• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who or what do you care most about?

From these options, who or what do you care most about?

  • My city as a whole

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • My state as a whole

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • My country and our allies

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    47
Years ago I would have picked Self first. But think about it this way: would you lay down and die for your family and friends? Would you put them ABOVE yourself? If so? Then the answer should be family and friends above all else.
Yes, I would lay down my life for my friends or family, but that's still for myself because it's what I *want* to do, and I would feel too guilty if I did not.
 
1) Myself
2) My family and friends
3) My dog
...
4) People who share the same values as me
5) My country as a whole
6) My city as a whole
...
7) The Yankees
8) Our allies
...
Everyone else ties for last.
 
The people who chose "myself" ..... are you Ayn Rand fans by any chance?
 
The people who chose "myself" ..... are you Ayn Rand fans by any chance?

Never read her. I chose "myself" because it's the person I have to spend the most time caring about - I think that that holds true for everyone.

Saying you care more for friends and family is a bit cliche. While most of us would be (or say we would be) willing to give our lives for our family, that's not really the relevant benchmark. It's about whether you put your family/friends before yourself in each little day-to-day activity. I doubt that many people can say that with a straight face.
 
I care the MOST about my family. Hands down. Friends next, country next....not too concerned about our "ecosystem". *eyeroll*
 
Never read her. I chose "myself" because it's the person I have to spend the most time caring about - I think that that holds true for everyone.

Saying you care more for friends and family is a bit cliche. While most of us would be (or say we would be) willing to give our lives for our family, that's not really the relevant benchmark. It's about whether you put your family/friends before yourself in each little day-to-day activity. I doubt that many people can say that with a straight face.

I put certain members of my family before myself every single day. Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice....
 
My kids, my dad, my husband. In that order.
Next, everybody else in the world, including animals, and the earth itself.
I don't care about myself. I leave that to other people.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would lay down my life for my friends or family, but that's still for myself because it's what I *want* to do, and I would feel too guilty if I did not.

So in other words you are very selfish? It seems to be all about You.
 
1. My religion and it's followers.
2. Myself and Family&friends are pretty much tied. By caring for myself I also care for those I love, because if I didn't do that I wouldn't be able to care for others effectively.
3. The human race as a whole.

So in other words you are very selfish? It seems to be all about You.

I don't want to speak for Rivrrat, but I think what she is saying is that because she cares about others she would die for them. Because shewants to die for them because she wants them to live. There is nothing selfish about that. We have to love ourselves to properly love others. I think what she is saying is that it would be herself wanting to die for others because she wants to do so. If anything I would say wanting to die for another and loving someone that much is the most selfless thing anyone can do. Again, I can't speak for Rivrrat, but that's just my two cents on things. I'm mainly bothered by the fact that you find it selfish to die for someone because that's what you want to do. Essentially, things are all about us. We do what we want, and there is nothing selfish about wanting or being willing to die for one that you love.
 
Last edited:
The people who chose "myself" ..... are you Ayn Rand fans by any chance?

Or Anton LaVey fans? When I was going through my Modern Satanist phase? I woulda picked Self first. lol.



Also in reguards to another post? I find it sad creepy that anybody would pick to die for their religion and it's followers over themseleves. Can we say sheep and cultfollower? Yikes:(
 
Last edited:
So in other words you are very selfish? It seems to be all about You.

There is nothing that we do that doesn't benefit ourselves in some way. I am no more selfish than every other person in the world.


EDIT: Secondly, if I didn't care about myself first and foremost, I would cease to exist. Every time you eat or drink it's because you value yourself. If I put everyone else before me, I would die. And the only way that would benefit me is if my death benefited my loved ones.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing that we do that doesn't benefit ourselves in some way. I am no more selfish than every other person in the world.


EDIT: Secondly, if I didn't care about myself first and foremost, I would cease to exist. Every time you eat or drink it's because you value yourself. If I put everyone else before me, I would die. And the only way that would benefit me is if my death benefited my loved ones.

Your position is completely inline with my own "Transaction Theory", which, logically proves that everything we do benefits ourselves, therefore we always put ourselves first.

This is another one of those rare times that you and I are of the same mindset.
 
1. Myself
2. My family and friends
3. My country/My religion/People who share my values (tie)

The three way tie at third is kinda fluid. My priorities would shift depending on the circumstances and in the case of religion, how broadly or narrowly we define it.
 
Transaction Theory states that the concept of pure altruism does not exist, at least not in the sense that people will often use it. There is no such thing as a selfless act. Every action that we make is a "transaction". If, for example, I do something for you, I get something out of doing that thing... perhaps a feeling of self-worth, or a good feeling of helping another. This feeling is the "payoff" and may be obtained unconsciously or without the conscious motivation towards obtaining it.. Even choosing to die for someone is not a selfless act. In this case, the transaction would precede the behavior... the good feeling of sacrificing for another. Therefore, it is not possible to put anyone but yourself first. This does not denote selfishness, however, and as can be seen with Transaction Theory, obtaining ones "payoff" often benefits others, sometimes more qualitatively or quantitatively than oneself. Even in those situations, though, the behavior starts with the self.
 
Your position is completely inline with my own "Transaction Theory", which, logically proves that everything we do benefits ourselves, therefore we always put ourselves first.

This is another one of those rare times that you and I are of the same mindset.

