Originally posted by bbarrIt may be said that there are no altruistic acts, that every act of kindness contains some degree of selfishness. It may be that Jones is compassionate because it "makes him feel good". Is Jones being no less selfish in this regard? He is acting kind because of what he gets out of it, i.e. a better feeling about himself, or even a feeling of superiority over others. But perhaps Smith has only convinced himself that he has acted compassionately for selfish motives. Perhaps Smith is not the best judge of his own character. Smith may ascribe his motives to fear, but he has acted compassionately nevertheless. Smith does not exist in a void. Part of the determination of Smith's character is how others perceive him (being-for-others).
Suppose there are two fellows, Smith and Jones. Smith acts compassionately whenever given the opportunity because he feels it is his moral duty to do so. Jones also acts compassionately whenever given the opportunity but, unlike Jones, Smith acts compassionately only because he fears divine punishment. If we cannot seperate the analysis of a man's charact ...[text shortened]... t also his intentions, his will, etc. Aren't these factors the real determinants of character?
Originally posted by rwingettWell the thought experiment I've presented stipulates the nature of the motivations of Smith and Jones. Surely it's possible that their motivations are as I've presented. If you claim that it is in fact impossible for someone to act compassionately out of a moral sense of duty then that is something that needs to be defended. So, without changing the subject, given that the motivations of Smith and Jones are as described, what ought we say about the characters of Smith and Jones? I think the example shows that we cannot restrict our analysis of character to merely the evidence provided from behavior. We need to consider intentions as well. If you do believe that all actions are intrinsically selfish, a view called psychological egoim, than please say so, I'd be glad to post its refutation.
It may be said that there are no altruistic acts, that every act of kindness contains some degree of selfishness. It may be that Jones is compassionate because it "makes him feel good". Is Jones being no less selfish in this regard? He is acting kind because of what he gets out of it, i.e. a better feeling about himself, or even a feeling of superiority o ...[text shortened]... Part of the determination of Smith's character is how others perceive him (being-for-others).
Originally posted by bbarrI for one would be very grateful if you could post the refutation of this idea. Not that I believe in it necessarily (I think my world might crumble if I did!) but I crave this sort of thing, more so when it's all explained in a relatively concise, precise, non-technical manner.
If you do believe that all actions are intrinsically selfish, a view called psychological egoim, than please say so, I'd be glad to post its refutation.
Originally posted by bbarr"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Well the thought experiment I've presented stipulates the nature of the motivations of Smith and Jones. Surely it's possible that their motivations are as I've presented. If you claim that it is in fact impossible for someone to act compassionately out of a moral sense of duty then that is something that needs to be defended. So, without changing the sub ...[text shortened]... ish, a view called psychological egoim, than please say so, I'd be glad to post its refutation.
My purpose was merely to point out that psychological egoism may account for Smith's altruism. How is one to know? No one else can know what Smith was thinking. Likewise, Smith is capable of deluding himself as to the sincerity of his motives. That is all a matter of conjecture. What is concrete is the act of compassion which has been performed. This is a tangible thing which can be evaluated. The person who was the beneficiary of that act of kindness cares little what the motivations of Smith or Jones were.
Originally posted by rwingettThe point of the thought experiment is to examine what follows from the situation if the motivations of Smith and Jones are, in fact, as they were described. So, if we take it as a fact that their motivations were as I stipulated them to be, what follows about their character? I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
My purpose was merely to point out that psychological egoism may account for Smith's altruism. How is one to know? No one else can know what Smith was thinking. Likewise, Smith is capable of deluding himself as to the sincerity of his motives. That is all a matter of conjecture. What is concrete is ...[text shortened]... e beneficiary of that act of kindness cares little what the motivations of Smith or Jones were.
Originally posted by bbarrAll right, for the sake of argument, let us assume that things are as you describe them. What then? Can any deductive proofs be drawn about their character? Or is would it be another round of speculative inferences? I am unable to deduce exactly what your point is here, so I will defer to you for the time being. Tell us then, what does follow about their character?
The point of the thought experiment is to examine what follows from the situation if the motivations of Smith and Jones are, in fact, as they were described. So, if we take it as a fact that their motivations were as I stipulated them to be, what follows about their character? I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this.
