What is the REAL reason you want to be a doctor?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
What?! Making fun of my polysyllaby?

Members don't see this ad.
 
1) Hypocritical because there are always ulterior motives. That is not necessarily bad. Even the most religious/spiritual good-doer in the world has a superior motive for doing what they do. They believe in a higher power, in heavenly rewards, in the after-life, etc. So, they might give themselves away, but always in the name of something.

what if the person's a humanist or atheist?
 
What?! Making fun of my polysyllaby?

yes, but i agree with what you are saying.

for example, everytime i mention my Peace Corps experience, people always say how altruistic i am. i'm like well i did go there to help people, but i also wanted to live in africa, travel, and get experience in public health. it's not like I didn't get anything out of it, especially considering that I got married as well.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
what if the person's a humanist or atheist?

Then they just get personal satisfaction from it. It makes them feel good about the world, about themselves, about the other person, etc. What I'm trying to explain is that nobody is completely detached from their actions. Now, that would be unnatural.
 
seriously. . .

jochi, i think you and i would be good friends if we actually knew each other.
I know you pretty well...although I guess I shouldn't reveal that, lest you decide to start drawing your curtains in the evenings.:smuggrin:
 
(*any* degree of pleasure derived from the pleasure of others becomes self-serving, even things like a sense of accomplishment).

that's when you do good things in order to have a sense of accomplishment (the sense of accomplishment is the goal)

but what if the goal is for the being (because it can be an animal) of need not suffering anymore/being helped?
 
Then they just get personal satisfaction from it. It makes them feel good about the world, about themselves, about the other person, etc. What I'm trying to explain is that nobody is completely detached from their actions.

OK, but how is that "selfish"?

because I don't think people are walking around, purposely trying to help others for their own benefit, even if they feel satisfied afterwards (which they should)

being selfish is being chiefly or only concerned with yourself
 
that's when you do good things in order to have a sense of accomplishment (the sense of accomplishment is the goal)

but what if the goal is for the being (because it can be an animal) of need not suffering anymore/being helped?

Again, there is still some sense of "I've done the right thing" when you alleviate that suffering. Bear in mind, I'm not condemning actions, and I'm explicitly making a difference between egoism and narcissism. The only time I've come across a genuinely/purely altruistic act was in hypothetical Kantian ethics (the disinterested philanthropist case), but Kantian moral agents don't really exist.
 
OK, but how is that "selfish"?

because I don't think people are walking around, purposely trying to help others for their own benefit, even if they feel satisfied afterwards (which they should)

being selfish is being chiefly or only concerned with yourself

I think this is where your misunderstanding started. None of us have ever taken to say that actions are PURELY SELFISH. We have stated that all actions include selfish motives, which is not the same thing. Read the first post by Quix, he explains it well there.
 
Again, there is still some sense of "I've done the right thing" when you alleviate that suffering. Bear in mind, I'm not condemning actions, and I'm explicitly making a difference between egoism and narcissism. The only time I've come across a genuinely/purely altruistic act was in hypothetical Kantian ethics (the disinterested philanthropist case), but Kantian moral agents don't really exist.

I don't know as much about the ID, Ego, and Superego as you do, but I'm still not convinced that the intent has to always be selfish (although I do understand what you are saying)
 
I think this is where your misunderstanding started. None of us have ever taken to say that actions are PURELY SELFISH. We have stated that all actions include selfish motives, which is not the same thing. Read the first post by Quix, he explains it well there.

so there's no such thing as a purely unselfish motive? :thumbdown:
 
so there's no such thing as a purely unselfish motive? :thumbdown:

Did it take you this long to figure out that's what people have been saying for the last 30 posts?

I think we've established that we disagree. Can you let it die?
 
The issue is self-interest, which is different from selfishness. The former does not necessarily have the same negative connotation as the latter. The issue of psychological egoism isn't a question of selfishness, it's that every action we perform, in either the short or long term, is self-beneficial.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The issue is self-interest, which is different from selfishness. The former does not necessarily have the same negative connotation as the latter. The issue of psychological egoism isn't a question of selfishness, it's that every action we perform, in either the short or long term, is self-beneficial.
Then where do self-harming actions, such as cutting yourself, or, if we go all the way, suicide fall into this? Are we just saying that they are self-beneficial because we feel the urge to commit those actions?
 
Then where do self-harming actions, such as cutting yourself, or, if we go all the way, suicide fall into this? Are we just saying that they are self-beneficial because we feel the urge to commit those actions?

People cut and it releases endorphins, so they derive pleasure from it. Suicide is tricky, and I don't want to make sweeping generalizations or pithy statements about it. Many people threaten suicide or make "help me" gestures as a means of testing relationships, seeking validation, getting attention, etc. Others attempt suicide as a means of coping with a particular stressor, familial, economic, psychosocial, etc., which is seen as less unpleasant than dealing with the stressor itself. Others elect suicide as a means out of physical pain (so the motive is to avoid further suffering). Again, it's complex, but there are self-motives involved.
 
