "Chaotic" can be considered "Evil" by a Good or Lawful person.

I prefer to think of Good and Evil as Blue and Red (chosen because they are primary colors, not for USA political reasons). A Blue person will act in certain ways to advance the Blue cause against Red, while a Red person will do the opposite. A Neutral person will do whatever benefits him at that time.

I would say that a neutral person is more selfish than an evil person (considering both lawful) because an evil person would conceivably use some of his own money to build a shrine to his evil god, but a neutral person is less likely to do so. (again, IMO).

[Starbuck_II]

One could make an argument that no true altruism exists, given that you get a "good feeling" whenever you do a good deed, and that heroes are frequently greeted with adulation and accolades, and that as such even someone risking life and limb for no physical reward reaps a benefit from his act. But that risks getting a bit too philosophical for my liking. Let's all just agree that, as always, I'm right and my words are to be heeded with the same reverence and attention one would pay to an air raid siren or the direct speech of one's patron deity, if any.

Again, only some people get a good feeling when they get a good deed.
But yes, heroes do tend to be greeted with accolades.

[Troacctid]

This is an argument along the lines of "blue is the best color".

There was a story by someone famous (I think Lincoln, but I'm not sure). Who told someone that he was selfish in everything he did. While having that conversation, Lincoln noticed a pig caught in a wire fence and badly soiled his clothing in the muck while freeing the pig. His companion pointed out that Lincoln(?) just did something very selfless at no small cost to himself. The response was "If I hadn't freed that pig, his squeals would have echoed in my memory all night. I freed him so that I could go to sleep, and for no other reason".

If you cannot describe the above example as "selfish", then you are simply using a different definition of "selfish" than Elricaltovilla. Neither of you are correct or incorrect, but you are in essence having two very different discussions.

Being selfless means putting others before yourself. Being selfish means putting yourself before others. It's really not that complicated. I think you're overthinking it.

The paladins, who are good, are putting themselves at risk, not for the fuzzies, but because protecting other people is more important to them. This is selflessness! It's the definition of the good alignment. An evil character would not do that. A neutral character might do it for someone they are personally connected to, but probably would not do it for a stranger, although they might, in which case they'd shift towards good.

[Flickerdart]

An evil character would not do that. A neutral character might do it for someone they are personally connected to...

No, no, no. Evil is not "your tears are all the company I need." Evil can have friends and loved ones. Evil can risk its life for the benefit of its in-group. Not just because success means improved social standing and renown, but because friends are friends and simply having them around is a reward of its own.

Now, when it comes to random out-group peasants, then yes, Good characters care, Neutral characters don't care, and Evil characters ruthlessly exploit. But it is entirely conceivable to have a True Neutral character who is much more callous in everyday life than a Neutral Evil character, because the True Neutral character is surrounded by strangers who mean nothing to him, and the Neutral Evil character lives within a close-knit community of like-minded compatriots.

[OldTrees1]

Being selfless means putting others before yourself. Being selfish means putting yourself before others. It's really not that complicated. I think you're overthinking it.

The paladins, who are good, are putting themselves at risk, not for the fuzzies, but because protecting other people is more important to them. This is selflessness! It's the definition of the good alignment. An evil character would not do that. A neutral character might do it for someone they are personally connected to, but probably would not do it for a stranger, although they might, in which case they'd shift towards good.

You might be underthinking it. Let's take those 2 definitions (they are good definitions for one of the 2 concepts being discussed in this thread):

Is Jacob, a cleric of Vecna, selfless for putting Vecna before themselves?
What about Jane, a Paladin that is driven by desire for moral perfection rather than altruism?
Consider that story about Lincoln (who it actually was doesn't matter). Is benevolence for the sake of personal peace not both selfish & good?
What about the Paperclip making AI? It puts making paperclips above itself so it is selfless?

Anyone of any alignment can put an ideal before themselves and those ideals can be of any alignment. Likewise anyone of any alignment can be selfish as long as their self interest matches with alignment appropriate actions (self interested kindness, commerce, & murder to name some examples).

[Barstro]

Being selfless means putting others before yourself. Being selfish means putting yourself before others. It's really not that complicated. I think you're overthinking it.