Originally posted by T1000Alright. First we need to get clear on what psychological egoism asserts:
I for one would be very grateful if you could post the refutation of this idea. Not that I believe in it necessarily (I think my world might crumble if I did!) but I crave this sort of thing, more so when it's all explained in a relatively concise, precise, non-technical manner.
P.E., df. : All human actions are motivated soley by selfish desires.
Now, what's the argument for this view. It seems to be that because humans have a tendency to receive some pleasure by satisfying their desires, it is reasonable to assume that the motivation for their actions is the promise of such pleasure.
Notice, however, that just because our successful actions are accompanied by pleasure, it does not follow, as the P.Egoist claims, that the objective of every action is to receive that pleasure. The P.Egoist is taking as his evidence a consistent correlation between actions and pleasure and then arguing that the desire for pleasure is teh cause of the action. There is a famous counter-example to this line of thought due to William James. He asks whether it's the case that just because a trans-atlantic ocean liner constantly consumes fule on its voyages its reasonable to assume that the purpose of the voyage itself is to consume fuel. Obviously not. So the P.Egoist can't just infer that the pleasure that accompanies our successful actions indicates that the point of the actions is to receive pleasure.
Furthermore, far from it being the case that the pleasure that accompanies successful action show the action itself selfish, it seem that in many cases the pleasure shows the opposite. For in many cases the fact that we experienced pleasure as a result of an action shows that what we desired was in fact something other than pleasure. Imagine I stumble upon a puppy in distress and stop to help the poor creature. If I didn't want to help the puppy, then presumably I would get no pleasure from actually helping it. But I do get pleasure from helping it, so it seems that I actually wanted to help the puppy. But if I wanted to help the puppy, then it seems my motivation for helping the puppy was that I wanted to, not merely that pleasure would result. The P.Egoist has a response, of course, he can claim that I am in fact deceived about my motivations. He could claim that what I thought was an action motivated by a desire to help the puppy was actually a selfish desire to feel pleasure. but how likely is it that I'm so radically deceived about my own motivations. Notice that although this position isn't contradictory, it nevertheless has nothing to recommend it other than that it salvages P.Egoism. No evidence has yet to be presented in favor of the claim that we are radically deceived about our own basic motivations. And how could there be? If the P.Egoist is claims that humans have the capacity to be radically deceived about the nature of their motivations, then presumably PEgoists can also be radically deceived about the nature of human motivation, and if they can be radically deceived (and they have presented no evidence to back up their case) then why should be accept their view? But here is the kicker: If it is the case that our sole motivation was for pleasure, then we could never in fact be happy. Imagine poor Bob, who has no intellectual curiosity, no desire for any knowledge, and thus totally uninterested in science, math, philosophy, etc. Imagine further that he takes no enjoyment in the arts, or music; he just finds all aesthetic expereinces totally boring. Suppose he has no interest in sports, or beer, or women. In short, suppose there is nothing that Bob finds pleasurable. You may think Bob has no desres at all, but that's not quite right. Let's say Bob has one overarching desire, one thing to which he is completely committed, and that is to be happy. It is clear that Bob's desire is bound to be frustrated. Those people who soley pursue their own happiness are the least likely to find it. Those most likely to be happy are those who desire to do things other than pursue happiness. So the only conceivable way humans could be happy is if they in fact desired to do things other than merely pursue their happimess. Since some humans are happy, some humans must desire something other than their own happiness. Thus, humans are motivated by things other than their own happiness. so Psychological Egoism is false.
Originally posted by rwingettMerely that their character is not constituted soley by their behavior, but by their motivations. The essence of a man does not follow from his behavior, the essence of a man is to be found in his motivations, and behavior is merely evidence. So your previous claims that "a person IS the sum total of all his actions" and that "there is no central "being" that can be analyzed independantly of the actions and choices that a person has made" are false. The central being is the self, the self is where volition and intention resides. Sartre's existentialist behaviorism gets things backwards.
All right, for the sake of argument, let us assume that things are as you describe them. What then? Can any deductive proofs be drawn about their character? Or is would it be another round of speculative inferences? I am unable to deduce exactly what your point is here, so I will defer to you for the time being. Tell us then, what does follow about their character?