It's not THAT rare. :2razz:
 
Even choosing to die for someone is not a selfless act. In this case, the transaction would precede the behavior... the good feeling of sacrificing for another. Therefore, it is not possible to put anyone but yourself first.

OR, pre-emptively avoiding the negative feelings that would result from NOT sacrificing yourself to save someone else.
 
Transaction Theory states that the concept of pure altruism does not exist, at least not in the sense that people will often use it. There is no such thing as a selfless act. Every action that we make is a "transaction". If, for example, I do something for you, I get something out of doing that thing... perhaps a feeling of self-worth, or a good feeling of helping another. This feeling is the "payoff" and may be obtained unconsciously or without the conscious motivation towards obtaining it.. Even choosing to die for someone is not a selfless act. In this case, the transaction would precede the behavior... the good feeling of sacrificing for another. Therefore, it is not possible to put anyone but yourself first. This does not denote selfishness, however, and as can be seen with Transaction Theory, obtaining ones "payoff" often benefits others, sometimes more qualitatively or quantitatively than oneself. Even in those situations, though, the behavior starts with the self.

CC, slowly becoming a libertarian.

I can feel it. :2razz:
 
OR, pre-emptively avoiding the negative feelings that would result from NOT sacrificing yourself to save someone else.

Absolutely. That is part of the expanded version of Transaction Theory. Positive/negative reinforcement as well as negative/positive punishment are built in. Both desiring a feeling or desiring to avoid a feeling can motivate an action.
 
It's not THAT rare. :2razz:

It is kinda. I just find it fascinating that when we agree on something. our positions on that thing are nearly identical.
 
I don't want to speak for Rivrrat, but I think what she is saying is that because she cares about others she would die for them. Because shewants to die for them because she wants them to live. There is nothing selfish about that. We have to love ourselves to properly love others. I think what she is saying is that it would be herself wanting to die for others because she wants to do so. If anything I would say wanting to die for another and loving someone that much is the most selfless thing anyone can do. Again, I can't speak for Rivrrat, but that's just my two cents on things. I'm mainly bothered by the fact that you find it selfish to die for someone because that's what you want to do. Essentially, things are all about us. We do what we want, and there is nothing selfish about wanting or being willing to die for one that you love.

Sort of, yes. It IS selfish in that it benefits the self. It is not totally selfish because it also benefits others. There are degrees of selfishness. But everything we do ultimately benefits ourselves in some way, or else we would not be doing it.

I agree that we have to love ourselves before we can love others.
 
There is nothing that we do that doesn't benefit ourselves in some way. I am no more selfish than every other person in the world.


EDIT: Secondly, if I didn't care about myself first and foremost, I would cease to exist. Every time you eat or drink it's because you value yourself. If I put everyone else before me, I would die. And the only way that would benefit me is if my death benefited my loved ones.

OK. Point taking. You are right and I understand what you mean. To put it simple you mean: If we are dead then what good are we?


I will say this: I do think parents should always put Self above their children cause if they have no parents? Well then what.

I always worry more about others in my life than myself though and need to maybe chill a bit on it. That would be a whole other thread. I just think that people that I love in my life should always come first even though they do not seem to feel same which is why I stay half stressed out most times and some of them are not even blood. But that is a whole other thread.
 
CC, slowly becoming a libertarian.

I can feel it. :2razz:

Never. :2razz:

This has been a philosophical theory of mine that I have been formulating for many years. I haven't seen it proven wrong, yet. I've presented here at DP a couple of time. Some folks don't want to admit that they take themselves into consideration in every behavior that the do. Mostly, the reason is that they place a negative value judgement towards taking care of or being kind to themselves, an absurd position.

As far as libertarianism goes, I will NEVER turn to the dark side, however, you'd be surprised that quite a few of my positions would be considered libertarian in nature. Most of my political and economic position are based on human psychology, not on standard political or economic theory. That's why it is very hard to classify where on the political spectrum I truly lay.
 
Last edited:
OK. Point taking. You are right and I understand what you mean. To put it simple you mean: If we are dead then what good are we?


I will say this: I do think parents should always put Self above their children cause if they have no parents? Well then what.

I always worry more about others in my life than myself though and need to maybe chill a bit on it. That would be a whole other thread. I just think that people that I love in my life should always come first even though they do not seem to feel same which is why I stay half stressed out most times and some of them are not even blood. But that is a whole other thread.

Ahh... then you do what you do for your loved ones expecting something in return. So, you're not *really* putting them first, are you? You expect something, and when you don't receive it, you feel stressed. Note: I'm not judging that, just making an observation. Stop expecting, and you will stop stressing. You're seeking something from them that you're not receiving from them. And maybe, you don't NEED it from them. Or, maybe you DO... in which case you need to change the standards of your relationships or cut them loose altogether.
 
Last edited:
Never. :2razz:

This has been a philosophical theory of mine that I have been formulating for many years. I haven't seen it proven wrong, yet. I've presented here at DP a couple of time. Some folks don't want to admit that they take themselves into consideration in every behavior that the do. Mostly, the reason is that they place a negative value judgement towards taking care of or being kind to themselves, an absurd position.

As far as libertarianism goes, I will NEVER turn to the dark side, however, you'd be surprised that quite a few of my positions would be considered libertarian in nature. Most of my political and economic position are based on human psychology, not on standard political or economic theory. That's why it is very hard to classify where on the political spectrum I truly lay.

You consider yourself a liberal? I'd put you closer to libertarian, IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom