Socialism - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

ButterThumbz wrote:

This is not about my agreement, this is about gaining support by appealing to people's fears instead of relying on the facts. As I see it, Cameron's appealing to people's fears about immigration because of his own fears about losing voters to the UK Independence Party.

Alex Salmond is the leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland, while the Battle of Bannockburn was probably the most significant moment in Scottish history when they kicked England's arse in the Wars of Scottish Independence. A bit like making all Scots sitting through a screening of Braveheart and asking them to vote as the credits rolled. If that's not appealing to peoples irrationality I don't know what is.

And I'm not equating bad decision making with irrationality. The question is why did you think product A was better? If it was the advertising or packaging then you've made an irrational decision, regardless of how it compares to product B.

Perhaps we're thinking differently about rationality. I would consider the product choice rational, because the buyer thought the product he bought was the best, regardless of whether it was or why he thought so. What I'm trying to get to is that people always choose what they think is best for them. So if a voter saw Braveheart and voted "yes", then his perception and emotional state was affected, but if we look at him at that very precise instant, taking into account his emotions and such, the choice he made was one that at the moment seemed like the best.

If I'm at a party and I think drinking would make me happy, then I start drinking. I'm not considering the hangover I'll have tomorrow, because that didn't cross my mind. The next morning, I'll think "why did I drink?" and lament having drunk. However, the choice was a rational one, because at the moment I didn't take into account the hangover. If I had thought about the hangover, and decided drinking was not going to make me happy in the long run, but I still drank, then I'd have been irrational.

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Defago wrote:

In the end, I'm not trying to analyze whether moms care for their young, but why I believe socialism is not viable in large communities. Regardless of the details (which we're definitely not going to sort out here and now) we can agree that people won't work as hard (if at all) just out of the kindness of their heart. They expect payment. And capitalists don't put their capital in the line to spread joy, they do so to earn returns. Regardless of whether you agree with "everyone is selfish", you surely agree with the idea that any kind of productive work must have some selfishness behind it.

No, we can't agree on this. Maybe there is some level of selfishness in the work we do, but it's not to the extent that you're claiming. It's really unfair to say that people won't work as hard (if at all) if there isn't payment. Maybe in our capitalist society that is true, because if you aren't making bank, then you're fucked. Are we accepting by default that there aren't people that work for the simple cooperation of society? Are we just going to ignore the incredible amount of research and innovation that comes out of public institutions, innovations that don't see profit until they are put through the capitalist market system? And people say that distrust of humanity in a capitalist society is cynical. Rolling Eyes

_________________

Guest

Defago wrote:

In the end, I'm not trying to analyze whether moms care for their young, but why I believe socialism is not viable in large communities. Regardless of the details (which we're definitely not going to sort out here and now) we can agree that people won't work as hard (if at all) just out of the kindness of their heart. They expect payment. And capitalists don't put their capital in the line to spread joy, they do so to earn returns. Regardless of whether you agree with "everyone is selfish", you surely agree with the idea that any kind of productive work must have some selfishness behind it.

So there is no voluntary work in this brave selfish world of yours? As someone who volunteers on a regular basis, i can say hand on heart that I work just as hard for the hospice helping people I don't know for no monetary gain as I do running my own business for the main source of my income (and what keeps me and mine with a roof over our heads).

I think your view that all humans are fundamentally selfish is flawed. Some humans are definitely selfish and will only act in their own best interests. However there are many others who aren't and don't. It is a sliding scale not an absolute.

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

Mancsoulsister wrote:

So there is no voluntary work in this brave selfish world of yours? As someone who volunteers on a regular basis, i can say hand on heart that I work just as hard for the hospice helping people I don't know for no monetary gain as I do running my own business for the main source of my income (and what keeps me and mine with a roof over our heads).

I think your view that all humans are fundamentally selfish is flawed. Some humans are definitely selfish and will only act in their own best interests. However there are many others who aren't and don't. It is a sliding scale not an absolute.

Does helping people out give you a good feeling - of accomplishment, of doing something good for someone? That's a return on your actions. The feeling of doing what you believe is right is another return on your actions. I believe the use of the same word "selfish" has differing connotations for you and me. I don't believe everyone does everything for money, far from it. But everyone does everything because it gives them something back - be it money, happiness, a sense of accomplishment, entertainment, a feeling of doing what's right, etc. Hell, I'm going to help organize a christmas event for a bunch of impoverished schools, I'm not getting paid for it. I still think I'm doing it for selfish reasons - I'll feel good about myself, seeing the kids happy will make me happy and I'll probably have fun. If I didn't feel good about myself for doing so, I didn't like seeing kids happy and thought I wouldn't have fun, I wouldn't be helping them. The selfishness I'm trying to defend here is not money selfishness or physical selfishness only: anything which makes you happy counts as "your own interests", regardless of what it is.

ButterThumbz
I always used to wonder if she wore false ears

Gender: Male
Age: 53
Location: O'er the hills and far away

Defago wrote:

Perhaps we're thinking differently about rationality. I would consider the product choice rational, because the buyer thought the product he bought was the best, regardless of whether it was or why he thought so. What I'm trying to get to is that people always choose what they think is best for them. So if a voter saw Braveheart and voted "yes", then his perception and emotional state was affected, but if we look at him at that very precise instant, taking into account his emotions and such, the choice he made was one that at the moment seemed like the best.

But if, on his way home, he began questioning his choice he would feel manipulated and would have to conclude that his decision was an irrational one. Now, you may think that makes it a bad decision but that all depends on whether that decision ultimately benefits him or not.

