Genuine Human Happiness

Originally posted by LemonJello
You didn't provide your construal of 'self-centred', so I literally don't know what you mean when you ask "How is that not self-centred?"

If all you mean by 'self-centred' is that it originates from, or bears some other basic etiological relation, to the self, then of course all desires are "self-centred" in that sense. That, of course, would have n ...[text shortened]... centered' to be in the same vein as you're taking 'self-interest' here.

I've been thinking on this, and reading a little too, and I think I can express myself a little more clearly today.

I wasn't directly referencing the fact that all our motivations originate from ourself - the observation you quite properly characterised as trivial. Neither was I referring directly to the theory of psychological egoism as generally discussed.

What I'm getting at is better expressed by somebody I read (? sorry, you'll find 'em if you're interested) who talked about a 'deeper egoism'. Even an apparent altruistic action can be seen as self-centred at some level. One often discussed is the soldier throwing himself on a grenade to protect his comrades; yes, clearly not self-interested, right? Well, maybe. I would argue that perhaps the motivation is simply that in the heat of the moment, one might easily value the continued existence of one's comrades more highly than that of oneself. In fact I can think of a number of people for whom I would happily accept my termination in favour of theirs. I don't think this is altruism - I think this motivation is entirely self-centred.

I'm not arguing in favour of psychological egoism and especially not ethical egoism, but despite the tautological nature of the claim, it still seems to me that all (I think all, I've not been able to come up with a concrete exception) human motivation is ultimately self-centred.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
In fact I can think of a number of people for whom I would happily accept my termination in favour of theirs. I don't think this is altruism - I think this motivation is entirely self-centred.

But you don't give any actual argument for this claim. Why do you think it is not altruism? Please give a bit more description to the thought processes and decision making that leads to the action.

I would argue that many of our actions are actually not consciously planned out and cannot reliably be labelled self-centred or altruistic but are rather a result of subconscious learned or innate behaviour characteristics of our brains.
Certainly, I think that a soldier faced with a live grenade may make quite different decisions depending on how much time he has to think about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you don't give any actual argument for this claim. Why do you think it is not altruism? Please give a bit more description to the thought processes and decision making that leads to the action.

I would argue that many of our actions are actually not consciously planned out and cannot reliably be labelled self-centred or altruistic but are rather a ...[text shortened]... grenade may make quite different decisions depending on how much time he has to think about it.

Well, to put it simply, given the choice between continued existence in a world without one of those loved ones, or non-existence in a world in which said loved one still abides, my preference would be for the latter. This is my preference. Said loved one might well prefer that I made a different choice, but I don't think this knowledge would affect my decision. That seems to me a self-centred motivation, yes?

I hear what you are saying about following ingrained behaviour, and cannot find disagreement. This seems to me to suggest that some actions take place without conscious motivation at all, so I guess there is no self-centred motivation in such cases. This does slightly modify my position, but not significantly I think.

I'd be interested in your views, LJ, twhitehead or Thinkofone.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I'd be interested in your views, LJ, twhitehead or Thinkofone.

Two active posters gone behind the moon here, dosen't compute.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, to put it simply, given the choice between continued existence in a world without one of those loved ones, or non-existence in a world in which said loved one still abides, my preference would be for the latter. This is [b]my preference. Said loved one might well prefer that I made a different choice, but I don't think this knowledge would affect my decision. That seems to me a self-centred motivation, yes?[/b]

No I don't think so. As far as I can tell it is only a description of self empowered choice ie you are in charge of your mental faculties. To me, self-centered implies either 'selfish' ie to maximize benefit to self, or 'without proper regard for others' as in being somewhat naive of others feelings/ needs etc to the point that even when you wish to benefit them you are too blind to their needs that your actions to not result in benefit. But I was thinking your meaning here lent towards the former

I hear what you are saying about following ingrained behaviour, and cannot find disagreement. This seems to me to suggest that some actions take place without conscious motivation at all, so I guess there is no self-centred motivation in such cases. This does slightly modify my position, but not significantly I think.
Subconscious behavior is an interesting topic for me. I find it amazing how much we do it without realizing it. In fact, a significant amount of our bodily movements take place either without our consciousness even noticing, or, with our consciousness merely noticing after the fact.
Today, I looked up at a tree with the sun behind it. By reflex, my hand came up to shade my eyes from the sun. Its only when I thought about it afterwards that I realized what happened. There was no conscious command to move my hand. It was a learned response of the subconscious ie when you see a bright light in your eye - lift your hand and place it between your eye and the light source.

But this unconscious action applies all the way up the chain of conciseness to the point that even conscious actions are often based on learned behavior. I find that many people do things because they are part of their culture and they have never really stooped to ask why they do them. When you challenge someone they may have no answer, or even admit that it doesn't make sense. Then they go right ahead and do it anyway!

Originally posted by twhitehead
No I don't think so. As far as I can tell it is only a description of self empowered choice ie you are in charge of your mental faculties. To me, self-centered implies either 'selfish' ie to maximize benefit to self, or 'without proper regard for others' as in being somewhat naive of others feelings/ needs etc to the point that even when you wish to benef ...[text shortened]... swer, or even admit that it doesn't make sense. Then they go right ahead and do it anyway!

No I don't think so. As far as I can tell it is only a description of self empowered choice ie you are in charge of your mental faculties. To me, self-centered implies either 'selfish' ie to maximize benefit to self, or 'without proper regard for others' as in being somewhat naive of others feelings/ needs etc to the point that even when you wish to benefit them you are too blind to their needs that your actions to not result in benefit. But I was thinking your meaning here lent towards the former.

Ok, I follow your argument and it seems perfectly reasonable, but nevertheless, under close scrutiny, my decision feels selfish. I find great difficulty finding any conscious decision which doesn't have a selfish basis. Going back to the point ToO raised, I too would champion the elimination of discrimination against women, but when I try to analyse my motivations, I think it's because I empathise with the position of somebody subjected to discrimination and prefer the idea of a society where these things don't happen, i.e., again, selfishly based. And I find little to suggest that I'm radically different in thought or behaviour from those around me - I suppose I may be mistaken on this point, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]No I don't think so. As far as I can tell it is only a description of self empowered choice ie you are in charge of your mental faculties. To me, self-centered implies either 'selfish' ie to maximize benefit to self, or 'without proper regard for others' as in being somewhat naive of others feelings/ needs etc to the point that even when you wish viour from those around me - I suppose I may be mistaken on this point, but I doubt it.

[/b]LJ seemed to explain things well enough, but FWIW:

III. The Refutation of Psychological Egoism: arguments to the conclusion that the generalization everyone acts from the motive of self-interest is false.

Psychological egoism as an empirical theory commits the fallacy of hasty generalization or converse accident. The descriptive psychological law that all persons act from the motive of self-interest is false because there are many disconfirming instances.

Many people have injurious habits such as smoking, worrying, or self-defeating behavior.


Many people do their duty when their self-interest lies elsewhere. Many people will help someone in need without thinking of self-gain. Many people will follow religious precepts without personal benefit.


Many people will react in such a manner that their action is done for the "heck of it." I.e., some actions are performed precisely because they are not in our self-interest. We "cut off our nose to spite our face." Dostoevsky writes, "And what if it so happens that a man's advantage, sometimes, not only may, but even must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous.


Some people will act against their self-interest so that they can follow their conscience. They do what's right even though they won't personally benefit.


Almost everyone will act against their short-term self-interest in order to obtain a greater long-term self interest. Students will stay up all night to get a term paper done even though the short-term effects are disadvantageous (loss of sleep, lack of attention in class, altered circadian cycle, and so forth).


If psychological egoism is claimed to have no disconfirming instances from the definition of the term, then the generalization turns out to be a tautology or trivially true statement.


By the way psychological egoism is defined, all possible counter-examples have been ruled out. This marks the theory meaningless. Suppose a soldier falls on a grenade to save his buddies. The psychological egoist would say the action can be said to be in the interest of the soldier because he could not live with himself if he did sacrifice his own life or he did so because he would go out as a hero and so forth. No matter what action is set forth as an exception to the generalization, we can always rationalize that the action was a self-interested one.


Hence, because there is no empirical test to confirm an action not in self-interest, the claim is empty of factual content. The class "self-interested actions" is extensionally isomorphic with the class of actions. In other word, the claim that all actions are self-interested actions (i.e., the claim of psychological egoism) is logically equivalent to the claim that "All actions are actions."


