11 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneeither conscious or not, no. nobody does something good without wanting and receiving some kind of reward. either it be the gratitude of the person in question or the feel good sentiment they receive from doing something right.
How naive. Do you understand that that means that you would have to believe that in the entire history of mankind no one has ever performed an act of goodness that was not motivated by receiving some kind of reward?
this is how it all started. primates realized that if they stop and throw rocks at a predator that is about to eat a fellow primate that fellow primate will groom them later or throw rocks when they are about to get eaten. doing good turned out to be awesome in terms of survival.
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomyou misunderstood bruce. his faith was shaky to begin with. in fact, apart from the prayers he did out of habit or "acknowledgin" god from time to time, he was pretty much an atheist. he lashed out at god because he didn't have anyone to lash out at.
im not telling god that im going to be a bad person if he doesnt bless me lol. its actually the opposite. god chose for some reason beyond me (maybe because he had foreseen that id be a good person) to bless me with an extremely high level of intelligence and a child prodigy-like artistic ability. before i ever had the chance to decide to be a good or ...[text shortened]... on my car because of a stupid mistake i made. well, at least i HAVE a job in this economy."
look, to settle things here, faith is unconditional. either you have it or you don't. it's not something you sell because frankly it is you who get the benefit out of faith, not god. being good is again not something you should trade because it then defeats the purpose of being good. i agree with you there is no selfless act but it is a big difference between giving 100$ to a homeless dood because you want to feel good and giving 100$ to a homeless guy if he will paint your house
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloexactly that's what i am saying: we are all psychological egoists. this is how we are built. we couldn't have survived otherwise. you someone in need and you help them. and you expect the same. i am not saying you are conscious of your "psycho egoism" but here is an example. if you help someone in dire need and then that person simply walks away when you need him the most, don't you feel wronged? more so than if the person doing the walking never owed you anything?
[b]nobody does good without a reward of SOME sort. i want to do good things because it makes me feel good about myself, that's my reward.
It's natural to feel a sense of satisfaction when you do good things for others. But, even if this feeling attended each and every successful good deed you performed, that wouldn't show that you are motivated to ...[text shortened]... ngs by the pleasure you stand to experience, then you are basically a psychological egoist.[/b]
11 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziwe are all psychological egoists
exactly that's what i am saying: we are all psychological egoists. this is how we are built. we couldn't have survived otherwise. you someone in need and you help them. and you expect the same. i am not saying you are conscious of your "psycho egoism" but here is an example. if you help someone in dire need and then that person simply walks away when you ...[text shortened]... 't you feel wronged? more so than if the person doing the walking never owed you anything?
No, I think that's surely false. Psychological egoism is an empirical claim about the nature of our motivations. It would hold, basically, that we are always motivated selfishly, or that basically our motivations always take oneself and one's own welfare as objects. But that is demonstrably false. People are often motivated by direct concern for the welfare of others; or by moral considerations of what is the right thing to do; or even by aesthetic considerations -- all of which count against the hypothesis of psychological egoism whenever our own welfare or thoughts of personal benefit do not enter into or guide our deliberations.
here is an example. if you help someone in dire need and then that person simply walks away when you need him the most, don't you feel wronged? more so than if the person doing the walking never owed you anything?
That really has nothing to do with establishing psychological egoism. We have natural intuitions and dispositions regarding the subject of reciprocity in interpersonal interactions, and if there are instances that frustrate our first-order intuitions in this regard, then one may very well feel wronged in such instances. That actually has nothing necessarily to do with the motivations that regulates one's entering into such interactions in the first place. Again, psychological egoism is a hypotheisis that has to do with human motivations, and your example doesn't really demonstrate anything about human motivations. For instance, suppose in your example that I am motivated to help you because I think it is just the right thing to do; or because I am directly concerned about your welfare. Then, afterwards, you don't reciprocate when I am in need of some help. Then, sure, I may feel wronged due to deeply held intuitions regarding reciprocity. Regardless, it's still obviously the case that psychological egoism is false, given what my motivations were for helping you in the first place.
Furthermore, the ironic thing is that the sort of example you bring up only ends up going to discredit psychological egoism, when you consider the motivation to "get even" for instances where we feel "wronged" or where things like reciprocity breaks down in interpersonal relationships. The motivations for punishing these types of perceived transgressions are moral in nature (and have really nothing to do with taking one's own welfare as an object) and are therefore actually a very good source of empirical data that help to show that psychological egoism is false.
this is how we are built. we couldn't have survived otherwise.
