Is every (willing) action we do to please ourselves?

[stephan]

Some argue that people do stuff for charity because it makes them feel good, or to benefit themselves (eg: resume builder). If you don't feel good about charity, you don't do it. Anyone believe this argument?

[Magic_Man]

It is impossible to do anything that you do not want to do. Presumably, "want" here could be understood to mean "makes you feel good," so I'd say you are about right.

[almostbusto]

to frame the question a little better.

the theory is that individuals seek to maximize utility. however, it is empirically true that people engage in altruistic behavior. These two points are reconciled by the fact that individuals often have inner-dependencies, meaning their utiltiy functions factor in the utility of others.


personally i agree with this viewpoint. I am happy when my friends are happy, i help my friends at my own expense fairly often. However, this is a net gain for me because i value my friends happiness above the small costs associated with whatever favor i am helping them out with. Also, I am in a sense 'building credit' with that friend which has value in itself.

[madnak]

Depends on what you mean by "please." People take actions because they have incentive to take actions, but that incentive may not resemble "pleasure" in the conventional sense.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Some argue that people do stuff for charity because it makes them feel good, or to benefit themselves (eg: resume builder). If you don't feel good about charity, you don't do it. Anyone believe this argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that called the theory of Altruistic Egotism?

I think its a pretty sound theory.

[Skidoo]

People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do they prefer doing it over not doing it?

[reb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do they prefer doing it over not doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They might not prefer it, but they do it anyway.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Some argue that people do stuff for charity because it makes them feel good, or to benefit themselves (eg: resume builder). If you don't feel good about charity, you don't do it. Anyone believe this argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone tells you that they ever did something that they didn't want to do, they either don't understand their motivations, or they're a liar. Sometimes I make phone calls, and passionately hate making them, but I hate them less than getting bitched out by my girlfriend.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do they prefer doing it over not doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They might not prefer it, but they do it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, they prefer to do what they prefer not to? Do you see the problem here? Everything you do is something you PREFER to do, or we disagree on the meaning of prefer.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, or we disagree on the meaning of "pleasure". Give an example.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Give an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you remove 'know' it makes a lot more sense.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Give an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you remove 'know' it makes a lot more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can never know, so actually the original quote should say 'think', which I believe makes it 'even more' false.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do they prefer doing it over not doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

They do it despite how it feels personally for the good it will accomplish for others.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, or we disagree on the meaning of "pleasure". Give an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows.

[Brom]

OP's post reminds me of this one from a while back...
Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=766173 9&Searchpage=1&Main=7661739&Words=%2Bselfish+-re&topic=&Search=true#Post7661739)

Just thought I'd refer some people to it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[reb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do they prefer doing it over not doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They might not prefer it, but they do it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, they prefer to do what they prefer not to? Do you see the problem here? Everything you do is something you PREFER to do, or we disagree on the meaning of prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do YOU have to PREFER something in order to do something? What stops you from doing something that you do not prefer?

[bunny]

I find this theory unhelpful. There are some things I do because I want to and some things I do because I feel obligated to. I think it is useful to distinguish them - and saying "well I didnt want to, but I had to to keep the wife happy" seems as good a way as any.

True, you can say that I wanted to keep my wife happy more than I wanted to refrain from acting or whatever, but you seem to have lost information - you have just defined "what I wanted to do" as "what I actually did".

I think it also struggles to account for habitual activity (eg I have a form I have to fill in every quarter for the taxman. Every time I do it I get halfway through and realise the report I've printed out is not as efficient a way of gathering the information as an alternative report I could have done. I would definitely prefer the second report, yet I deliberately printed the first.)

[surftheiop]

I dont want to stab myself in the eye right now, but i could very well do it for no apparent reason, knowing full well it will decrease my total utility

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, or we disagree on the meaning of "pleasure". Give an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows.

[/ QUOTE ]

he does that because he takes personal pleasure in knowing that his fellows are safe (maybe that he takes personal pleasure knowing that he is saving his fellows)

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, or we disagree on the meaning of "pleasure". Give an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows.

[/ QUOTE ]

he does that because he takes personal pleasure in knowing that his fellows are safe (maybe that he takes personal pleasure knowing that he is saving his fellows)

[/ QUOTE ]

When a soldier sees a grenade enter his immediate vicinity, the last emotion he's feeling is pleasure.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if they acquire that knowledge of the true effects before making their choice, they suddenly no longer have the capacity to choose?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, or we disagree on the meaning of "pleasure". Give an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows.