And in my opinion, a selfless act for selfish reasons is still selfish. The whole point of the alignment system is motivation.

I don't buy everyone I meet a lobster dinner. I do that for the hot girl I picked up last week*. I would hardly call that $60 gift "selfless".

But all of that is beside the point. We are now debating definitions, so there is no reason to proceed.

*I play d20; there's no chance I picked up a hot girl last week. Besides, even if I had that sort of skill, my very forgiving fiance would kill me if I cheated on her.

[Segev]

If you're having to reach for "helping others makes me feel good, and letting others suffer makes me feel bad" to make somebody 'selfish,' then any arguments you make about selfishness are losers from the get-go.

Somebody who feels so good from helping others that it motivates him to get up and help others at his own expense is a good person. He already is an unselfish person, because "good feelings" are all he gets for putting others ahead of himself. Somebody who feels so badly about leaving others to suffer that he'll put himself out of his way to stop others' suffering is an unselfish person, because he'll prevent others' suffering before his own.

The fact that he feels more strongly the pain of others in need, and the joy of others he helps, than his own personal comfort and convenience makes him unselfish. That he's doing it for "good feelings" doesn't make it selfish. It just shows how unselfish he really is. To try to define it the other way strips "selfishness" of all meaning as a term. It is useless because it applies to all things equally, at that point, and thus does not provide any information when used.

[Troacctid]

Is eating breakfast a selfish act because it only benefits yourself? Maybe. But we don't really care about that, because we can answer the question solely by looking at acts that are clearly and unambiguously selfish. Forget grey areas and look at the obvious.

Would a neutral character murder an innocent person in order to steal their stuff? No. An evil character might.

Would a neutral character enslave other people as a source of cheap labor? No. An evil character might.

Would a neutral character release a demon because she enjoys causing wanton chaos and destruction? No. An evil character might.

You don't need to go waffling around about actions that maybe could be considered selfish or maybe not. The question isn't "Can non-evil characters be selfish?" It's "Who is the MOST selfish?" And the answer is clearly evil.

[Barstro]

Somebody who feels so good from helping others that it motivates him to get up and help others at his own expense is a good person. He already is an unselfish person, because "good feelings" are all he gets for putting others ahead of himself. Somebody who feels so badly about leaving others to suffer that he'll put himself out of his way to stop others' suffering is an unselfish person, because he'll prevent others' suffering before his own.

I do not disagree. But there are others who do those same acts purely because it is expected by their employer that they do such things. They have no motivation other than furthering their careers.

One is good, one is selfish. But neither you nor I can distinguish between the two based purely on the acts.

[squiggit]

The question isn't "Can non-evil characters be selfish?" It's "Who is the MOST selfish?" And the answer is clearly evil.

Well, ish.

A selfishly motivated evil character is more selfish than a selfishly motivated good or neutral character.

The larger point was that alignments aren't just one note, and a selflessly motivated evil character isn't more selfish than a selfishly motivated neutral charcter.

[Barstro]

Is eating breakfast a selfish act because it only benefits yourself? Maybe. But we don't really care about that, because we can answer the question solely by looking at acts that are clearly and unambiguously selfish. Forget grey areas and look at the obvious.

Would a neutral character murder an innocent person in order to steal their stuff? No. An evil character might.

Would a neutral character enslave other people as a source of cheap labor? No. An evil character might.

Would a neutral character release a demon because she enjoys causing wanton chaos and destruction? No. An evil character might.

You don't need to go waffling around about actions that maybe could be considered selfish or maybe not. The question isn't "Can non-evil characters be selfish?" It's "Who is the MOST selfish?" And the answer is clearly evil.

Breakfast. Sure, benign enough to not warrant anything.
Murder. A neutral person addicted to drugs could very easily find himself in such a situation; anything to stop the pain.
Labor. Absolutely. There was a horrible period in our past where otherwise good men made such a decision for economic purposes.
Demon. That's a matter of chaos/law, not good/evil. A chaotic good person could conceivably do such an act if he thought it was for the greater good (anything to destroy that evil empire, they deserve it)

While I accept your opinion, I disagree with it. Being evil gives one some sort of framework; a roadmap to guide decisions. I suggest that a Chaotic character is the most selfish, but the good/evil axis doesn't affect it much.