Since any possible counter-example is assimilated to "self-interested actions" (even self-defeating behaviors) the claim of the psychological egoist is trivial and meaningless. For "self-interested actions" to be a meaningful class of actions, we would have to know what kind of actions isn't self-interested.




IV. Interestingly enough, the same objections can be raised against the view termed, "psychological altruism": all persons act from the motive of helping others, and all actions are done from other-regarding motives. (Psychological altruism is a view advanced only from the position of a "devil's advocate." )

In the most selfish act we can always rationalize an altruistic motive. E.g., littering can be viewed as done as a public service in order to help unskilled workers keep their jobs.


Pari passu with psychological egoism, if we can't find the altruistic motive in all actions, it is claimed we just haven't thought deeply enough.


V. As a final note, it should be mentioned that psychological egoism can't be saved by psychoanalytic theory. I.e., Freud's notion of the unconscious raises the possibility that we have unconscious desires and can act against our conscious inclinations. If it is argued that we always unconsciously seek our self-interest, then this view is untestable and circular as well.

Consider the following passage from Freud's Interpretations of Dreams*:

"A contradiction to my theory of dream produced by another of my women patients (the cleverest of all my dreamers) was resolved more simply, but upon the same pattern: namely that the nonfulfillment of one wish meant the fulfillment of another. One day I had been explaining to her that dreams are fulfillments of wishes. Next day she brought me a dream in which she was traveling down with her mother-in-law to the place in the country where they were to spend their holidays together. Now I knew that she had violently rebelled against the idea of spending the summer near her mother-in-law and that a few days earlier she had successfully avoided the propinquity she dreaded by engaging rooms in a far distant resort. And now her dream had undone the solution she had wished for; was not this the sharpest contradiction of my theory that in dreams wishes are fulfilled? No doubt; and it was only necessary to follow the dreams logical consequence in order to arrive at its interpretation. The dream showed that I was wrong. Thus it was her wish that I might be wrong, and her dream showed that wish fulfilled (italics original)"

*Sigmund Freud, The Interpretations of Dreams (New York: Avon, 1966), 185.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/egoism.html

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
LJ seemed to explain things well enough, but FWIW:

III. The Refutation of Psychological Egoism: arguments to the conclusion that the generalization everyone acts from the motive of self-interest is false.

Psychological egoism as an empirical theory commits the fallacy of hasty generalization or converse accident. The descriptive psycholo 185.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/egoism.html

[/b]

Yes I've read all this. The point of discussion to me is this:

If psychological egoism is claimed to have no disconfirming instances from the definition of the term, then the generalization turns out to be a tautology or trivially true statement.

Why is it that? To my mind, if there are no disconfirming instances, then it suggests something fundamental about human nature, and that, to me at least, seems pretty interesting and not at all trivial. At the very least it leads me to closely analyse my motives in decision making in order to search for disconfirming instances, examples of which I have yet to find, excepting only the previously mentioned subconscious actions.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes I've read all this. The point of discussion to me is this:

If psychological egoism is claimed to have no disconfirming instances from the definition of the term, then the generalization turns out to be a tautology or trivially true statement.

Why is it that? To my mind, if there are no disconfirming instances, then it sugges ...[text shortened]... ples of which I have yet to find, excepting only the previously mentioned subconscious actions.

The previous quote explained things well enough, but perhaps seeing it stated in a different way will suffice. Ultimately you're just playing a game with yourself which the previous example of 'psychological ultruism' should have made clear.

Here are some reasons not to take psychological egoism seriously.

Critique #1: Psychological egoism is not true, on face value, in a simple, naive sense. That is, it's easy to think of counterexamples — cases that falsify the generalization that all human acts are selfish, i.e., cases of people acting unselfishly. It certainly appears that people sometimes act in ways that are not in accord with their own interests: the soldier who falls on the grenade to save his buddies, the person who runs into the busy street to save a child about to be run over, etc. Psychological egoism is only true if you adopt what Rachels calls the strategy of redefining motives. That is, you insist on claiming that people are “really” acting selfishly even when they appear to be acting unselfishly.

But this strategy has two problems. First, if all human actions are self-interested, then “self-interested actions” become, by definition, identical with “actions”. That is, these two expressions denote exactly the same set of actions, and thus are substitutable for each other. It then becomes impossible to disprove the claim that all human actions are self-interested, because the claim, after substitution, becomes a vacuous tautology: “All human actions are human actions.”