[/ QUOTE ]

he does that because he takes personal pleasure in knowing that his fellows are safe (maybe that he takes personal pleasure knowing that he is saving his fellows)

[/ QUOTE ]

When a soldier sees a grenade drop into his immediate vicinity, the last emotion he's feeling is pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

first of all, this situation is not exactly the best example of making a concious or rational decision..

consider for a moment that he does have time to actually think and make a decision here..

he doesn't want to die, but if it means that his friends will survive, he is willing to sacrifice himself...

why does he do this...it is because he takes personal pleasure in making that sacrifice...at the moment of the decision, he is making the choice that will maximize his own personal pleasure, the decision that does that is the decision to sacrifice himself and be a hero.

[reb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is stopping a person from doing it, even if he knows? Probably the belief itself. I take it you do not believe in free will?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if they acquire that knowledge of the true effects before making their choice, they suddenly no longer have the capacity to choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about what they are capable of..

consider a person who knows that an action will cause him a net decrease in personal pleasure...why would he choose then to take that action?...

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is stopping a person from doing it, even if he knows? Probably the belief itself. I take it you do not believe in free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, I believe that free will exists in any meaningful sense, but not necessarily in the sense that it seems to frequenly be taken.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if they acquire that knowledge of the true effects before making their choice, they suddenly no longer have the capacity to choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about what they are capable of..

consider a person who knows that an action will cause him a net decrease in personal pleasure...why would he choose then to take that action?...

[/ QUOTE ]

He could make the choice based on what he understands to be the right thing for anyone to do in similar circumstances, irrespective of the feedback to his personal pleasure centers.

[Prodigy54321]

I want to clarify something

I am not arguing that a person cannot do something that nets a negative personal pleasure.

What I am saying is that it is unlikely...for reasons of evolution as I understand it (note that I am no expert, so what I saw could be completely wrong)

other animals take altrustic actions..but we don't tend to look at those decisions as based on free will..we readily admit that those animals take those actions because of their physiological make-up..so why not humans?

[valenzuela]

Every consicous desition is done to please ourself, unconsious desition are not always to please ourself.( For instance having a crush)

I dont see how any other answer is correct.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if they acquire that knowledge of the true effects before making their choice, they suddenly no longer have the capacity to choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about what they are capable of..

consider a person who knows that an action will cause him a net decrease in personal pleasure...why would he choose then to take that action?...

[/ QUOTE ]

He could make the choice based on what he understands to be the right thing for anyone to do in similar circumstances, irrespective of the feedback to his personal pleasure centers.

[/ QUOTE ]

he takes pleasure in making what he considers to be the "right thing to do"...

take a person who doesn't take pleasure in doing what is the "right thing to do" and he will not take the same action.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if they do not know that it will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take this statement back..I have no opinion at the moment on what we are "capable" of

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to stab myself in the eye right now, but i could very well do it for no apparent reason, knowing full well it will decrease my total utility

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

[surftheiop]

Yes

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'apparent' reason. It might not be apparent to me, but it was obviously incredibly convincing to you. The temporary gain was enough to outweigh your estimation of the long term loss.

[reb]

Stabbing yourself for proof would be for personal gain.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Stabbing yourself for proof would be for personal gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

But almost certainly not enough to outweigh HIS ESTIMATION of the long term negatives. Which is why he still sees with both eyes.

[surftheiop]

Vhawk, do you belive it is posible for a human to behave irrationally?
(Im not arguing about the eye stabbing stuff anymore, im just trying to understand your stance).

[Skidoo]

I am presented with choices A and B.

I calculate that A will give me the best return of pleasure by a large margin.

What stops me from choosing B?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Some argue that people do stuff for charity because it makes them feel good, or to benefit themselves (eg: resume builder). If you don't feel good about charity, you don't do it. Anyone believe this argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

100%

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
What stops me from choosing B?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't choose B unless you believe it has a better EV in terms of pleasure. Even if said pleasure comes from proving that you can choose what you don't want.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Every consicous desition is done to please ourself, unconsious desition are not always to please ourself.( For instance having a crush)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. You have a crush because your unconscious considers that person is best for you. Harder to get usually means better. Not to mention people are always perfect in your fantasies.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every consicous desition is done to please ourself, unconsious desition are not always to please ourself.( For instance having a crush)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. You have a crush because your unconscious considers that person is best for you. Harder to get usually means better. Not to mention people are always perfect in your fantasies.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because otherwise I would happy all the time, happiness is just our brain releasing some chemicals.