[OldTrees1]

If you're having to reach for "helping others makes me feel good, and letting others suffer makes me feel bad" to make somebody 'selfish,' then any arguments you make about selfishness are losers from the get-go.

The fact that he feels more strongly the pain of others in need, and the joy of others he helps, than his own personal comfort and convenience makes him unselfish. That he's doing it for "good feelings" doesn't make it selfish. It just shows how unselfish he really is. To try to define it the other way strips "selfishness" of all meaning as a term. It is useless because it applies to all things equally, at that point, and thus does not provide any information when used.
Meh. "Self Interest" is a useful word for denoting when one is motivated by benefit to oneself vs motivated by any of the other conceivable motivating factors (Good, Evil, Chaotic, Order, Blue, or Orange). Hence "Selfless: Doing something despite it being against your self interest" and "Selfish: Doing something because it is in your self interest" are both useful concepts to discuss. It is not devoid of information, merely containing different information that you expected.



Is eating breakfast a selfish act because it only benefits yourself? Maybe. But we don't really care about that, because we can answer the question solely by looking at acts that are clearly and unambiguously selfish. Forget grey areas and look at the obvious.

Would a neutral character murder an innocent person in order to steal their stuff? No. An evil character might.

Would a neutral character enslave other people as a source of cheap labor? No. An evil character might.

Would a neutral character release a demon because she enjoys causing wanton chaos and destruction? No. An evil character might.

You don't need to go waffling around about actions that maybe could be considered selfish or maybe not. The question isn't "Can non-evil characters be selfish?" It's "Who is the MOST selfish?" And the answer is clearly evil.
Just to check, so you recognize that all alignments have equal capacity for selflessness and are arguing about which alignment can be the most selfish?

[Segev]

I do not disagree. But there are others who do those same acts purely because it is expected by their employer that they do such things. They have no motivation other than furthering their careers.

One is good, one is selfish. But neither you nor I can distinguish between the two based purely on the acts.This is the first I've heard such people brought up in this discussion, so it's not really a reply to what I was saying. I was speaking specifically in reply to the notion that helping others is selfish because it makes you feel good and you are serving yourself by making yourself feel good.


Meh. "Self Interest" is a useful word for denoting when one is motivated by benefit to oneself vs motivated by any of the other conceivable motivating factors (Good, Evil, Chaotic, Order, Blue, or Orange). Hence "Selfless: Doing something despite it being against your self interest" and "Selfish: Doing something because it is in your self interest" are both useful concepts to discuss. It is not devoid of information, merely containing different information that you expected.Again, doesn't apply to what I was saying, because for it to contain information, it cannot be stretched so far as to have "emotional good feelings" be the 'self-interest' in question. Because otherwise, there is nothing that is not selfish, and thus the term conveys no information. Bob the Necromancer is no less selfish when he helps the family solve their financial problems in return for the right to dig up their grandparents' corpses than is Bill the Paladin when he does so in return for feeling good for having helped out. Thus, saying "Bob was being selfish" doesn't differentiate Bob's behavior from Bill's. No information conveyed. Because you CANNOT say it of one and not the other, by that stretched definition.

[OldTrees1]

Again, doesn't apply to what I was saying, because for it to contain information, it cannot be stretched so far as to have "emotional good feelings" be the 'self-interest' in question. Because otherwise, there is nothing that is not selfish, and thus the term conveys no information. Bob the Necromancer is no less selfish when he helps the family solve their financial problems in return for the right to dig up their grandparents' corpses than is Bill the Paladin when he does so in return for feeling good for having helped out. Thus, saying "Bob was being selfish" doesn't differentiate Bob's behavior from Bill's. No information conveyed. Because you CANNOT say it of one and not the other, by that stretched definition.

I don't know. I can certainly see the difference between the following 2 Good characters. While that difference is not evident at the Action level, both John and Jane both have minds (aka Intent/Motive) as well as bodies.

John did the thing because he liked the feeling of being virtuous
Jane did the thing because it was virtuous

Hint: The information being conveyed is not the same information as you are looking for in your Bill and Bob example. You seem to be looking for better/worse information rather than a description of motive. The fact that different information is being conveyed is not the same as no information. :smalltongue:

To further clarify:
Bob the necromancer will help because he wants the grave rights.
Blake the necromancer will help because Wee Jas wants him to.
Bob is more selfish than Blake because Bob's motive is Bob wants X rather than "someone/something else" wants X.

