23 November 2008 - I... HAVE... A HEART ATTACK

[Arachno-capitalist]

http://achewood.com/index.php?date=11232008
That... wasn't worth the wait.
Alternate title: Everyone agreed to give him a scholarship

In philosophy class we were talking about morality and such, and that guy who "saved" the other guy on the NYC subway by jumping on top of him came up. The teacher read the story at the end of class as some kind of example of someone who acted selflessly, but I rebutted that immediately after this deed, the dude went around for weeks collecting checks, putting on a media parade, and acting in a completely distasteful way. Maybe sometimes people should listen to the otter.

[littlefallsmets]

I mean... yeah. It's a... Phillipe strip all right.

In the third panel, though, he looks nothing like Phillipe and a whole lot like Charlie Brown trying to take a shit to no avail.

Like in that one special, y'know, "You Should Really Eat More Fibre, Charlie Brown!"

[Doc]

Yeah, not up to Phillipe's usual standards. It's almost like the otter is descending into self-parody.

Probably a bad idea to start but... A-CAP: I'm assuming the subway guy could have known at the time he would benefit from his risky action (I don't know what actually happened in this story)? That he was ultimately better off doesn't have any affect on the morality of his decision making.

[herofix]

That was wonderful.  That was funnier than a guy immediately rebutting his philosophy professor.

On a more serious note, I found a pamphlet the other day which spelled out the dangers of New World Order planted teachers in our schools teaching evolution.  If that happens to any children reading this, you should immediately ejaculate: 'Then how come nobody's ever seen a giraffe-monkey?'.

Ting!

[Arachno-capitalist]

Probably a bad idea to start but... A-CAP: I'm assuming the subway guy could have known at the time he would benefit from his risky action (I don't know what actually happened in this story)? That he was ultimately better off doesn't have any affect on the morality of his decision making.

That's essentially what the prof said. But I wonder if it is still considered a selfless action if you take every possible option to capitalize on it as opposed to just doing it and considering that the reward in itself. I am trained to judge people by their actions, not their words. When Mr.X "saves" Mr.Y from an accident, and then spends months trying to collect benefits from that action, I am only left to understand that saving him wasn't worth it to Mr.X, that he is acting in a way to collect more benefit from the action than it gave him itself.
Surely it is improbable that he saw a man having a seizure on a train platform and thought "I can make bank on this", but that is how he is acting. We have various members of this board explain that they donate certain time and resources to various causes, and I do, too. But I don't hear many people here saying "GIVE ME MONEY, GIVE ME THINGS, GIVE ME PROPS FOR WHAT I DO". No, truly charitable action is its own reward.
 

[Doc]

He can have made an initially selfless decision and still shamelessly exploit it after the fact. Just because he was selfless before doesn't mean he can't be a douche now and vice versa.

[wombat]

I'm just glad Philippe doesn't live in a place with a subway.

[AugustWest]

Philippe is eternally vigilant against the perils of hubris.

[colmore]

I seem to remember the subway hero being pretty gracious and turning down money until someone offered his kids scholarships.  I'm too hung over to do actual research at the same moment.

I think the debate of whether or not actions can be *totally* selfless or not isn't very relevant outside of church or philosophy class (like I said... church).  But actions have a greater or lesser degree of selflessness.  I really think attempting to reduce all human behavior down to economic calculations is kind of absurd.  If the presumably selgiraffe motivations of the subway guy were his primary motivation, then nobody else on that platform could have been similarly motivated by checks and fame, or else they'd have done the same thing, right?  Do you really not think it's possible that in the second or two he had to act, his thoughts were simply "oh shit! that guy needs help!" And yeah, afterwards he got his, but that's like saying heroic soldiers only do it for the medals.  That's bullcrap.

[pmcd9]

I think what's important is his motive when he took action.  If people want to throw money at him for being a hero why should he turn it down? 

[HudsonVC]

Philippe made the right choice. One of the most depressing magazine features I've ever read was a New York Magazine piece that details how subway hero Wesley Autrey's post-heroic life was this sad nightmare in which the highlights were "the friends and family looking for handouts, the money problems, the identity questions, and the lawsuit." And the predatory "media representatives" looking to take his money and his nickname.

"This is the Part Where the Superhero Discovers He Is Mortal" (New York Magazine, April 2007)

[sje46]

I think the debate of whether or not actions can be *totally* selfless or not isn't very relevant outside of church or philosophy class (like I said... church).  But actions have a greater or lesser degree of selflessness.  I really think attempting to reduce all human behavior down to economic calculations is kind of absurd.  If the presumably selgiraffe motivations of the subway guy were his primary motivation, then nobody else on that platform could have been similarly motivated by checks and fame, or else they'd have done the same thing, right?  Do you really not think it's possible that in the second or two he had to act, his thoughts were simply "oh shit! that guy needs help!" And yeah, afterwards he got his, but that's like saying heroic soldiers only do it for the medals.  That's bullcrap.

I would call them "selgiraffe" motivations.  Maybe egoist, but not selgiraffe.  Yes, they don't save each other's lives for medals, but they do do it for a reason.  Egoists believe that the reason would be that they like their friends, and if they die, sadness would ensue. 
See how Philippe refused to let his ego be fed?  That was to feed his ego.  That was to reassure himself that he is a good person.
I don't know if psychological egoism is true.  Wikipedia says something about science proving it isn't true. *shrug*

But anyway, I think you can reduce all human behaviors to calculations; consciousness does not transcend the laws of the Universe.  I don't really see why it would.  Yes, a person can rebel if someone predicts that person will behave in a certain way, but that was because you just provided extra stimulus (predicting what the person would do and telling him.)
You should read Notes From Underground.

[robot_god]

None of philosophy matters.

[jaydub]

None of philosophy matters.

How nihilistic of you.

[Carlos del Vaca]

We believe in nothing, Lebowski.

Ja, nothink.