[soon2bepro]

just because your unconscious thinks something is best for you doesn't mean it really is. neither does it mean it will make you happy all the time

if you analyze unconscious desires, feelings, etc, you will find a very basic reasoning that leads to it, attempting to get maximum pleasure/protection, mid-term

[madnak]

It's really hard to tell how much of this is semantics and how much of it is actual debate.

One note - anyone supporting this idea should be very clear on the fact they don't believe in (incompatibilist) free will.

[surftheiop]

So by definition a human cant make an irrational decision?
Does irrationality even exist in your opinion?

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
just because your unconscious thinks something is best for you doesn't mean it really is. neither does it mean it will make you happy all the time

if you analyze unconscious desires, feelings, etc, you will find a very basic reasoning that leads to it, attempting to get maximum pleasure/protection, mid-term

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you, reproduction is not necessarry.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really hard to tell how much of this is semantics and how much of it is actual debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you explain what the advantage in adopting the given interpretation is? It seems obvious to me that there are some things I do because I want to (post on the forum for example) and some things I do because I have to (pay my taxes).

Saying "Aha! But you pay taxes because you want to comply more than you want the penalty" or somesuch is all well and good but seems to lump two different kinds of actions together when there is a meaningful distinction between them. Why not say I do things because I want to or because I feel obligated to? Where's the gain in calling them the same thing, then using some clumsy linguistic phrase to distinguish them later?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really hard to tell how much of this is semantics and how much of it is actual debate.

One note - anyone supporting this idea should be very clear on the fact they don't believe in (incompatibilist) free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely agree with the first sentence, partially agree with the second (can't think of a situation where it doesn't apply, but I can't tell for sure)

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
So by definition a human cant make an irrational decision?
Does irrationality even exist in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define irrationality as lacking causality, no.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just because your unconscious thinks something is best for you doesn't mean it really is. neither does it mean it will make you happy all the time

if you analyze unconscious desires, feelings, etc, you will find a very basic reasoning that leads to it, attempting to get maximum pleasure/protection, mid-term

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you, reproduction is not necessarry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mention reproduction.

Did I misunderstand?

[soon2bepro]

Bunny, you make a good point. However I think it's useful to consider these things, at least as far as philosophy goes.

It makes it easy to understand human beings.

[valenzuela]

the desire to reproduce is not neccesarry for protection on the long term.
We would be better off if we didnt have a desire to reporduce.

[Taraz]

This whole argument is just semantics.

No matter what action you choose, you obviously prefer it over the alternative choices, so in some sense it "pleases you" more. Even if that pleasure is some abstract sense of morality you feel, or just some extra value you give to charitable work, you'd theoretically feel worse if you chose another action.

This doesn't deal with the fact that we are often terrible at knowing what we really want and what will give us the most pleasure. It also doesn't deal with the question of why we value some things over others.

Basically, it seems like a boring question to me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk, do you belive it is posible for a human to behave irrationally?
(Im not arguing about the eye stabbing stuff anymore, im just trying to understand your stance).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, at least, not strictly. Perhaps insane people.

But what we generally mean when we say someone is acting irrationally is that they are acting in a way we don't like. It also helps if its an uncommon way of acting, or isn't socially acceptable. Even better if the actions are objectively not in the long-term best interests of the actor. But all of these assertions of irrationality are really just admissions that we don't get their motives or we don't understand what information they have that we don't or we have that they don't.

A real example of irrationality would be someone thinking to themselves:

I am hungry.
Food will satiate my hunger.
Therefore, I am going to throw a rock at a wall.

Thats irrational. No one does that. It might appear to outsiders that they are, but there are intervening steps that make their actions rational. Or else they are insane, I suppose.

[soon2bepro]

if we didn't have the desire to reproduce, we wouldn't exist. The same can be said about all the basic instincts and needs

[valenzuela]

but for me, valenzuela. its better to not have a desire a reproduce.
On this example each individual sacrifices himself for the species good( im stealing this from schopenhauer)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
but for me, valenzuela. its better to not have a desire a reproduce.
On this example each individual sacrifices himself for the species good( im stealing this from schopenhauer)

[/ QUOTE ]

Genes, baby. Its all about the genes.

[housenuts]

i stopped reading on page 2, but i've always been of the belief that no one is truly altruistic. we had this debate in my social psych course a couple years back and i was one of the only ones who took this stance.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i stopped reading on page 2, but i've always been of the belief that no one is truly altruistic. we had this debate in my social psych course a couple years back and i was one of the only ones who took this stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It helps if you think of yourself as a small city, with about 30,000 residents.