People cut and it releases endorphins, so they derive pleasure from it. Suicide is tricky, and I don't want to make sweeping generalizations or pithy statements about it. Many people threaten suicide or make "help me" gestures as a means of testing relationships, seeking validation, getting attention, etc. Others attempt suicide as a means of coping with a particular stressor, familial, economic, psychosocial, etc., which is seen as less unpleasant than dealing with the stressor itself. Others elect suicide as a means out of physical pain (so the motive is to avoid further suffering). Again, it's complex, but there are self-motives involved.
I find it hard to define self-interest here. For example, we have someone who is a bulimic trying to stop or someone who's realized he's got a drinking problem and needs to get it under control. Both are harming themselves with their actions if they continue on that path, thus clearly not acting in their self-interest (and they both realize they are hurting themselves), and yet they arguably have some self-interest vested in their destructive behaviours (booze and food makes them feel good, in a nutshell). How do such deviations from the norm fit into this framework and how do you ever determine the real self-interest? Another simple example would be: a student gets warm fuzzies from volunteering, so she frequently engages in working for free. On the other hand, she's short on cash and frequently mentions it, so she could really be spending that time working for pay. Is she really acting on her self-interest? How do you pick which is worth acting on and which is not?
 
what about when a person saves a cat from a speeding car in a split second?
 
I find it hard to define self-interest here. For example, we have someone who is a bulimic trying to stop or someone who's realized he's got a drinking problem and needs to get it under control. Both are harming themselves with their actions if they continue on that path, thus clearly not acting in their self-interest (and they both realize they are hurting themselves), and yet they arguably have some self-interest vested in their destructive behaviours (booze and food makes them feel good, in a nutshell). How do such deviations from the norm fit into this framework and how do you ever determine the real self-interest? Another simple example would be: a student gets warm fuzzies from volunteering, so she frequently engages in working for free. On the other hand, she's short on cash and frequently mentions it, so she could really be spending that time working for pay. Is she really acting on her self-interest? How do you pick which is worth acting on and which is not?

The bulimic has a self-image problem, and believes that by regurgitating food that he/she will reach an idealized self-image. This also becomes habituated, even to the point where he/she can recognize that it's long-term effects outweigh the immediate pleasure/affirmation/etc., received. I've worked with hundreds of alcoholics, and they have the same issues, in addition to continuing to drink to avoid DT's and other withdrawal symptoms, or as a means of self-medicating for other psychosocial issues, or as a negative coping mechanism, etc., etc. The point isn't that these actions will always have net positive outcomes, but that some self-interest is being served (even if that self-interest is objectively malignant). They aren't really deviations from the norm, as it turns out.

I'm not arguing that one ought to act on any *particular* self-interest, just that actions have some perceived self-benefit (even if this perceived self-benefit isn't necessarily actually beneficial).
 
"AVUNCULAR"? Good lord.
Agreed. I like the practice of internalizing "big" words and making them your own, and actually using them on occasion, but my rule of thumb is to never use a word that only 10% of my target audience would understand. I'd much prefer 50% or better understanding, even if the majority would never use the word on their own. If I have to find an alternative, I do.

Using a word that perhaps 1% of a premedical/medical forum understands without the use of a dictionary... sheesh!:laugh:
 
1) so that everyone who knows me can say..."Hey..I know TTH..he is a doctor."
2) so that I can be SURE that I'll be making a 6 figure salary..I am risk averse.
3) so that I can have a nice big house and travel around the world..
4) so that years from now I can show off (not explicitly) when I meet some of the people who I knew in high school...ESPECIALLY those who never thought that I'd make it big someday...

There're a huge number of other really real reasons...but I don't wanna bore everyone with them :D
 
lol, very interesting thread. keep it coming.
 
The issue is self-interest, which is different from selfishness. The former does not necessarily have the same negative connotation as the latter. The issue of psychological egoism isn't a question of selfishness, it's that every action we perform, in either the short or long term, is self-beneficial.

Said the selfish guy.
 
so there's no such thing as a purely unselfish motive? :thumbdown:

There is such thing as an unselfish motive, one such being benevolence, or a concern for the wellbeing of others.

If you are a psychological egoist, you think that all human actions are entirely motivated by self-interest. I have not read this thread carefully but I doubt anyone is defending this dubious and ancient position.

The gist of what I've read is suggesting that all human actions have some component of self-interest involved.

This is actually uninteresting, and is a truism. The very fact that you act voluntarily entails that you wanted to do it, and was thus in your self-interest.

The small child who exclaims he did not want to eat broccoli and yet, ate it anyways, did actually want to eat broccoli enough to actually eat it voluntarily. So he did want to eat broccoli so as to avoid motherly scorn.

What a lot of people seem to miss is this: the fact that some action is motivated by self-interest does not exclude the possibility that unselfish motives may simultaneously motivate.

Let me know if I can help clear anything else up.

EDIT: I'm using Bernard Gert's definition of psychological egoism:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2218259

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2708526
 
2) I don't think every action is selfish; I believe there is pure altruism

Okay.

The trouble is in the definitions.

How are we to define altruism? Should it be that act which is completely devoid of self-interest?

If so, we are in a bit of trouble.