Again, this is false. We did not evolve to be psychologically egoist, and there are good reasons why psychological egoism was not selected for. Actually, if you want some good discussion concerning why you should NOT expect that natural selection working on ancestors like ours would produce psychological egoism, I would recommend the book The Evolution of Morality by Joyce. He also lists a number of studies that contribute to the mountain of empirical data against psychological egoism.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloPeople are often motivated by direct concern for the welfare of others; or by moral considerations of what is the right thing to do; or even by aesthetic considerations
[b]we are all psychological egoists
No, I think that's surely false. Psychological egoism is an empirical claim about the nature of our motivations. It would hold, basically, that we are always motivated selfishly, or that basically our motivations always take oneself and one's own welfare as objects. But that is demonstrably false. People are ...[text shortened]... ies that contribute to the mountain of empirical data against psychological egoism.[/b]
what is the purpose of being nice? what is it in for me? if you claim that one has no satisfaction from doing good deeds, what is then his drive? what compels him to do anything for that matter? unless you are of a destructive nature(which basically means you are broken as a human being) you do not do anything without motivation. you are concerned with the welfare of others: you feel nice if you do something nice for them. morals is again a social concept which basically means the rules accepted by society to help it function in a certain acceptable manner. if you adhere to morals you compel others around you to also adhere to morals and as such you benefit. and even if others rebel and don't return the favor, you feel good about doing the right thing. and about aesthetics: thats easy. you find something nice, you instantly feel nice. reward!
the example was to demonstrate that you expect a reward even if you are not conscious about it. you help him now, but you feel wronged if he helps you. what does that say about your psychological selfishness? and even if you wouldn't feel wronged, you would still get the smugness of being on the moral high ground.
are you saying that the first monkey to stop running from a sabertooth and return to throw rocks at the predator because a member of the group fell down did so out of the goodness of its heart?
are we saying that we are social beings because we are very warm and fuzzy and not because we realized the benefits of working together? did we form groups and tribes because we long for human companionship(which even if it were true, would still be a reward)
human are not devoid of sentiments. we feel. we perform an action and if we are not broken we feel. if we feel good, we do the action again. if someone else feels good about that action we feel good because we made that person feel good. if there would be no feelings there would be no motivation. only then if a person would perform an action that harms him and benefits another i would say there may be a selfless act. and even then it could be argued you are giving a "loan" to that person, and then another, loans sooner or later you might cash in.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziit wont be long before you are gunning persons down at a shopping centre, wearing a 'humanity is over rated', t-shirt while posting a video of your manifesto of hate an hour prior on the internet.
[b]People are often motivated by direct concern for the welfare of others; or by moral considerations of what is the right thing to do; or even by aesthetic considerations
what is the purpose of being nice? what is it in for me? if you claim that one has no satisfaction from doing good deeds, what is then his drive? what compels him to do anything f ...[text shortened]... e giving a "loan" to that person, and then another, loans sooner or later you might cash in.[/b]
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomJust because those older than 20 tend to be less self-centered than those younger does not meant that they are not still controlled by ego. As an example, look at Christianity. Rather than follow the teachings of Jesus which commands selflessness, it has adopted the teachings of Paul which are ego affirming. For example: 1) Just "profess belief" and YOU are assured "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation". 2) If you continue to sin, i.e, practice self-centeredness, it's beyond your control because of your "fallen nature".
all this talk about ego is pretty annoying. nobody said anything about ego except for you. it's only an ego dominated world for kids ranging from the ages of 16-20ish.
If you're not convinced, look at this excerpt from your third post on this thread:
so i gave god a chance, and my luck instantly changed. everything seemed to go my way because i chose to believe, ive matured SO much, [I've]landed a job, [I've]maintained a 4.0 at a junior college and [my]life couldnt be better. i pray to god for [my]success before everything i do, whether it is [my]creating art, [my]lifting five more pounds at the gym, or [my] test at school.
You believe in the "God of gimme" which is not surprising since Christianity is largely marketed as such: "Don't you want eternal life?", "Don't you want God to give you blessings, etc.?"
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziJust because you are solely motivated by reward, doesn't mean everyone operates on that level. Pay attention to what LJ is saying. It is much more rational than your rationalizations for your self-centeredness.
either conscious or not, no. nobody does something good without wanting and receiving some kind of reward. either it be the gratitude of the person in question or the feel good sentiment they receive from doing something right.
this is how it all started. primates realized that if they stop and throw rocks at a predator that is about to eat a fellow pr ...[text shortened]... ocks when they are about to get eaten. doing good turned out to be awesome in terms of survival.
13 Jan 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat is it in for me?
[b]People are often motivated by direct concern for the welfare of others; or by moral considerations of what is the right thing to do; or even by aesthetic considerations
what is the purpose of being nice? what is it in for me? if you claim that one has no satisfaction from doing good deeds, what is then his drive? what compels him to do anything f e giving a "loan" to that person, and then another, loans sooner or later you might cash in.[/b]
I know absolutely no one who asks themselves this every time they deliberate or set about resolving to do something. Like I said, I think there are numerous examples where persons are motivated to act without giving any thought to "what is in it" for them.
if you claim that one has no satisfaction from doing good deeds, what is then his drive?
First, I never claimed anywhere that "one has no satisfaction from doing good deeds". In fact, in my first post in this thread, I implied that, yes, indeed it is the case that persons derive satisfaction from doing good deeds. I explicitly made it clear that I think persons naturally derive satisfaction when they are successful in the pursuit of things they value; and to the extent that doing good deeds very often fulfills the pursuit of things we value, it follows that we very often derive satisfaction from doing good deeds. So, I'm already committed to the idea that persons do naturally derive satisfaction from doing good deeds. Now, as I also tried to make clear earlier, in absolutely no way does psychological egoism follow from this. The fact that personal satisfaction attends or derives from performing good deeds does not mean that it was the thought of this satisfaction that motivated the person to perform the deeds. It would be sloppy thinking for one to conclude like that. If that sort of reasoning were sound, then I guess I am motivated to eat because of the thought of the bowel movements I will experience from it. After all, crapping derives from eating.
if you adhere to morals you compel others around you to also adhere to morals and as such you benefit
Yes, we can all benefit in ways through cooperation like this, but that really has nothing to do with demonstrating psychological egoism. In order to show that "adhering" to morals is a psychologically egoist enterprise, I think you would need to show that to be motivated morally is also to be motivated selfishly. But that seems patently false. I will give you one general example. People are often motivated by what they take to be moral duties or obligations or imperatives, etc. But, in general, to think that you ought to perform or abstain from act A because it is your moral obligation is not to be motivated selfishly. In fact, you could imagine everyday cases in which to be motivated by what you take to be moral duty would, if anything, run counter to selfish motivations. For instance, one could take it to be the case that he stands to benefit or otherwise cater to his own welfare by stealing something from another, especially if he knows he would not get caught. But in that event, it is likely to be a sense of moral responsibility and duty that motivates him to abstain from stealing.
and about aesthetics: thats easy. you find something nice, you instantly feel nice. reward!
Again, that a "nice" feeling derives from some act does not mean that the act was motivated selfishly.
the example was to demonstrate that you expect a reward even if you are not conscious about it.
Okay, let's consider your example again. Your example is about reciprocity and you are assuming (correctly) that doing things for others will often come back to benefit the doer. Then it seems that you want to hold that we are ultimately egoistic in our dealings with others because, even when our motivations appear genuinely other-regarding, we are ultimately motivated selfishly by unconscious desires related to the individual benefits we may get in return. Why on earth should I accept this thesis of yours? Isn't it more parsimonious to assume that where it appears one's motivations are genuinely other-regarding, they really are genuinely other-regarding? For instance, upon reflection I honestly believe that there are many everyday instances in my life in which I am motivated by genuine, direct regard for others. Are you saying that in all these cases I am simply mistaken about the "true" object of my motivation? Now why should I accept that?
Further, what about cases in which there really can be no "expectation of a reward" in the sense of reciprocation? For instance, a mother will do lots of things for her baby, sometimes even seriously compromising herself, but there can basically be no expectation that infants will reciprocate. If you think about such things related to kin selection it should easily become apparent that the best way for natural selection to regulate the helping behaviors is often to bring about genuine other-regarding motivations (whereby psychological egoism is then false). That is really just touching the tip of the iceburg in this discussion. That's one reason why I recommended the book I cited earlier: Joyce goes into such things in good detail.
are you saying that the first monkey to stop running from a sabertooth and return to throw rocks at the predator because a member of the group fell down did so out of the goodness of its heart?
I don't recall saying anything about any monkey in this thread. What I basically meant there is that when one has a good understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms (such as kin selection, cooperation, direct and indirect reciprocity, etc) that regulate the helping behaviors, he will also understand why psychological egoism has no business being selected for. There are many reasons why natural selection brought about non-selfish motivations in humans.
only then if a person would perform an action that harms him and benefits another i would say there may be a selfless act
Again, psychological egoism involves motivation for acting. Whether or not psychological egoism is true has to do with whether or not our motivations for action are always selfish. It does not hinge on whether or not those actions, as a matter of fact, end up bringing about benefit or harm.
For instance, suppose I am motivated to carry out action A insofar, and only insofar, as I think I stand to benefit from doing A. And suppose I also think that another person will be harmed when I do A. Clearly, upon my doing A this is a selfish act because I am motivated selfishly. Surely, we should call this a selfish act. But, suppose I just happened to be mistaken when I thought that I would benefit from my doing A; and suppose I was also mistaken when I thought the other person would be harmed by A. So suppose that upon my carrying out A I am the one who in fact gets harmed and the other person is the one who in fact benefits. Then, according to what you just said, this is a "selfless" act (unless I am misinterpreting what you stated)! The point of this example is that whether the act is selfish or selfless should naturally tie into the motivation involved in performing the action, not just the actual outcome of the action. Likewise, as I keep trying to point out, psychological egoism is concerned with motivations, not necessarily with outcome.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Greed is good."
Just because those older than 20 tend to be less self-centered than those younger does not meant that they are not still controlled by ego. As an example, look at Christianity. Rather than follow the teachings of Jesus which commands selflessness, it has adopted the teachings of Paul which are ego affirming. For example: 1) Just "profess belief" and YOU a ...[text shortened]... you want eternal life?", "Don't you want God to give you blessings, etc.?"
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by LemonJellowhat is in it for them can mean "feel good about doing something". that is enough. and you don't even have to realize it on a conscious level. pavlov's dog doesn't realize he is drooling. but if there is no stimuli, you don't do the deed.
[b]what is it in for me?
I know absolutely no one who asks themselves this every time they deliberate or set about resolving to do something. Like I said, I think there are numerous examples where persons are motivated to act without giving any thought to "what is in it" for them.
if you claim that one has no satisfaction from doing good de ...[text shortened]... ological egoism is concerned with motivations, not necessarily with outcome.
I explicitly made it clear that I think persons naturally derive satisfaction when they are successful in the pursuit of things they value
there you go: reward.
The fact that personal satisfaction attends or derives from performing good deeds does not mean that it was the thought of this satisfaction that motivated the person to perform the deeds.
what else is there? anytime you do something you have a reason. otherwise you woudl be a moron who does random things. (and you would end up in jail or psych ward). whatever that reason is it has a "feel good part for you". it could be "ouch, the loss of kidney no2 really hurts but the person getting it will live". "it could be: i stood by my morals and donated 100k to charity, i am so awesome".
i told someone i could be easily refuted : simply give me an example of a selfless deed where i can't find a reward for the dood in question and i will cry uncle.
"I am motivated to eat because of the thought of the bowel movements I will experience from it."
it could be that but it could also be the not dying of hunger part. your example is kinda crappy(no pun intended). how about if you wouldn't ever die of hunger no matter how long you would stay without food and all food had no taste. would you eat just so you feel your jaws move?
In order to show that "adhering" to morals is a psychologically egoist enterprise, I think you would need to show that to be motivated morally is also to be motivated selfishly.
no, i only need to claim that to be motivated means there is a reward of some kind. and therefore there is also selfishness. you need to give me an example where there is no reward to prove me wrong. or you can point out that i haven't proven my point, i simply made a claim, and we will agree on a draw. it would be like i claimed there is a pink fluffy unicorn in my garden that only shows himself to me. i offered no proof and you can't prove he doesn't exist.
Again, that a "nice" feeling derives from some act does not mean that the act was motivated selfishly.
a reward is a reward. read my next post.