[Taraz]

vhawk, it seems like your account of rational intentional actions doesn't factor in reflex reactions and habits. A lot of times we do things on impulses and would decide to act differently if even given a second longer to act.

I guess it depends on your definition of irrational, but it seems like people often do things that they know aren't in their best interests. They might rationalize their position, but they know they are wrong. Smoking cigarettes seems like a decent example for some people.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, it seems like your account of rational intentional actions doesn't factor in reflex reactions and habits. A lot of times we do things on impulses and would decide to act differently if even given a second longer to act.

I guess it depends on your definition of irrational, but it seems like people often do things that they know aren't in their best interests. They might rationalize their position, but they know they are wrong. Smoking cigarettes seems like a decent example for some people.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would consider a reflex action to be irrational? I had just assumed we all agreed that those were arational at best.

And just so we are clear, what exactly do you mean by reflex action? True reflex action is purposeless and unintentional. It requires no brain function, just nerve impules, its like pushing a rock down a hill.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

So you would consider a reflex action to be irrational? I had just assumed we all agreed that those were arational at best.

And just so we are clear, what exactly do you mean by reflex action? True reflex action is purposeless and unintentional. It requires no brain function, just nerve impules, its like pushing a rock down a hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess something like laughing at a joke made about your wife/girlfriend when she is sitting right in front of you. It's not like you're weighing the positives and negatives in that scenario.

I agree that almost all actions are "rational" in the eyes of the actor even if they are wrong in the objective sense.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you would consider a reflex action to be irrational? I had just assumed we all agreed that those were arational at best.

And just so we are clear, what exactly do you mean by reflex action? True reflex action is purposeless and unintentional. It requires no brain function, just nerve impules, its like pushing a rock down a hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess something like laughing at a joke made about your wife/girlfriend when she is sitting right in front of you. It's not like you're weighing the positives and negatives in that scenario.

I agree that almost all actions are "rational" in the eyes of the actor even if they are wrong in the objective sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really getting into a lot of very interesting, much heavier questions. What is the difference between that action, quickly laughing at a joke before being conscious of it, and then deliberately, consciously plotting to laugh at a joke? Is there a difference? It sure SEEMS like there is. But what reason is there to think that your subconscious (although I guess I am more a fan of Dennet's multiple drafts model) is any less rational than your conscious mind? It contemplates, suggests and decides on an action before you realize it, but is the decision-making process any different? If so, why?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

This is really getting into a lot of very interesting, much heavier questions. What is the difference between that action, quickly laughing at a joke before being conscious of it, and then deliberately, consciously plotting to laugh at a joke? Is there a difference? It sure SEEMS like there is. But what reason is there to think that your subconscious (although I guess I am more a fan of Dennet's multiple drafts model) is any less rational than your conscious mind? It contemplates, suggests and decides on an action before you realize it, but is the decision-making process any different? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh oh, we're getting real deep into the philosophy of neuroscience. I would say that your subconscious is less rational simply because we consciously regret the action later and wish we would have acted differently.

These issues relating to consciousness are things that I'm hoping to study when I start grad school in the fall. So I'll get back to you in 4 or 5 years . . . /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is really getting into a lot of very interesting, much heavier questions. What is the difference between that action, quickly laughing at a joke before being conscious of it, and then deliberately, consciously plotting to laugh at a joke? Is there a difference? It sure SEEMS like there is. But what reason is there to think that your subconscious (although I guess I am more a fan of Dennet's multiple drafts model) is any less rational than your conscious mind? It contemplates, suggests and decides on an action before you realize it, but is the decision-making process any different? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh oh, we're getting real deep into the philosophy of neuroscience. I would say that your subconscious is less rational simply because we consciously regret the action later and wish we would have acted differently.

These issues relating to consciousness are things that I'm hoping to study when I start grad school in the fall. So I'll get back to you in 4 or 5 years . . . /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Deal. I promise to have some idea what you are talking about by that time, although I'm not gonna spend nearly as much time on it as you.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Deal. I promise to have some idea what you are talking about by that time, although I'm not gonna spend nearly as much time on it as you.

[/ QUOTE ]

My fear is that four or five years of study won't get me any closer to figuring out the solution. I'll just understand the problem really, really well.

[stephan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are perfectly capable of making a conscious decision to do something they know will cause them a NET decrease in personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, or we disagree on the meaning of "pleasure". Give an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows.