Again, the very fact that you act, voluntarily, means that you wanted it. Therefore, it was in your self-interest.

It looks like the view you want to defend is this:

(A) In some acts of men, motives that are not self-interest comprise the majority of the sum of motivations that caused the act.

This is more defensible.

Example:

I have $10,000 cash.

I can do either of 3 things:

(S1). Donate all the money to charity. I contemplate the virtuousness of my action and I receive 10 points of joy.

(S2). Use the money to solicit the services of a high-class escort. Enormous euphoria results, 10,000 points of joy.

(S3). Donate $5,000 dollars to charity, and spend the rest on an escort service. Maybe 7,500 points of joy, some having resulted from contemplating the virtuousness of my action.

There is a version of psychological egoism defined by G.S. Kavka coined 'maximizing egoism.' Basically, it states that we are rational calculators who calculate the relative potential joy in future actions prior to performing. If the above scenarios have more or less correctly assigned the relative joy values for each case, then the maximizing egoist has some weird explaining to do.

S1-3 should give you a basic idea of how some ulterior motives to self-interest may come in play, but self-interest is never fully absent.

Some reincarnation of Mandeville may object that S1 results in an equal amount of joy (or utility) as S2. This person has a bit of explaining to do. If you are seriously concerned about egoism feel free to pm me. I had to write a pretty extensive paper on it.
 
I want to be a doctor for all those cheesy feel-good reasons, but sometimes I think part of my passion and drive comes from the desire to excel at the most challenging thing I can possibly do.


you know, this sentiment really sums up my thoughts as well. I feel a need to challenge myself in the highest, to learn an amazing amount of material, and yet i do not wish to feel as though i am learning/growing/succeeding without giving back or contributing in some meaningful way... being a doctor does all these things.

:thumbup::thumbup: so being a doctor high-five :)
 
In all seriousness, does anybody here even have "a" reason? I've got trillions of reasons I want to be a physician. I'd have to write a 20 page paper if I were really to sum up my decision.
 
Again, the very fact that you act, voluntarily, means that you wanted it. Therefore, it was in your self-interest.

That's like saying: Because every square is a rectangle, every rectangle is a square. (faulty logic)

You assume that all actions are always made in one's own self-interest (because, according to you, you have to "want it" in order to act it out), but that's not always the case. When a colony of ants is threatened, worker ants will sacrifice themselves to protect their Queen. They're not putting their self-interest in mind. They don't "want to" die (they're not emo/suicidal). Their motives are purely altruistic. Same goes with a bee's nest. By stinging the intruder, bees sacrifice their life for the safety of the colony.

If you don't believe in altruism, then go talk to any mother, and ask her what she'd do if her child was ever threatened.
 
Last edited:
Because I am apparently completely insane and think that being a doctor will be a hell of a lot of fun - and I can't picture any other career where I will enjoy myself nearly as much.

Of course, how the hell to put that into writing for my app, I have no ****ing clue.
 
Because there's nothing else I could do with my degree and undergrad school. Kind of locked myself in there.
 
If you don't believe in altruism, then go talk to any mother, and ask her what she'd do if her child was ever threatened.

The mother's actual response to threats on her children would be compulsory based on evolutionarily hardwired emotions.

If altruism is "sacrificing yourself for others," then the difficulty is in drawing the line on what is altruistic and what's not.

If I get joy out of giving a dollar to charity, does my joy mean I'm not acting altruistically?
 
To be a millionaire.
 
That's like saying: Because every square is a rectangle, every rectangle is a square. (faulty logic)

You assume that all actions are always made in one's own self-interest (because, according to you, you have to "want it" in order to act it out), but that's not always the case. When a colony of ants is threatened, worker ants will sacrifice themselves to protect their Queen. They're not putting their self-interest in mind. They don't "want to" die (they're not emo/suicidal). Their motives are purely altruistic. Same goes with a bee's nest. By stinging the intruder, bees sacrifice their life for the safety of the colony.

If you don't believe in altruism, then go talk to any mother, and ask her what she'd do if her child was ever threatened.

you are repyling to something a month and half later?
 
The mother's actual response to threats on her children would be compulsory based on evolutionarily hardwired emotions.

If altruism is "sacrificing yourself for others," then the difficulty is in drawing the line on what is altruistic and what's not.

If I get joy out of giving a dollar to charity, does my joy mean I'm not acting altruistically?

I think we're talking about a different kind of altruism here. I'm thinking of the scientific definition of altruism (see ant colony example).

Definition according to American Heritage:

"Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives."

But to answer your question, according to Quix, no. Your motives are still "selfish" (because feeling joy is selfish - but then watching in misery is.. unselfish? Either way, your actions (or inactions) are selfish (according to Quix's logic). I'd say not helping is more selfish.. so, I'd love to hear from Quix

But say you become depressed (because of the misery you're feeling from not acting/helping) - wouldn't that be detrimental to the individual, hence selfless? However, no one is benefiting, so it couldn't be classified as "altruism."

I think I need to go to bed :laugh:
 
I want to become a dr so i can treat myself for STDs.
 
The same four reasons that everybody does - chicks, money, power and chicks.

</scrubs>
 
Top