[Segev]

To further clarify:
Bob the necromancer will help because he wants the grave rights.
Blake the necromancer will help because Wee Jas wants him to.
Bob is more selfish than Blake because Bob's motive is Bob wants X rather than "someone/something else" wants X.

Again, you're ignoring the point I'm making.

I'm arguing that saying "all actions are rooted in selfishness" eliminates the use of the term "selfishness" as a means of conveying information.

If Jane does it because it is virtuous, then she's not being selfish. The argument that she "really is" being selfish would go on to say "she only did the virtuous thing because she wanted to not feel bad for not doing the virtuous thing."

I am saying that second argument is stupid, because it makes the notion of selfishness foolish.

If Blake does it "because Wee Jas wants him to," then he's either being unselfish (serving his goddess), or he's being selfish (because doing her bidding makes him feel fulfilled, or he expects rewards for doing his job well, or something). The latter definition of being selfish is a bad one, because it again conveys no information.

If Blake, Bob, Jane, and John are all selfish because they all are doing it, ultimately, for reasons that make them feel better than they otherwise would, then terming Bob "selfish" and terming Blake "selfish" doesn't tell you anything about the difference in their behavior.

Whereas if you define "selfish" as "only doing something for personal gain beyond 'feeling good,'" rather than including "because it makes you feel good about yourself/not feel bad about yourself," then you can term Bob "selfish" and Blake "unselfish" and have meaning conveyed by those terms.


If you define "selfish" such that it applies to all four of them, then there's no point in using the term at all. You have to stop and explain what is different between their motives anyway, because "selfish" as applied means literally nothing that distinguishes anybody.

[Barstro]

Again, you're ignoring the point I'm making.

I'm arguing that saying "all actions are rooted in selfishness" eliminates the use of the term "selfishness" as a means of conveying information.

I don't see where anyone is saying "all actions are rooted in selfishness". My point, and I believe the point made by others, is that selfishness CAN be a reason for otherwise seemingly selfless acts. My point is that one cannot determine selflessness based purely by the act.

Similarly, "Particular Alignment would never do X" is not proof that one alignment is more selfish. There can be a "Y" that a different alignment would never do that cancels it out.

All I really know is that in 45 minutes, I will be leaving my job to attend a meeting for a large charity of which I am an executive board member. I'm not going because I want to, I'm going because it is expected of me to attend.

[Red Fel]

I am saying that second argument is stupid, because it makes the notion of selfishness foolish.

*SNIP*

If you define "selfish" such that it applies to all four of them, then there's no point in using the term at all. You have to stop and explain what is different between their motives anyway, because "selfish" as applied means literally nothing that distinguishes anybody.

I agree with this. The notion of selfishness is foolish, because everyone is selfish. It's hardly a vice if everyone commits it. We're not so different after all, you and I.

[hamishspence]

No, no, no. Evil is not "your tears are all the company I need." Evil can have friends and loved ones. Evil can risk its life for the benefit of its in-group. Not just because success means improved social standing and renown, but because friends are friends and simply having them around is a reward of its own.

Now, when it comes to random out-group peasants, then yes, Good characters care, Neutral characters don't care, and Evil characters ruthlessly exploit. But it is entirely conceivable to have a True Neutral character who is much more callous in everyday life than a Neutral Evil character, because the True Neutral character is surrounded by strangers who mean nothing to him, and the Neutral Evil character lives within a close-knit community of like-minded compatriots.

Taken a bit further - you could have an Evil character who's "outgroup" is unusually narrow - "enemies" whom they will and do exploit and abuse - but they will treat everyone not part of the "Enemy" group with kindness and consideration, and even altruism.

The sort of character who will torture bandits for pleasure - but will risk their neck for strangers who are not bandits.

Or, if the character has particular prejudices, they might, for example, be an elf who tortures goblins but risks themselves to help non-goblins.

[Segev]

I don't see where anyone is saying "all actions are rooted in selfishness".