Originally posted by bbarrinteresting argument, which goes some way to refuting P.egoism (a theory that I had come to on my own, because I'm a horrible synic). Does the argument hold that, if the way to help the puppy of which you speak was to kill it, an action that would have made you feel horrible, then P.egoism must be false. Or could it be said that in this case you weren't seeking pleasure but instead the path which would decrease your pleasure least, and leaving the puppy to suffer would have decreased you pleasure more than killing it?
Alright. First we need to get clear on what psychological egoism asserts:
P.E., df. : All human actions are motivated soley by selfish desires.
Now, what's the argument for this view. It seems to be that because humans have a tendency to receive some pleasure by satisfying their desires, it is reasonable to assume that the motivation for their actions ...[text shortened]... umans are motivated by things other than their own happiness. so Psychological Egoism is false.
And leave Michel Jackson alone 😛. Yes, he is royally screwed up, but so would anyone who had had everything they want sonce they were 5. Can you imagine how screwed up you would be if you had always had everything? How empty would life be then? We do what is "normal" beacuse normal is societies rules and society has impressed them upon us. This guy locked himself away from society and built his own, so of course he's going to be screwed up in our eyes.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrdecided to toss my "Rantings of a Lunatic" into the bin., or onto the fire, or somewhere...
Alright. First we need to get clear on what psychological egoism asserts:
P.E., df. : All human actions are motivated soley by selfish desires.
Now, what's the argument for this view. .......
bbarr says:
".... He asks whether it's the case that just because a trans-atlantic ocean liner constantly consumes fule on its voyages its reasonable to assume that the purpose of the voyage itself is to consume fuel. Obviously not..."
Terrible counter example,falls into the trap of confusing the fact that correlation does not prove causation with the contrapositive. I should hope causation does imply correlation, else we do not live in a rational universe.(of course those of us who frequent The Ave's miasmatic indian establishments, over the delectable Thai Thom's, or even The Thai-ger room, may not actually live in a rational world...:>😉
This argument (the one about causation, not the one about lunch choices), made against the PE position, must then necessarily be applied to ALL positions, leading us the the refutation of the ENTIRE philosophic process. Since we can never discern causality from the observable correlations, lets just end this 4000 year old philosophic and scientific nonsense, and go debate the merits of pilsners vs lagers...
Sadly we are stuck with not having Ordained-by-God Certainty as to causation for ANYTHING, and instead putter our ways through life trying to sift through the many flickering shadows that mere correlations cast on the back of our Platonic Cave, in the hopes of finding the ones that are projections of a solid causality. If you are going to wave the "correlation doesn't imply causation" banner, well, apply it with an EVEN HAND! Toss out EVERY attempt to infer cause from observables in EVERYTHING ANYONE HAS EVER DONE OR COMPTEMPLATED. Oh sounds stupid now, doesn't it....
Assuming that you will grant me that there is in fact some "Truth" and "Causation" which we can work to understand, then I give you the PE hypothesis is the best we have yet. Indeed it is the ONLY explanation I have heard yet that is scientific. "Scientific" not in the sense that it is true, but scientific that it is testable and refutable. It would take exactly one counter example to prove it wrong. Since the "opposing theory" doesn't exist, it can't be tested, hence in my book not worthy of anything, even not considering. There has to be something to consider for it to be worth not considering....
And back to that silly ship example.Mister James tosses the baby out with the bath water when he picks a patently irrelevant correlation and says "see, correlation doesn't imply causation..." As Bart would say, DUH!! Hey Mr Hanky Wanky James, start by listing all the correlations and then try to explain to a panel of you peers why you picked that lame ass "to spend fuel" over the other more reasonable possibilites.