Defago wrote:

If I'm at a party and I think drinking would make me happy, then I start drinking. I'm not considering the hangover I'll have tomorrow, because that didn't cross my mind. The next morning, I'll think "why did I drink?" and lament having drunk. However, the choice was a rational one, because at the moment I didn't take into account the hangover. If I had thought about the hangover, and decided drinking was not going to make me happy in the long run, but I still drank, then I'd have been irrational.

But having a drink is something that you wanted to do because it gave you instant gratification. I would not regard such behaviour as rational as there is no consideration for other outcomes of your action. Do you consider any forms of life that is capable of seeking out instant gratification as rational? Surely, rationality comes out of being well informed and weighing up all possible outcomes before taking the most beneficial course of action. In my experience, life doesn't work like that, it just wouldn't be practical. People act on feelings then create explanations to justify those actions.

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

ButterThumbz wrote:

But having a drink is something that you wanted to do because it gave you instant gratification. I would not regard such behaviour as rational as there is no consideration for other outcomes of your action. Do you consider any forms of life that is capable of seeking out instant gratification as rational? Surely, rationality comes out of being well informed and weighing up all possible outcomes before taking the most beneficial course of action. In my experience, life doesn't work like that, it just wouldn't be practical. People act on feelings then create explanations to justify those actions.

It doesn't matter if the choice actually helps to your overall wellbeing, only that you believe so.

If I have the winning lottery ticket in front of me, but I think it's not the winner, and decide not to buy it, that would be a rational choice, albeit a bad choice in the end. If i knew it was the winner, then buying it is the rational and good choice in the end.

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK

I agree with competition and a marketplace for jobs, it helps make sure the most qualified people are in the right jobs, and to an extent does reward those with the most natural talent or that have worked hard. There's serious issues with equal opportunity and stuff though which make it unfair for many, but the principle of competition for jobs has to exist in a competitive economy.

Disagree fundamentally with the principle that people are inherently and always selfish though. To say that people never go out of their way to help others to the detriment of themselves, is ridiculous, it happens all the time every day. And yes you do keep changing your definition of what it means to be selfish like MSS says, just like a parent might act selflessly for the sake of their child, so might somebody for a friend, or wider relative, or acquaintance or even just a stranger if they feel they have a stake, however small, in that person's life.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK

Defago wrote:

Does helping people out give you a good feeling - of accomplishment, of doing something good for someone? That's a return on your actions. The feeling of doing what you believe is right is another return on your actions. I believe the use of the same word "selfish" has differing connotations for you and me. I don't believe everyone does everything for money, far from it. But everyone does everything because it gives them something back - be it money, happiness, a sense of accomplishment, entertainment, a feeling of doing what's right, etc. Hell, I'm going to help organize a christmas event for a bunch of impoverished schools, I'm not getting paid for it. I still think I'm doing it for selfish reasons - I'll feel good about myself, seeing the kids happy will make me happy and I'll probably have fun. If I didn't feel good about myself for doing so, I didn't like seeing kids happy and thought I wouldn't have fun, I wouldn't be helping them. The selfishness I'm trying to defend here is not money selfishness or physical selfishness only: anything which makes you happy counts as "your own interests", regardless of what it is.

Ugh, by this argument every single action ever has been a selfish one and the word just becomes redundant. It's pretty clear when we were talking about economics that we were talking about money and material goods as a motivation, not the happiness that one might get from helping orphans, seriously how does that tie in with your argument you were making for capitalism, at all?
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

Last edited by HigherThanTheSun on 11/28/2013 22:24; edited 1 time in total

ButterThumbz
I always used to wonder if she wore false ears

Gender: Male
Age: 53
Location: O'er the hills and far away

Defago wrote:

It doesn't matter if the choice actually helps to your overall wellbeing, only that you believe so.

If I have the winning lottery ticket in front of me, but I think it's not the winner, and decide not to buy it, that would be a rational choice, albeit a bad choice in the end. If i knew it was the winner, then buying it is the rational and good choice in the end.

I fail to see any distinction being made between rational and irrational decisions here. It appears this is just further confusion with good and bad decisions.

You cannot make an informed decision when buying a lottery ticket. The clue's in the name, it's literally a lottery.

Guest

Defago wrote:

Does helping people out give you a good feeling - of accomplishment, of doing something good for someone? That's a return on your actions. The feeling of doing what you believe is right is another return on your actions. I believe the use of the same word "selfish" has differing connotations for you and me. I don't believe everyone does everything for money, far from it. But everyone does everything because it gives them something back - be it money, happiness, a sense of accomplishment, entertainment, a feeling of doing what's right, etc. Hell, I'm going to help organize a christmas event for a bunch of impoverished schools, I'm not getting paid for it. I still think I'm doing it for selfish reasons - I'll feel good about myself, seeing the kids happy will make me happy and I'll probably have fun. If I didn't feel good about myself for doing so, I didn't like seeing kids happy and thought I wouldn't have fun, I wouldn't be helping them. The selfishness I'm trying to defend here is not money selfishness or physical selfishness only: anything which makes you happy counts as "your own interests", regardless of what it is.

Ah I see... The shifting sands of selfishness again.... Smile

So you are now agreeing (contrary to your original comment) that people do work hard if they are not getting paid for it (purely for the altruistic enjoyment of helping others)? And you are also agreeing that people will invest money (without getting a capital return) for the altruistic enjoyment of seeing other people happy and thereby enjoying themselves? This again is altruism and doing something out of the goodness of your heart with no capital return!