/sci/ - Science & Math

Nope. Everything you do, disregard the motive you think you have, has an indirect but obligatory agenda to profit.

Yes, involuntarily.

Yes, you can do the right things and hate it. You can also die to do the right thing.

Yes, by helping others without helping yourself.

>implying internal subjective states are science

By extension anything you do is something the universe does. You can never do something that is selfless because everything concerns "you".

It's impossible to do something that isn't selfish, but it's also impossible to do something that isn't selfless.

>>5521276
of course. Perhaps you are suffering from a case of Objectivism and have failed to realize the distinction between "self-interested" and "selfish".

>>5521306
Ok, I admit that the universe itself cannot do something that isnt selfish, or at least self-neutral.

>>5521303

But when you help someone out you're doing it because you would like that person to do the same to you. This is why we kill insects or animals because we don't expect much from them.

>>5521327
>But when you help someone out you're doing it because you would like that person to do the same to you.
> Everyone's motivations are the same.
Why be nice to people you will never meet? Or people you will never meet like on the internet?

>This is why we kill insects or animals because we don't expect much from them.
And what about the people who go to much more effort to put a spider out rather than kill it?

>>5521344
>And what about the people who go to much more effort to put a spider out rather than kill it?
Idiots. They're just idiots. My friend bothered to dump one of those black spiders that crawl at you really fast outside in the snow. She didn't even realize it would suffer and freeze to death.

>>5521276
just because you do something for personal gain does not men its selfish

>>5521360
Idiots or not it's the thought that counts. I really doubt spiders can feel pain or suffering anyway.

>>5521344
because being nice to people or animals makes you feel good,

>>5521383
>implying there was any thought
Fuck what you doubt.

>>5521394
Not all things can feel pain.

>>5521400
You know this for a fact?

>>5521383
http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/insect-pain.html

>>5521405
No, it's not a fact. You can never establish fact on that but there are insects that lack nociceptors.

>>5521413
That's an essay not a paper, it has opinion.

>>5521455
> can't follow links to the research mentioned
have you ever read anything based on previous research ever?

Selflessness and selfishness are a dichotomy. However, this does not encompass all acts. An act can hold a benefit for both parties. Now, without the requirement for an act to be either selfish or selfless, it is easy to find a scenario in which you are not being selfish. We can look into this further by guaging/quantifying selfishness in actions. Rate the following in terms of selfishness:
1-Stealing a car
2-Buying a car
3-Giving a car
We can see that there is a skewed range in how selfish each act is. However, it is all up to interpretation and you may just precieve all actions to be 100% selfish, but this is not the accepted norm.

>>5521464
>Can't appreciate that it's use of sources will be selective.
If you want people to read papers then cite the paper.

If you come up with a rationale for why you want to do something, there's always a way it can be interpreted selfishly. But that's not how humans actually work - we're not abstract rational beings seeking to maximize self-interest, like certain economists would have you believe. We are exceptionally clever monkeys, made of and governed by flesh and intricate chemical reactions.

So the answer is yes, all the time. But only unintentionally!

>>5521492
why do that, when I can cite them all by linking you to that page?

>>5521518
For the same reason I don't cite arXiv and call it a day. People aren't going to wade through dozens of pages for something that may not exist, this is why citations are specific.

>>5521565
the whole fucking page addresses the topic you fucking aspie shithead

>>5521571
The page is opinion, it's worse than citing Wikipedia. If you want to use one of it's sources cite that.

>>5521588
> I literally can't read

>>5521594
So you expect someone else to find evidence for your argument because you can't be bothered to look through and find the important bits? Not happening.

What you cited was opinion. I'm not wasting my time looking for something you couldn't be bothered to find.

No.

You do something good/right for others, you do it to feel better about yourself and inflate your ego, consciously or subconsciously.

You die doing something you believe is beneficial to others, you do it to feel better about yourself and inflate your ego while you're still alive, knowing that others will think better of you after you're gone, consciously or subconsciously.

Many things in life, if not everything, boils down to the need of feeling better than others.

>>5521613
I have no argument. I saw the poster mention that they doubted spiders felt pain, and had a link which addressed the subject. Your asspain over people contributing to the thread is palpable which leads me to believe you're actually upset that you saw something which might indicate you were somehow wrong, though I don't even know what that would be because I just did a driveby on the thread.

tl;dr suck a dick faggot

>>5521625
It's an essay, not a paper.

>>5521625
"You have no argument" is not an argument. I made my point why it is not an acceptable citation.

>>5521637
don't hurt yourself kiddo
>>5521644
> "you have no argument" is not an argument
points for a funny way of stating the obvious