[/ QUOTE ]
That guy's cousin lives in my dorm. She had to identify his body. Pretty sad.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Deal. I promise to have some idea what you are talking about by that time, although I'm not gonna spend nearly as much time on it as you.

[/ QUOTE ]

My fear is that four or five years of study won't get me any closer to figuring out the solution. I'll just understand the problem really, really well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't fear that, dude.

“In mathematics the art of proposing a question must be held of higher value than solving it.” - Cantor.

Pure altruism is a crock. Even selfless acts are only undertaken when the individual gains personal benefit from it, emotionally or whatnot. The act is selfless, the rationalization may be, but even a soldier who puts himself in harm's way up to and including death realizes he has nothing to lose, personally, by undertaking such an act. That can be summed up by the rationalization: "I'm gonna die someday anyway, I might as well get more value for it now than later in a rocking chair with a diaper."

[DrewDevil]

tl;dr the whole thread, but...

I am married and I willingly do a lot of things that I really don't want to do, simply because it makes life easier or better for my wife and son or it makes them happy. My wife does a lot of things she doesn't want to do for me and my son.

Not only that, but I DON'T do a lot of things I'd like to do for the same reasons... like try to bang other chicks, for example.

In the overall scheme of things, the reward is companionship, a great kid, a life partner, so you could say that it's still a selfish arrangement, I guess. But it really doesn't feel like it. It feels like the reward comes from what I give, not what I get.

I don't know how I come down on this.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I find this theory unhelpful. There are some things I do because I want to and some things I do because I feel obligated to. I think it is useful to distinguish them - and saying "well I didnt want to, but I had to to keep the wife happy" seems as good a way as any.

True, you can say that I wanted to keep my wife happy more than I wanted to refrain from acting or whatever, but you seem to have lost information - you have just defined "what I wanted to do" as "what I actually did".

I think it also struggles to account for habitual activity (eg I have a form I have to fill in every quarter for the taxman. Every time I do it I get halfway through and realise the report I've printed out is not as efficient a way of gathering the information as an alternative report I could have done. I would definitely prefer the second report, yet I deliberately printed the first.)

[/ QUOTE ]Bunny because defining acts in such a fashion says something about our sense of self, who we are. That we care about other people. And that these other people are part of us. It's more accurate, and a much nobler stance then altruism. Defining acts in this manner allows us to better arrive at what the correct action might be. Altruism helps us to arrive at the incorrect action.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but for me, valenzuela. its better to not have a desire a reproduce.
On this example each individual sacrifices himself for the species good( im stealing this from schopenhauer)

[/ QUOTE ]

Genes, baby. Its all about the genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes its all about the genes, and ure point is?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am presented with choices A and B.

I calculate that A will give me the best return of pleasure by a large margin.

What stops me from choosing B?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't choose B unless you believe it has a better EV in terms of pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, specifically, stops me from intentionally choosing the option I know leads to by far the least amount of net pleasure (including how much the choice itself pleases me)?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am presented with choices A and B.

I calculate that A will give me the best return of pleasure by a large margin.

What stops me from choosing B?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't choose B unless you believe it has a better EV in terms of pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, specifically, stops me from intentionally choosing the option I know leads to by far the least amount of net pleasure (including how much the choice itself pleases me)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. You do have to consciously go against the grain to make that choice, so it'd be unnatural in most instances.

Can you posit such an instance where this is not so?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but for me, valenzuela. its better to not have a desire a reproduce.
On this example each individual sacrifices himself for the species good( im stealing this from schopenhauer)

[/ QUOTE ]

Genes, baby. Its all about the genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes its all about the genes, and ure point is?

[/ QUOTE ]

That it isn't for the species good.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
What, specifically, stops me from intentionally choosing the option I know leads to by far the least amount of net pleasure (including how much the choice itself pleases me)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, the definition of willfully taking the action does. You choose the "lowest net pleasure" option specifically because you want to have a counterexample to disprove the argument. If you had no reason to find a counterexample you would not make the decision to take the "lowest net pleasure" option.

I quote "net pleasure" because I think "pleasure" is a little misleading. I would instead call it satisfaction. Different people get different levels of satisfaction from physical pleasure, altruism, benevolence, sadism, etc, etc... but every single one of your decisions MUST maximize satisfaction and minimize dissatisfaction.


Example: someone holding a gun to your head can demand anything of you. This is because you willfully want to do anything they ask of you because the alternative scenario is death (something most of us are terrified of). This is why a decision with displeasurable outcomes is not a counterexample of "maximizing satisfaction". With the alternative being death, almost all of us will do just about anything, because it is more satisfying than death. Now imagine this same person with a gun holding it pointed at the head of a new subject with severe suicidal tendencies. Suddenly the person with the gun has no leverage because there is no willful desire to live.