For instance, upon reflection I honestly believe that there are many everyday instances in my life in which I am motivated by genuine, direct regard for others.
how do you feel when you help others? do you feel pain? does it feel like your insides are burning and you want to die? if its true, then indeed it would be a selfless act to help others. if you feel nice and fuzzy then it isn't so selfless anymore.
For instance, a mother will do lots of things for her baby
what i said above times a hundred. many people feel it is the ultimate achievement in life(and i almost agree) to raise a child to adulthood. sorry, still not the example i am looking for. the mother most certainly gets something(a lot actually) from this "selfless" act.
There are many reasons why natural selection brought about non-selfish
motivations in humans.
yes, the primates were too weak to survive independantly in a world full of predators. therefore they developed these other selfish means of motivations. no solitude like most felines but social skills. gather together, hunt together, defend together. so that many more individuals survive.
It does not hinge on whether or not those actions, as a matter of fact, end up bringing about benefit or harm.
how do you figure? actions benefit or harm someone. which is another term for cause(action) and effect(benefit or harm). if the effect of an action doesn't benefit you in any way and it does benefit others then the cause was selfless. rather the motives that led to performing the action were selfless.
Likewise, as I keep trying to point out, psychological egoism is concerned with
motivations, not necessarily with outcome
yes, this i agree with. egoism is not concerned with the outcome but with the motivations. but we are not talking about blunders. we don't assign selfishness and selfless to involuntary acts like dreaming. we are talking about conscious goals and the motives behind those goals. how you came to decide on a certain action. why.
13 Jan 10
this discussion is starting to be a little pointless. i cannot admit that there are selfless acts because in my view that would imply people acting without thinking, without motives. and that would imply that you didn't really think about the good your are doing either.
an example of maybe a selfless act would be the wife that continues to love her husband even thought the bastard beats her, humiliates her, is constantly drunk, is ugly and is broke. but then you would have to think really what kind of a person is that particular wife. is she broken? is she afraid of being alone? maybe she is happy taking the abuse and trying to hange the bastard.
here is another example: a man jumps in front of a shotgun blast to save his wife. by my example this would seem a selfless act. but the man loved his wife. he pictured life without her and wanted to die rather than the alternative. saw here life more important than his. but substitute the wife with a drunk homeless guy and tell him you will shoot the bum if he doesn't step in front of the blast. would he do it? would you?
of course i don't mean that psychological selfishness is really selfishness. that would be extending the meaning of selfishness to a point were it becomes irelevant. like using "object" to describe every noun in the english. "I had an object when i went to the object in the object while sitting on an object near an object". what i am REALLY saying is that there are no "selflessness". that every action is governed by a motive and nobody in their right mind does something without a motive.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnethat's your opinion. which in fact is a summory of lemon's opinion. do you have anything else to add or what lemon thought and argued is enough? he actually bothered to take each of my points and present counterpoints. what have you accomplished, hmm? other than point me to what lemon said which i already did anyway.
Just because you are solely motivated by reward, doesn't mean everyone operates on that level. Pay attention to what LJ is saying. It is much more rational than your rationalizations for your self-centeredness.
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzilol. I was just hoping that if you made another pass at what LJ said, the light bulb would turn on for you.
that's your opinion. which in fact is a summory of lemon's opinion. do you have anything else to add or what lemon thought and argued is enough? he actually bothered to take each of my points and present counterpoints. what have you accomplished, hmm? other than point me to what lemon said which i already did anyway.
15 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzihere is another example: a man jumps in front of a shotgun blast to save his wife. by my example this would seem a selfless act. but the man loved his wife. he pictured life without her and wanted to die rather than the alternative. saw here life more important than his. but substitute the wife with a drunk homeless guy and tell him you will shoot the bum if he doesn't step in front of the blast. would he do it? would you?
this discussion is starting to be a little pointless. i cannot admit that there are selfless acts because in my view that would imply people acting without thinking, without motives. and that would imply that you didn't really think about the good your are doing either.
an example of maybe a selfless act would be the wife that continues to love her husba is governed by a motive and nobody in their right mind does something without a motive.
Actually, I would, but maybe an easier scenario for you to understand would be if the man jumped in front of a child that he didn't know. No doubt to a self-centered person, this idea would be unfathomable.