If eternal conscious torment is false, then its "party time"

[Paidion]

I think that the issue hangs, partly, on the concept that Thrombomodulin brought forward: There seems to be a difference between self interest and selfish interest. Selfish interest is what one displays when they seek their own good. Self interest, according to Thrombomodulin's definition, is something that is impossible for anyone to avoid. Obviously, if I value Christ's pleasure over mine, and I make choices according to those values, I am self interested because I do what I want to do - please Christ.

Based on this thinking, it is impossible to not be self interested.

The final statement in the above quote is meaningless. Why do I say that? In order for a statement to be meaningful, it had to be falsifiable. That is, there has to be some conjectural state of affairs for which it is untrue. For example, The Once-saved-always-saved position has meaning only if a state of affairs can be conceived in which a person could be once saved and then cease to be saved. However, no matter what counter-example you present to an OSAS believer (such as Simon the magician, who believed and was baptized but later went around claiming to be God once again), the OSAS believer will simply declare that the person never was saved. So for the OSAS believer, the OSAS belief in unfalsifiable in principle, and is therefore meaningless. It's a little like declaring that last night everything in the universe doubled in size. If there is no difference in the universe compared to what it was the night before, then the statement is meaningless.

Similarly, the proposition that everyone acts out of self-interest is unfalsifiable. It is impossible to conceive of a counter-example, for if one is presented, then it is affirmed that "The person MUST have acted out of self-interest since he chose to do that thing." But acting out of self-interest has no meaning unless we can conceive of what it would mean NOT to act out of self-interest. (I'll hereafter refer to the belief that all people MUST act out of self-interest as "SI").

So let's consider what a counter-example counter-example would look like. Joe Bloe declares, "I don't want to EVER speak disrespectfully to my wife again. I know it hurts her, and may result in depression. Yet, I keep on doing it." This certainly appears to be a counter-example. Joe keeps on doing what he doesn't want to do! "No," says the SI believer. Joe continues to do what he wants to do. He values speaking disrespectfully to his wife more than he values her well-being. Thus no counter-example can be given without being explained away. There is no conceivable state of affairs in which a person can act without self-interst. SI is not falsifiable. Therefore SI is meaningless.

[thrombomodulin]

I am writing from mobile device so I cannot write much now. John6809 got what I am trying to say two posts back, and expressed it well. The source of the ideas of self interest, choice and values as, I am seeking to apply the terms, are coming from praxeology. I am very much interested in whether the field of praxeology does or does not mesh with christianityy. I still need to think a lot more about this to sort it out

[john6809]

I wrote,

Based on this thinking, it is impossible to not be self interested.

to which Paidion responded,

The final statement in the above quote is meaningless. Why do I say that? In order for a statement to be meaningful, it had to be falsifiable.

I don't know if you noticed, but I said, "Based on this thinking..." The thinking I referred to was Thrombomodulin's. I honestly haven't followed this concept through to it's logical conclusion, therefore, I can't say that it is my view...yet.

Joe Bloe declares, "I don't want to EVER speak disrespectfully to my wife again. I know it hurts her, and may result in depression. Yet, I keep on doing it." This certainly appears to be a counter-example.

It certainly does.

He values speaking disrespectfully to his wife more than he values her well-being.

Actually, that's not what I think. Joe's earlier statement about wanting to never speak disrespectfully about his wife seems to be of higher value to him, if he has spoken honestly about what is in his heart. Joe, if he is a Christian, simply falls short at times. And, in some areas, he probably falls short often, much to his chagrin. Since he is human, he makes mistakes. In committing this particular mistake, he has not responded to his wife out of self interest, but rather, out of selfish interest.

There is no conceivable state of affairs in which a person can act without self-interest. SI is not falsifiable.

Why don't you present an inconceivable state of affairs and allow me the privilege of reading it, and possibly changing my mind about my earlier statements (if indeed, I have attributed those statements as being my current way of thinking).

Therefore SI is meaningless.

In my response, have I proven your point to be true?

[Homer]

Perhaps it would help to think of the difference between self-interest and selfishness. I think self- interest is the thing Peter thinks can't be avoided, and I tend to agree:

Self-interest:
• a concern for one's own well-being

Selfish :
• concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others, and often at the expense of others.
• arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

One thing at play in this that is different today is that in Jesus' day the "pie" was fixed, or at least believed to be. In that peasant society there was a fixed amount of land and anyone seen to be advancing was thought to be doing so at the expense of others. You got more livestock there is less land to graze mine. They saw no way to enlarge the pie. Today a person such as Steve Jobs can become quite wealthy while making life better for others (at least they think so; I have never owned an apple product ). What he did with his wealth is another matter.

[Paidion]

I don't know if you noticed, but I said, "Based on this thinking..." The thinking I referred to was Thrombomodulin's.

Indeed, I did notice. But it doesn't matter who was relating the concept. I wasn't arguing with a person, but against a potentially meaningless concept.

[john6809]

Well said, Homer. As I said in my last post, I am not entirely sure that I agree with Thrombmodulin's statement, but I can't think of a good human response or action that, by the his definition, doesn't, of necessity, fall into the category of self interest. And if it is impossible to act entirely absent of self interest, I can't see this as something that men will be judged for.

The question is, using the definitions you provided, did the man the OP mentioned, act selfishly.

Selfish :
• concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others, and often at the expense of others.

Did he have regard for what God desired of him or was God just a tool that he used as a means to an end that benefitted him?

[john6809]

But it doesn't matter who was relating the concept. I wasn't arguing with a person, but against a potentially meaningless concept.

Fair enough.

I am not unwilling to learn and my question is not loaded.

Why don't you present an inconceivable state of affairs and allow me the privilege of reading it, and possibly changing my mind about my earlier statements (if indeed, I have attributed those statements as being my current way of thinking).

I would still be interested in hearing about how one could indeed act entirely selflessly.

[steve]

My young wife was walking alongside my seven-year-old daughter and noticed—too late to save herself—a speeding truck coming around a blind bend in the road. She saw, only a second or two before impact that she and my daughter were directly in its path. She pushed my daughter to safety. She, on the other hand, was killed instantly. Can someone explain in what way she was motivated by self-interest in that situation?

[Paidion]

Why don't you present an inconceivable state of affairs and allow me the privilege of reading it, and possibly changing my mind about my earlier statements (if indeed, I have attributed those statements as being my current way of thinking)

.

I haven't responded to this because I don't know what you are asking. How can I present "an inconceivable state of affairs" if it's inconceivable?

What I said was:

Thus no counter-example can be given without being explained away. There is no conceivable state of affairs in which a person can act without self-interest. SI is not falsifiable. Therefore SI is meaningless.

I did offer a counter-example, and you agreed that it was a counter-example. But a believer in SI would NOT agree that it was a counter-example. That's why SI is not falsifiable, and therefore meaningless.

[Paidion]

My young wife was walking alongside my seven-year-old daughter and noticed—too late to save herself—a speeding truck coming around a blind bend in the road. She saw, only a second or two before impact that she and my daughter were directly in its path. She pushed my daughter to safety. She, on the other hand, was killed instantly. Can someone explain in what way she was motivated by self-interest in that situation?

I think I know how the interviewer of Mother Theresa would explain: "The very fact that your wife pushed your daughter to safety is proof that she acted from self-interest."

Other people who believe that every act arises from self-interest, might say that your wife's act gave her a split-second of pleasure, knowing that she saved your daughter.

They allow no counter-example. They always have an answer. That's why their position is meaningless.