The example another poster made about making decisions that benefit his wife and child over himself is absolutely not a counterexample for the same reason. He gets satisfaction ("pleasure" if you will) from pleasing his wife and raising his child properly. These are satisfactions that arise from millions of years of evolution. If a species gets no or negative satisfaction from caring for their offspring they will go extinct.




I've been trying for a long time to come up with the rigorous proof I know exists: It's impossible to make decisions that displease you more than the alternatives without a genuine lack of knowledge of the sitution (i.e. misinformation to mislead decision making).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but for me, valenzuela. its better to not have a desire a reproduce.
On this example each individual sacrifices himself for the species good( im stealing this from schopenhauer)

[/ QUOTE ]

Genes, baby. Its all about the genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes its all about the genes, and ure point is?

[/ QUOTE ]

That it isn't for the species good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I should be more clear: It usually IS for the species good, but thats just a lucky coincidence.

[m_the0ry]

This subject is very closely tied to the fact that free will does not exist; for any given situation the decision made by the subject is deterministic. That is to say that if S is the subset of decisions for a situation, S(i) is and always will be the outcome no matter how many times the situation is sampled from.


It's important to note that this is very hard to empirically test because when someone makes a decision, the outcome and it's consequences prevents them from ever returning to the prior state of knowledge that led them to make their original decision.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but for me, valenzuela. its better to not have a desire a reproduce.
On this example each individual sacrifices himself for the species good( im stealing this from schopenhauer)

[/ QUOTE ]

Genes, baby. Its all about the genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes its all about the genes, and ure point is?

[/ QUOTE ]

That it isn't for the species good.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is. If the individual happines was over the species survival then an individual wouldnt need to reproduce in order for his brain to release the happy chemicals, the fact that many people suffer because they lack a sexual partner its a clear sign of the individual sacrificing his happiness for the species survival.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but for me, valenzuela. its better to not have a desire a reproduce.
On this example each individual sacrifices himself for the species good( im stealing this from schopenhauer)

[/ QUOTE ]

Genes, baby. Its all about the genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes its all about the genes, and ure point is?

[/ QUOTE ]

That it isn't for the species good.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is. If the individual happines was over the species survival then an individual wouldnt need to reproduce in order for his brain to release the happy chemicals, the fact that many people suffer because they lack a sexual partner its a clear sign of the individual sacrificing his happiness for the species survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the benefit to the species is simply a fortunate side-effect, and is an entirely unintended and unnecessary result. The goal is to ensure the reproduction of the individual genes that make us up. It just so happens that our species tends to share a large majority of those genes, but it isn't necessary.

[valenzuela]

But why would you want to ensure the reproduction of the individual genes that make you up?

[MaxWeiss]

Yeah, I'm going to have to call Skidoo out on this too. I don't need/expect a response to this post, but we are incapable of consciously choosing the unhappier option. The only reason you would pick the lesser option is to prove something to somebody else, which makes you happier than choosing the better option.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny because defining acts in such a fashion says something about our sense of self, who we are. That we care about other people. And that these other people are part of us. It's more accurate, and a much nobler stance then altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]
It just seems a clumsier way of saying altruistic - "he does things he doesnt want to do for the benefit of others" vs "he has a utility function (or whatever jargon you like) which values benefitting others". Why is the second more noble?

[ QUOTE ]
Defining acts in this manner allows us to better arrive at what the correct action might be. Altruism helps us to arrive at the incorrect action.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example where I (operating under a belief in altruism) will arrive at an "incorrect" action whereas if I accept that I only do what I want to do I will arrive at the "correct" action?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What, specifically, stops me from intentionally choosing the option I know leads to by far the least amount of net pleasure (including how much the choice itself pleases me)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, the definition of willfully taking the action does. You choose the "lowest net pleasure" option specifically because you want to have a counterexample to disprove the argument. If you had no reason to find a counterexample you would not make the decision to take the "lowest net pleasure" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I have no idea where you're getting this from. How could you possibly know on what basis I made my decision? This looks like an extreme case of reductionism.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
we are incapable of consciously choosing the unhappier option

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can I not choose for purposes other than my happiness to run a simulation for myself that someone else's happiness is my own and act accordingly?

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I have no idea where you're getting this from. How could you possibly know on what basis I made my decision? This looks like an extreme case of reductionism.

