From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:13:18 GMT

From article <1993Jan1.000219.15178@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>You seem to be incapable of grasping the possibility that some other 
>>individuals might respect your feelings, not because it's the 
>>"Right Thing (tm)" or because they're looking for "satisfaction", 
>>but because they're capable [unlike you] of appreciating what goes 
>>on inside the heads of other beings.  
> 
> 	Sure, and this "appreciation" of which you speak makes it difficult
> 	to ignore those other beings.  This is principle number 2: reduction
> 	or prevention of "bad" feelings.  If, given your sympathy for these
> 	other beings, you did nothing, you would suffer bad feelings, so
> 	you do something to prevent that.  The motivation is selfish, though
> 	the result may well be beneficial for both parties.

I didn't use the word "sympathy", Rich.  Many people (not you, of 
course) can look inside themselves and find instances in which
they've experienced concern for others that didn't involve what 
you're now calling "sympathy".  To give you an example, my 
heartstrings surely wouldn't throb long and hard if you were mugged
tonight, but still, I would do my best to protect you from such 
an outcome.   I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep either way, but
my ability to sleep soundly wouldn't overshadow my analytical 
ability to know and understand that muggings are unpleasant.

>>Have you never, ever, had an experience in which you performed a
>>selfless act (or worse, a painful act) solely for someone else's 
>>benefit?
> 
> 	Technically, no.  I do it because I can't stand the thought of 
> 	leaving the status unchanged.  It benefits others, but I do it
> 	so that I can live with myself...

Thanks for your candor.

> ...and so do you.

Not really.

> 
> 	"Taboos" are usually put in place to promote harmony within a 
> 	society, violate them and one risks being ostracized from the
> 	social support which a society gives.  Observing these "taboos"
> 	helps to guarantee continuation of this support, thus it is
> 	beneficial to the individual.  This is principle number 2 again.

This isn't a principle.  It's a circular, empirical argument.  
Please explain the appearance of taboos without assuming your 
conclusions, ie without assuming "feelings of guilt", perceptions 
of "disharmony", and various other states that are meaningless 
without the norms that you're trying to explain in the first 
place.  

>>I agree that true altruism doesn't exist in Rich Young, but Rich
>>Young is hardly in a position to declare that it's never, ever, 
>>existed in other individuals.
> 
> 	I'm not asking you to prove that unicorns exist, Russell.  If you've
> 	got a case I can't refute with my two principles, let's hear it.

One of my closest friends claims that all evil in the world is 
the work of Satan.  The fact that you'd have a problem refuting 
his theory (to his satisfaction) doesn't enhance the theory's
credibility.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals