If someone goes around claiming he is selfless, that would be strange. But
> the idea of [partial] selflessness (or altruism) is not problematic at all,
> IMHO.
>
Oh, sure, I agree. I mean, I don't think there's any element of the self that keeps one from running away from live gunfire (at least not a very rational one!). That's something higher and greater. But does the self have anything to do with getting one into the situation in the first damn place? Doubtlessly.
In any event, a focus on motives strikes me as an inherent waste of time; coming from Carrol, it should surprise none of us that it's highly moralistic as well. Do I care at all if someone engages in a worthwhile struggle to build a journalism career, find a girlfriend or wife, feel better about her role in the world, etc., etc.? No, I do not. What concerns me is the quality of their effort and the results it produces. Why would I bother myself with anything else?
Except, as I said, those who have no clear motives. They're usually trouble, one way or the other.
I'm still curious about Carrol's "accusation." Did people used to pretend they were ego-less movement-bots? Any old-timers care to connect the dots for me?
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."