[/ QUOTE ]

A $10 bill, $5 bill and a $1 bill lie on a table. You can pick only one. I tell you, "You MUST pick the $10 bill". You don't like being told what to do, and immediately place a value on disproving my point. If that value = $5, you pick the $5 bill. If it is = $9, you pick the $1 bill. If it is = $10 you will show me how much free will you have by declining any of the money. In all of these cases you have evaluated the net value - with respect to you and only you - and decided on the highest one as your decision.

A conscious decision always has a reason. Misinformation might lead to an unexpected reason, but a person must always act in their own self interest for the maximum satisfaction and minimum dissatisfaction.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems a clumsier way of saying altruistic - "he does things he doesnt want to do for the benefit of others"

[/ QUOTE ] The problem is he does want to. What is so wrong with a sense of self that includes other people.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example where I (operating under a belief in altruism) will arrive at an "incorrect" action whereas if I accept that I only do what I want to do I will arrive at the "correct" action?

[/ QUOTE ] A husband that beats his wife, yet she stays with him for the son/daughter, for example. I can think of tons, but this is fairly typical of alrusim. My main concern is that the defintion of self that is used under any legitamite use of the term altruism is short-sighted and undwhewleming.

I am perfectly capable of carring on a conversation using the standard use of altruism. But I don't think it's a good way to describe the situation because altruism means "selfless". Although it may concern other people, it's never selfless.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the second more noble?

[/ QUOTE ] It's more noble to the person carring on with the act. Lets say a(alturist) and n(non-Altruist) are persons. A does something that is good for c without concern to himself. N Does something good for c that is in line with what N values. Who's is more noble? The one that helps out without reason, or one that helps help with regard to what is valueable? There is no value in altruism, it's a defect.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
But why would you want to ensure the reproduction of the individual genes that make you up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't help it!

[vhawk01]

Damnit Rduke, why aren't you posting in this thread? I need the backup and I think you are on my side in all this.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But why would you want to ensure the reproduction of the individual genes that make you up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't help it!

[/ QUOTE ]I think velanzula is more correct then you are here. You can help it. Just becuase "the nasty" makes you happy does not mean you cannot help it. [censored] it makes me happy too, but I wrap it up.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But why would you want to ensure the reproduction of the individual genes that make you up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't help it!

[/ QUOTE ]I think velanzula is more correct then you are here. You can help it. Just becuase "the nasty" makes you happy does not mean you cannot help it. [censored] it makes me happy too, but I wrap it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I act in the general best interest of the genes that make me up. That that happens to benefit my species, which also happen to share my genes at a pretty decent rate, is merely fortunate happenstance. I am certainly not acting in the best interest of my own body, nor in the best interest of my species. I am ONLY acting in the best interest of the genes which make me up.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
No. I act in the general best interest of the genes that make me up. That that happens to benefit my species, which also happen to share my genes at a pretty decent rate, is merely fortunate happenstance. I am certainly not acting in the best interest of my own body, nor in the best interest of my species. I am ONLY acting in the best interest of the genes which make me up.

[/ QUOTE ] Could you describe some of the actions you take to accomplish your genes goals?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. I act in the general best interest of the genes that make me up. That that happens to benefit my species, which also happen to share my genes at a pretty decent rate, is merely fortunate happenstance. I am certainly not acting in the best interest of my own body, nor in the best interest of my species. I am ONLY acting in the best interest of the genes which make me up.

[/ QUOTE ] Could you describe some of the actions you take to accomplish your genes goals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure thing. First, I am doing my best to acquire some wealth, some 'bling' if you will, and I also do my best to be as charming as possible. Of course, this is all geared towards attracting some female who wouldn't mind helping my genes in their selfish goal of reproducing themselves. Apparently mitosis isn't enough for these greedy bastards!

[MaxWeiss]

Because you would not do so unless you cared about that person and therefore gained pleasure from their happiness. Or maybe, as in the case of charity, you would gain pleasure from helping people in general. You are right in the variety of things you can do, but the problem is you would never do something that was clearly the inferior choice, all other things being equal. I understand where you're coming from (in this instance at least!) but I don't think you get how all encompassing we are making the personal happiness factor. It is everything, quite literally.

[Skidoo]

OK. Though it still doesn't feel right, my dog can't find a place to bite on or turn over your turtle.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example where I (operating under a belief in altruism) will arrive at an "incorrect" action whereas if I accept that I only do what I want to do I will arrive at the "correct" action?