And as for that puppy thing, as a PEist, I think I saw three walnut shells and a pea underneath one of them, but then your hands started moving real quick and I'm not sure if the pea is under any of the walnut shells now...As far as I could tell you just told me you helped the puppy because it gave you pleasure, just like we PEs say you would.One patently false line is "If I didn't want to help the puppy, then presumably I would get no pleasure from actually helping it". Oh, so many problems here. Of course, there does not have to be a single source of pleasure. Perhaps one would get some pleasure from standing by and watching a whiney blubbery idiot mongrel splatter headlong into it's Darwinian fate; yet perhaps one would also derive pleasure from the praise and accolades of one's fellow man for such a selfless act as saving said puppy from its own ineptitudes. And so perhaps though one derives no pleasure from saving the puppy (in one sense), one still derives pleasure from saving the puppy (in another sense). As the Wise and Noble Bill Clinton once explained, it depends on your definition of "it", and if you are going to change definitions of "pleasure from saving a puppy" in mid sentence...
Or another way: simply because you have told me to imagine someone doing something for reasons other than PE self satisfaction, does not mean such a person exists. Of course I can imagine this sort of person; I can also imagine a saxophone playing Sasquatch riding a purple spotted yak while wearing chaps and yodelling, but that doesn't exist either, at least not outside of Everett...
and so:
"So the P.Egoist can't just infer that the pleasure that accompanies our successful actions indicates that the point of the actions is to receive pleasure."
Hell yes I can. And I do. If you are still confused, may I suggest Harold Jeffrey's Bayesian approach to Ockhams Razor to tell you why. The P Egoist at least has a testable hypothesis, a refutable explanation of human behavior. As such it is given a much higher prior probability than the completely vapid alternative. Since the alternative is to the PE position is...well, actually what is the alternative? The incredibly vacuous phrase "something else"? Oh please,.....
and more:
"No evidence has yet to be presented in favor of the claim that we are radically deceived about our own basic motivations."
Of course no evidence has been presented as to this, mainly because nothing in the PE position requires this. A red herring tossed aboard merely to flop around and distract....Of course, just because the PE position doesn't actually require the concept of "radical self deception" doesn't mean that people ARE NOT decieved by their own motivations on a daily basis. Hell, there's even quite a bit of social theory about how people couldn't actually survive WITHOUT quite a bit of self delusion. Saddaam Hussein certainly and truely beleives that his people love him; George W.Bush certainly and truly believes he was popularly elected. I truly believe I am handsome, witty, charming, brilliant, fit, and hung like a....nevermind. Ah the joys of self delusion.
So toss that argument onto the slag heap too....
And finally:
"But here is the kicker: If it is the case that our sole motivation was for pleasure, then we could never in fact be happy...."
At this point, the argument becomes completely nonsensical. Just because one strings words together, connected with the word "therefore",that doesn't make it a logical argument. Therefore...oh wait now I've gone and done it...
Really.
I'd like to try to counter this, but frankly it didn't make a lick o' sense to me.The best I can do is point out that this, "Bob" fellow who we are forced to imagine as having no "...interest in sports, or beer, or women" is obviously no MAN at all. Maybe "he" lives up on Capitol hill, and likes to go to Cuff's...:>
More seriously, I'll make the same objection I made earlier, namely just because I can be asked to imagine such a "fellow" doesn't mean he exists. I'll even argue that if the only way to refute the PE position is to require imagining some fantasy critter for whom NOTHING brings happiness, and that this critters ONE goal is to be happy, well then, you've done a good job of pointing out how wonderfully adequate the PE position is for explaining the real world!
OK. I've had my fun ranting and raving! I promise, next time I'll think about being coherent...
But only if I decide that being coherent will bring me pleasure....
Michael
Originally posted by bbarrYes.
Interesting, so if I had decided to have Thai food for lunch instead of the Indian food which I indeed had, I would have been a different person?
Had you had thai food today, you would have met Tony Robbins, and he would have changed your life with an Hour of Power. Had you instead gone to Burger Hut, you would have met Billy Graham, and he too would have changed your life. Finally, had you chosen to go to Schultzy's, Jim Henrdrix's dybbuk would have possessed you, sending you on quite an exciting adventure...
Originally posted by bbarrWhat if a person's good motivations stem from an erroneous premise? We are left with a situation similar to that of Prince Myshkin in Dosteovsky's "The Idiot", where his good intentions have disastrous consequenses which bring ruin to all around him. Would it matter that his intentions were good? Perhaps the Spanish conquistadors really thought they were doing good by destroying the Aztec culture and furthering the "glory of god". If there is a god, and if the Aztecs were doomed to damnation for their impiety, then perhaps they did do good. But if there is no god, then the conquistadors good intentions stemmed from a false premise, with the net result being that the Aztecs were simply slaughtered for no good reason. The judgement of a person's character may be mitigated by his "good intentions" insofar as we are able to define them. But in the end it is the actions he has performed which will form the basis of his character.
