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

[Homer]

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?

Could it be that she reacted without thinking? I'm not saying she would have done differently had she had more time. People react in surprising ways. My sister-in-law's late husband was walking with her one time when a dog suddenly charged them and he jumped behind his wife. Needless to say that was a hard one to live down. Perhaps these incidents show what is truly inside a person.

It is very difficult to just say "she did what she wanted to do" (self-interest).

[Singalphile]

I don't see why an unfalsifiable statement is "meaningless". An unfalsifiable statement might be true or false. The statement that one of us can act without any regard for personal interest or desire is also unfalsifiable. Doesn't necessarily mean it's true or false.

[steve]

Could it be that she reacted without thinking?

I'm sure she did. What motivates you deliberately in life generally is what is likely to control you automatically. A different kind of person would have done something different "without thinking." Some love themselves and will act in their own interests. Some love God or someone else, and will act in the interests of the object of their love. It is almost the definition of love, isn't it—that you act in the interests of the beloved?

[Paidion]

I don't see why an unfalsifiable statement is "meaningless". An unfalsifiable statement might be true or false.

It is true that an unfalsifiable statement may be true or false. But it is nevertheless meaningless. For example, the sentence "What will be will be" is a true statement, which is not falsifiable.
"Falsifiable" means "Logically capable of being proven false". When I say it is meaningless, I am not saying that it is gobbledy-gook. Rather I am using "meaningless" in the sense that the sentence doesn't provide any information about reality.

Here is another meaningless, unfalsifiable statement: "Everything in the Universe doubled in size last night." The contrary statement "The universe did NOT double in size last night is logically incapable of proof. Why? Because it would make no difference. A good test of this is to ask the question, "How would the universe be different if it hadn't doubled? In other words, if the truth value of a statement makes no difference to reality, it is meaningless. On cannot imagine a way to prove that the universe did not double in size last night, or any investigation which would prove that it didn't.

Now let's consider your statement: (1)"One can act without any regard for personal interest or desire." You say its not falsifiable. If that were the case, then the contrary statement, namely,(2) "No one can act without any regard for personal interest or desire" is logically incapable of proof. But the statement IS logically capable of proof. One could imagine that every single person on earth acts only with regard to personal interest or desire." So how would reality be different if this were true? From your point of view and from mine, it would be quite different. Therefore your statment is falsifiable.

But this is not the case if we start with (2)""No one can act without any regard for personal interest or desire." I say that from the point of view of those who believe (2), the contrary (1)"One can act without any regard for personal interest or desire" is logically incapable of proof. For no matter what evidence you present, it is disallowed. You and I don't believe that (2) is unfalsifiable. You yourself provided a counter-example of a woman saving a child. But all counter-examples are explained away. Those who believe that (2) is true, cannot even IMAGINE a situation in which (1) could be proved. To them (2) is a tautology like "What will be will be." So (2), if true, doesn't provide any information about reality, if (1) cannot be proved in principle. Therefore (2) is meaningless (without meaning).

[john6809]

Can someone explain in what way she was motivated by self-interest in that situation?

I spent 2 hours last night trying to compose an answer to your question, Steve. I am quite sure that Peter's initial point still isn't understood.

I get the concept that Peter is making. But it seems like the same kind of question as, "Can God make a rock big enough that He can't move it?" If I answer 'Yes', it makes Him less than omnipotent, but if I say 'No', it does the same.

This is the best explanation I can come up with: I am a 'self' and my 'self' has natural cravings such as food, drink, and leisure. If I am called by the Lord to fast for a period of time, He is asking me to deny my 'self' of food for that period. I can do that, not because my 'self' wants to do without food, but because my 'self' wants to please Him. I'm pretty sure this is what Jesus meant when He said we were to deny our 'selves'.

My old 'self' wanted to please him 'self'. My new 'self' wants to do nothing other than please Him (even though I often fail, or don't see the ways in which I am not pleasing Him). How would I go about denying that part of my 'self'? If the part of my 'self' that wants to do right is denied, then I have done the opposite and do not please Him. Your wife denied her 'self' when she pushed your daughter to 'safety' and gave up her life for doing so. But she didn't deny the part of her 'self' that wanted to do the right thing.

It is possible that I have simply over-thought this whole thing and made something out of nothing. Is this an issue of kind and not degree? If I am missing the mark, I would like to be corrected. I certainly don't feel like I am part of the group that Paidion describes as follows:

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.

A Christian that makes a choice to do what is right before God, even without benefit to himself, has made the most selfless choice they can. Jesus required this kind of choice in order to be His disciple. This has been my argument.

[Singalphile]

Paidion ... Hmm ... I am unable to keep up with you there. I get lost in the 4th paragraph (if not the 3rd). I appreciate it though, but I'll have to come back to it to understand it. By the way, when I see your user avatar, for some reason I always imagine that the rest of the photo would reveal you to be wearing a Star Trek uniform ( ... but it's true).

[Homer]

Steve,

Earlier you wrote:

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 indicated that she perhaps reacted without thinking but something I came across just today makes me think otherwise. In the brain the amygdala plays a central role in processing fear/aggression response. It tells you how to respond: run, fight, wet your pants, etc. The amygdala can register information in less than .05 second, so short you may not even be aware of what you saw, although it may not be accurate. It does so by bypassing the areas of the cortex, which are relatively slow - about 1/2 second. So it sounds like your wife decided to do what she did. One day you can ask her!

[Paidion]

I always imagine that the rest of the photo would reveal you to be wearing a Star Trek uniform.

Nope. Plain black suit coat that buttons up to the collar and black suit pants..

[thrombomodulin]

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 will. For the sake of explanation, I will make the assumption that she thought about her decision before she acted (i.e. she acted rationally, not by instinctive reflex). Given one of two choices, she valued the state of affairs where she was dead and your daughter was alive more than the state of affairs where the opposite was true. Like I mentioned in responding about your desire to do what is right, the only thing that I am affirming "self-interest" means is that there was a particular end aimed at which the person who was acting desired to attain. She aimed at this end and was successful in accomplishing it. So the nature of the answer is essentially the same as when I described, I think accurately, your desire to do what is right.

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.

This is not a counter example because a persons values are not fixed. Joe Bloe normally values speaking respectfully to his wife more than expressing his emotions in a disrespectful way. At certain moments, however, he demonstrates through his actions that he valued expressing himself disrespectfully more than his concern about his wife's potential to become depressed. As far as I can see, "falling short" is always an instance of the case where sin is temporarily valued more by a man than righteousness.

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.

This strikes me as an implausible claim, since the ancient world was filled with numerous untapped natural resources. Was not the world filled with fertile lands (that we use today) that the ancients could not utilize simply due to lack of man power to clear and cultivate it?

[Paidion]

This is not a counter example because a persons values are not fixed.

Thrombomodulin, can you think of any possible counter-example which would count for you? Would it be logically possible for a person NOT to act out of self-interest? If so, please give me an example of what that act might be and in what circumstances.