[/ QUOTE ] A husband that beats his wife, yet she stays with him for the son/daughter, for example. I can think of tons, but this is fairly typical of alrusim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that if she adopts the better terminology she will "realise the error of her ways". Cant you just rephrase the scenario (many posters in this thread would, I'm sure) to say "she values her children's welfare more than her own safety and believes a unified family is good for the children". I dont see how thinking about it one way or the other will change what you do...

[ QUOTE ]
I am perfectly capable of carring on a conversation using the standard use of altruism. But I don't think it's a good way to describe the situation because altruism means "selfless". Although it may concern other people, it's never selfless.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the second more noble?

[/ QUOTE ] It's more noble to the person carring on with the act. Lets say a(alturist) and n(non-Altruist) are persons. A does something that is good for c without concern to himself. N Does something good for c that is in line with what N values. Who's is more noble? The one that helps out without reason, or one that helps help with regard to what is valueable? There is no value in altruism, it's a defect.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would make two points here - the first is that the bolded parts seem to contradict each other. The first seems to claim that no act is altruistic (in line with other posters in this thread) the second labels it a defect. It's a minor quibble but I dont understand if you are saying that altruism is possible - but undesirable, or whether your claim is that any altruistic act is actually done for selfish reasons.

The second point arises from:
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say a(alturist) and n(non-Altruist) are persons. A does something that is good for c without concern to himself. N Does something good for c that is in line with what N values. Who's is more noble? The one that helps out without reason, or one that helps help with regard to what is valueable?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is false to say that one helps out "without reason" - A's reason is to help out c.

[m_the0ry]

I would disagree that altrusim is a defect. There are recent studies showing that a specific part of the brain is linked to altruistic behavior.citation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6278907.stm). Since this part of the brain is still considered to be the "self" manifestly in the physical sense, this part of ones brain that evaluates decisions when other humans are involved.


I'm sure we could find the altruistic part of the ant's brain much easier. A worker ant has almost no value for its own life and places the entire colony far higher in priority itself. Still, it makes decisions on its own in what it feels is its own "self interest" - to protect the hive. This is why interspecies relations in advanced life forms are so complicated, is because of an unspoken recognition that each member of the species carries similar genetic data and, in the general case at least, x lives are more valuable than X lives if x>X.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example where I (operating under a belief in altruism) will arrive at an "incorrect" action whereas if I accept that I only do what I want to do I will arrive at the "correct" action?

[/ QUOTE ] A husband that beats his wife, yet she stays with him for the son/daughter, for example. I can think of tons, but this is fairly typical of alrusim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that if she adopts the better terminology she will "realise the error of her ways". Cant you just rephrase the scenario (many posters in this thread would, I'm sure) to say "she values her children's welfare more than her own safety and believes a unified family is good for the children". I dont see how thinking about it one way or the other will change what you do...

[ QUOTE ]
I am perfectly capable of carring on a conversation using the standard use of altruism. But I don't think it's a good way to describe the situation because altruism means "selfless". Although it may concern other people, it's never selfless.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the second more noble?

[/ QUOTE ] It's more noble to the person carring on with the act. Lets say a(alturist) and n(non-Altruist) are persons. A does something that is good for c without concern to himself. N Does something good for c that is in line with what N values. Who's is more noble? The one that helps out without reason, or one that helps help with regard to what is valueable? There is no value in altruism, it's a defect.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would make two points here - the first is that the bolded parts seem to contradict each other. The first seems to claim that no act is altruistic (in line with other posters in this thread) the second labels it a defect. It's a minor quibble but I dont understand if you are saying that altruism is possible - but undesirable, or whether your claim is that any altruistic act is actually done for selfish reasons.

The second point arises from:
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say a(alturist) and n(non-Altruist) are persons. A does something that is good for c without concern to himself. N Does something good for c that is in line with what N values. Who's is more noble? The one that helps out without reason, or one that helps help with regard to what is valueable?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is false to say that one helps out "without reason" - A's reason is to help out c.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bunny, Sorry for the long wait before a reply, I was trying to figure out the best way to explain quickly. I hope I have done so:

Imagine the altruist: What are his motives? To be unconerned with self, and help other people. Now imagine the selfish, to be concerned with self. Who can draw the better line regarding when they are being taken advantaqe of? Can the altruist know where that line is? Describing the behaviors, and determining correct behoavior is best phrased in terms of selfishness, not altuism.

Altrusim is a defect because when you exchange something of greater value (to you) for something of lessor value(to you) you are being altruistic. It exists but is a defect.

Helping out "C" is a great reason, but it's should be because you value "C", not because you don't value yourself.