Merely that their character is not constituted soley by their behavior, but by their motivations. The essence of a man does not follow from his behavior, the essence of a man is to be found in his motivations, and behavior is merely evidence. So your previous claims that "a person IS the sum total of all his actions" and that "there is no central "being" ...[text shortened]... ere volition and intention resides. Sartre's existentialist behaviorism gets things backwards.
Originally posted by bbarrI must really like this thread, I keep responding....
... The essence of a man does not follow from his behavior, the essence of a man is to be found in his motivations, and behavior is merely evidence. So your previous claims that "a person IS the sum total of all his actions" and that "there is no central "being" that can be analyzed independantly of the actions and choices that a person has made" are false....
First I take it you mean a persons "true" essence and motivations, which can be different than their self professed essence and motiviations, which may or may not be any more or less accurate than infereneces drawn from behavior.
And if the goal is to understand the "true" motivation of a person, then inferences from behavior are the strongest, perhaps only, evidence one has. Given the only evidence one has at hand is evidence from behavior (and a person's behavior includes what they state are their motivations, which may or may not be their actual motivations), then in fact Sartre get's it exactly right.
Beyond observed behavior, what are you suggesting one use to infer motivation? Blood type? Balance of Humours? Phrenology? Or is this mysterious knowledge to be found it tea leaves, animal entrails, or the orbits of the sun, moon, planets, stars?
I'll claim that a person IS the sum total of ALL his actions for the same reason Einstein pointed out that one can toss out the concept of "luminious ether" from discussions in electromagnetism. Since perfectly adequate theories of EM could be postulated that made no mention of a luminous ether, it was an unnecessary component of the model. Being unnecessary, it was removed as it merely clouded mens' minds. Likewise, since the inferred "central being" that cannot be analyzed independently of the actions and choices of a person is EXACTLY the same as the inferred "central being" that CAN be analyzed based SOLEY upon the actions and choices of the person, I have no reason to assume some eneffably effable "something more" is necessary.
Originally posted by bbarrRemembered my other objection to this; your argument only works if you make the assumption that only "perfect and complete happiness" will suffice and that anything less means unhappiness. If my sole motivation is pleasure, and each bit of pleasure I achieve brings me some happiness, then I'm a very happy fellow, even if I don't achieve my preferred goal of all pleasure all the time.
....But here is the kicker: If it is the case that our sole motivation was for pleasure, then we could never in fact be happy....
And then there is the whole problem of the definition of "pleasure", and by using "pleasure" do describe a much broader and profound concept, it allows one to get woolly about mistaking arguments about achieving "hedonistic pleasure" ....
Hey! The alarm just went off! Dang, that means if I was asleep now I would be waking up to go take care of some flies. But I am not asleep, and this knowledge that I should now be waking up suddenly brings me no pleasure, while moments ago the idea that I was not sleeping did bring me pleasure. Gosh, does this mean motivations can be complex? Go figure....
Originally posted by maggoteerMaggoteer, I expect better than ad hominim argument from you. Of course not tea leaves silly, introspection. My direct access to the content of my mental states allows me to determine (with close to infallibility) my motivations, any analysis of my behavior has to posit desires and beliefs to make my actions understandable. I have access to those desires and beliefs, you do not. Yet you just toss off that inferences drawn from behavior may be more or less accurate than those drawn from introspection; well this is surely logically possible, but hardly plausible. This is really characteristic of many of your counter-arguments, I will enumerate the mistakes you make in your larger post once I get back from school. Tah.
I must really like this thread, I keep responding....
First I take it you mean a persons "true" essence and motivations, which can be different than their self professed essence and motiviations, which may or may not be any more or less accurate than infereneces drawn from behavior.
And if the goal is to understand the "true" motivation of a pers ...[text shortened]... the person, I have no reason to assume some eneffably effable "something more" is necessary.