Whether anybody here was actively promoting it or not, several people have brought up the point as a philosophical concept. I felt the need to demolish it as the tripe that it is. (Most notably the probably-apocryphal tale of Lincoln and the pig.)

[Barstro]

Whether anybody here was actively promoting it or not, several people have brought up the point as a philosophical concept. I felt the need to demolish it as the tripe that it is. (Most notably the probably-apocryphal tale of Lincoln and the pig.)

That specific tale (and I'll fully endorse your opinion that is is apocryphal) was the speaker stating that HIS motivation was selfish, not that everybody's is. I still don't think anyone here has stated that EVERYONE is selfish or even offered that generalization as a philosophical concept, just that SOME people have selfishness as a motivation to act selflessly.

Anyway, I have to get to that meeting now.

[OldTrees1]

Again, you're ignoring the point I'm making.

I'm arguing that saying "all actions are rooted in selfishness" eliminates the use of the term "selfishness" as a means of conveying information.

Yes, duh. If "all Y are X" then X cannot be used to differentiate between Ya and Yb. Since this obviously goes without saying, then clearly I was not saying that "all Y are X".

So what was I saying? I was saying that every action can be rooted in either selfishness or selflessness because selfish can be used as a term to differentiate Motive rather than Action.

I had thought I had made that clear by listing pairs where 1 of the examples was selfless and the other was selfish. Clearly I need to work on being clearer.

And yes, doing something for the "good feels" or avoiding "bad feels" is doing it for the benefit you personally reap rather than doing it for a selfless motive. Someone else could do the very same action but for a selfless motive which would thus be selfless rather than selfish.

[Segev]

Yes, duh. If "all Y are X" then X cannot be used to differentiate between Ya and Yb. Since this obviously goes without saying, then clearly I was not saying that "all Y are X".

So what was I saying? I was saying that every action can be rooted in either selfishness or selflessness because selfish can be used as a term to differentiate Motive rather than Action.

I had thought I had made that clear by listing pairs where 1 of the examples was selfless and the other was selfish. Clearly I need to work on being clearer.

And yes, doing something for the "good feels" or avoiding "bad feels" is doing it for the benefit you personally reap rather than doing it for a selfless motive. Someone else could do the very same action but for a selfless motive which would thus be selfless rather than selfish.

In which case your responses to me are non-sequitors, since I didn't argue that what you were saying was untrue. ^^;

[OldTrees1]

In which case your responses to me are non-sequitors, since I didn't argue that what you were saying was untrue. ^^;

Your initial post I was responding to seemed unaware that doing something for the "good feels" is still doing it for the benefit they reap rather than for a selfless motive. Hence why I responded to that part and that part alone.

Perhaps I did not read deep enough into that post of yours. If so, then I apologize for wasting your time.

[Segev]

Your initial post I was responding to seemed unaware that doing something for the "good feels" is still doing it for the benefit they reap rather than for a selfless motive. Hence why I responded to that part and that part alone.

Perhaps I did not read deep enough into that post of yours. If so, then I apologize for wasting your time.

Eh, I just try to make sure everybody knows what I'm saying. If they want to disagree, I'll argue, but if they don't understand me...that's a problem. ^^; And usually my fault.

[OldTrees1]

Eh, I just try to make sure everybody knows what I'm saying. If they want to disagree, I'll argue, but if they don't understand me...that's a problem. ^^; And usually my fault.

^Good position! I think we are on the same page now.

[Agrippa]

Whether anybody here was actively promoting it or not, several people have brought up the point as a philosophical concept. I felt the need to demolish it as the tripe that it is. (Most notably the probably-apocryphal tale of Lincoln and the pig.)

"Virtue is it's own reward." The basic conceit behind one interpretation of that statement is that virtuous actions should be performed not because they benefit you or anyone else, but because those acts are in and of themselves virtuous. Taking pleasure in good deeds, or even in the simple happiness of others is selfish because it enriches and glorifies the self. While at the same time hoping your good deeds will actual benefit others and forge a better world is naive and foolish, for all acts, both by mortal and immortal hands, are ultimately doomed to failure, misery and suffering. It is best to quash any sense of both joy, hope and sorrow, and take part in virtuous and righteous acts with the utmost detachment they call for.

Personally I don't subscribe to that philosophy.