Try to imagine what it would take to disprove the claim that all human actions are self-interested. The claim would be definitely disproved if we could come up with one human action that wasn't self-interested, i.e., a counterexample. But if by definition all human actions are self-interested, there can be no possible counterexample. If there are no possible counterexamples, then the claim “all human acts are self-interested” is not falsifiable. If the claim is not falsifiable, then according to the verificationist criterion, the claim is meaningless.

So the claim “all human acts are self-interested” is either tautologous (true by definition, and therefore uninteresting, like “All circles are round&rdquo😉 or unfalsifiable (and therefore meaningless).

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The previous quote explained things well enough, but perhaps seeing it stated in a different way will suffice. Ultimately you're just playing a game with yourself which the previous example of 'psychological ultruism' should have made clear.

Here are some reasons not to take psychological egoism seriously.

Critique #1: Psychological egoism i ...[text shortened]... therefore meaningless).

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html

Yes, I've read that one too. It's elegantly phrased but seems more like an exercise in argument than a reasonable analysis of the idea. Suppose for a moment that it's true, that all human actions are ultimately based in selfishness - why does that make the theory trivial or uninteresting to you?

Look at this:

First, if all human actions are self-interested, then “self-interested actions” become, by definition, identical with “actions”. That is, these two expressions denote exactly the same set of actions, and thus are substitutable for each other. It then becomes impossible to disprove the claim that all human actions are self-interested, because the claim, after substitution, becomes a vacuous tautology: “All human actions are human actions.”

For this writer, if all human actions are motivated by self-interest, then the idea is dismissed as a 'vacuous tautology'! I mean, what? Why? No, not why, I can see the argument, I understand it, I just don't understand how one can wave away the idea so glibly.

Personally, I find the concept quite fascinating. And I still can't come up with a single example of conscious decision in my own life for which I cannot find a selfish basis. Which is not to say that I'm a horrible, selfish person... well, I try not to be... but I try not to be for what I think may be selfish reasons. Are you different?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I too would champion the elimination of discrimination against women, but when I try to analyse my motivations, I think it's because I empathise with the position of somebody subjected to discrimination and prefer the idea of a society where these things don't happen, i.e., again, selfishly based.

I on the other hand champion the elimination of women simply because I believe it is the right thing to do. I am not entirely sure why. I am certainly not convinced that my small input is significant enough to affect society to the extent that it will benefit me. In fact, if I try to rationalize my behavior on the subject, and similar situations, I often find I cannot rationalize it and fell that my most rational action would be a more selfish one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I on the other hand champion the elimination of women simply because I believe it is the right thing to do. I am not entirely sure why. I am certainly not convinced that my small input is significant enough to affect society to the extent that it will benefit me. In fact, if I try to rationalize my behavior on the subject, and similar situations, I often find I cannot rationalize it and fell that my most rational action would be a more selfish one.

But why do you want to do the right thing? (I felt that motivation too)

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes, I've read that one too. It's elegantly phrased but seems more like an exercise in argument than a reasonable analysis of the idea. Suppose for a moment that it's true, that all human actions are ultimately based in selfishness - why does that make the theory trivial or uninteresting to you?

Look at this:
[quote]First, if all human actions a to be... but I try not to be for what I think may be selfish reasons. Are you different?

While I believe that you sincerely think that you understand what they were saying, it's evident from your responses that you don't. Try rereading my previous 2 posts for what they are ACTUALLY saying - not what you think they are probably saying. This suggestion is not trivial. For those who have their mind set - as you evidently do - it can be easier said than done. Pay particular attention to the text in bold in the second post coupled with the concept of 'psychological altruism' brought up in the first.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
While I believe that you sincerely think that you understand what they were saying, it's evident from your responses that you don't. Try rereading my previous 2 posts for what they are ACTUALLY saying - not what you think they are probably saying. This suggestion is not trivial. For those who have their mind set - as you evidently do - it can be easier said than done.

May I respectfully suggest that instead of posting other people's arguments and then patronisingly insisting that I haven't understood them, you try to rephrase them in simple terms that an idiot such as myself might grasp even allowing for my puny, ill-exercised and no doubt diminutive mind?