NYPD Officer Gives Homeless Man a Pair of Boots & Socks

no, that first part suggests that the doer doesn't expect to receive something in return

I'm enjoying this discussion so I don't want it to seem like I'm going "at you", but I'd disagree with that. The definition was more about if the doer cared about what if something happened to them, not necessarily if they expected it...hence the word "concern", which is closely related to one's feelings or level of worriness. No action, good or bad, is without consequence.

no worries, this is just a discussion.

the definition provided goes on to mention several materialistic rewards such as fame, position, money, etc. for the example of the police officer, those would apply. in that case, if the officer were giving as a selfless act, they do not expect to receive something in return. if they were to receive something after the fact, that still wouldn't negate the selfless act. i agree that no action is without consequence, but i'm not sure how that's relevant.

the examples you presented for why each person committed a selfless act were assumptions. i.e. the officer did it to feel better about himself.
 
good for this man,

that said cops have too much power that goes completely unchecked and my views will never change until we get a better system in place.

the "bad" stuff we see about cops on tape are the ones lucky enough to be recorded

:lol: you think people walk around recording life 24/7 for every police assault, harassment, on tape there are thousands off tape.
 
no worries, this is just a discussion.
the definition provided goes on to mention several materialistic rewards such as fame, position, money, etc. for the example of the police officer, those would apply. in that case, if the officer were giving as a selfless act, they do not expect to receive something in return. if they were to receive something after the fact, that still wouldn't negate the selfless act. i agree that no action is without consequence, but i'm not sure how that's relevant.
the examples you presented for why each person committed a selfless act were assumptions. i.e. the officer did it to feel better about himself.

there is no such thing as a selfless act read up on Nietzsche.
 
no worries, this is just a discussion.
the definition provided goes on to mention several materialistic rewards such as fame, position, money, etc. for the example of the police officer, those would apply. in that case, if the officer were giving as a selfless act, they do not expect to receive something in return. if they were to receive something after the fact, that still wouldn't negate the selfless act. i agree that no action is without consequence, but i'm not sure how that's relevant.
the examples you presented for why each person committed a selfless act were assumptions. i.e. the officer did it to feel better about himself.

there is no such thing as a selfless act read up on Nietzsche.

'cause some dude philosophizes on it, it's all of a sudden doctrine?

laughable.
 
Figures
laugh.gif


dudes still find a way to bash
You forgot we were on Niketalk for a second? Even when cops do something good its still **** the police.
 
I gave a pair of shoes to a homeless dude once. I noticed his were tattered to hell and it was freezing could that day, and as I gave them to him, he made this grunting sound and gave me this look like he was too good for the shoes. So I just set them down on the ground and drove away. I made a loop around the corner and came back, and both he and the shoes were gone.
 
Philosophy is based upon logic, regardless of who said what if you want to think it through and test it in your head yourself maybe try that route instead of disregarding it because it conflicts with your opinion.
 
Philosophy is based upon logic, regardless of who said what if you want to think it through and test it in your head yourself maybe try that route instead of disregarding it because it conflicts with your opinion.

what. no.

it's based one's opinion arguing the "rationality" of topics/events/occurences.

that's not logic.
 
Last edited:
Saw this on the news. Shame on people thinking this was a PR stunt done by the NYPD. Regardless of it was selfless or not, its still something nice to do for someone and to see as well.
 
Philosophy is based upon logic, regardless of who said what if you want to think it through and test it in your head yourself maybe try that route instead of disregarding it because it conflicts with your opinion.

you do realize that philosophers don't always agree on issues, don't you?
 
Na I figured there was only one philosopher who's word ruled above everyone elses.

I would love to hear how someone honestly believes this is a selfless act?

Does the officer not care? Then its equivalent to cutting grass, and not a good act but just a job done.

The officer did it because he empathized, how can he feel good about feeling bad that the man is out in the cold iwth no shoes... By doing this deed he'd feel good about himself. happy that he made another person happy.
 
Na I figured there was only one philosopher who's word ruled above everyone elses.

yeah that's what it sounds like when you say "such and such doesn't exist because so and so said so".

The officer did it because he empathized, how can he feel good about feeling bad that the man is out in the cold iwth no shoes... By doing this deed he'd feel good about himself. happy that he made another person happy.

cool assumptions.
 
no worries, this is just a discussion.
the definition provided goes on to mention several materialistic rewards such as fame, position, money, etc. for the example of the police officer, those would apply. in that case, if the officer were giving as a selfless act, they do not expect to receive something in return. if they were to receive something after the fact, that still wouldn't negate the selfless act. i agree that no action is without consequence, but i'm not sure how that's relevant.
the examples you presented for why each person committed a selfless act were assumptions. i.e. the officer did it to feel better about himself.

So I suppose I should ask the question, why did the officer give the homeless man a pair of shoes? The answer is simple. The homeless man was without a pair of shoes. So the officer improves the homeless man's quality of life. That's fact. At this point, I'm definitely saying the Police Officer does this act and he receives self-gratification for doing it....not that his SOLE motive for acting was to feel better about himself. I think it's fairly clear in this example as the Police Officer is quoted in the article, saying he could "only imagine how cold the pavement was", empathizing with the homeless man's plight. The Police Officer put himself in the homeless man's shoes :lol: and is compelled to help. The real argument lies in whether personal gratification is truly a "gift" in return when compared to fame, money, and position.

Once again, there's nothing wrong with receiving gratification for helping. Nothing at all. I'd assume in most charitable cases, the doer sees a situation and subconsciously says to themselves, "I can't let this be. I must act."
 
One person helped another person. If it wasn't for the fact that one of them was a police officer and one was a homeless man, there wouldn't even be a discussion. 

Props to Mr. DePrimo 
nthat.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom