From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 03:36:02 GMT

In <C0Kx09.Bs9@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>From <1993Jan8.221417.17267@pixel.kodak.com>, by (Rich Young):
>>
>>In <C0H370.9vo@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>You say the thread is about "motivations".  I say the thread is
>>>about your prior statement, to wit:
>>>
>>>  "Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained 
>>>   by [good feelings and bad feelings]".
>> 
>> Then perhaps you should read the "Subject:" line in the header.  You
>> know, the one which says "Human motivation..."
>
>Your original statement was clear enough: "Please name one human 
>activity that CANNOT be explained by [good feelings and bad feelings]".
>I've named several such activities.

        Yes.  It was clear enough: the thread is about activities which
        require motivation, not just those which occur as a function of
        being alive.  I note that you chose to delete/ignore the defini-
        tions/discussion I provided on the subject.  I'm glad to see that
        you apparently agree with my analysis, though I DO note that you
        saw fit to delete the whole section without so much as a comment
        or even a mark, such as your occasional three dots.  Gee, maybe it
        WASN'T really there after all..........of course, there IS that
        pesky "Subject:" line......

>>>Why would the man refrain from killing the mindful bear, but 
>>>not refrain from killing the eggs?
>>>
>>>Your explanation, I believe, is that the man feels remorse in the
>>>one case but not the other.
>> 
>> No, it's not.  It's that, beyond the simple fact that his motives
>> for either choice are selfish, ...
>
>This isn't a "simple fact", Rich; it's pure speculation on your part.  
>
>As I mentioned previously, I would refrain from killing the bear, 
>not because of my "feelings", but because of my intellectual 
>awareness of the bear's meaningful existence.  

        You keep dodging the obvious, Russell.  OK, let's go back to
        basics.  How would you, personally, feel if, for some reason,
        you kill the bear?

        Now, how would you feel if you let the bear live?

        Two possible scenarios, two simple questions which require only
        simple answers.  We can only hope that you'll provide those answers
        without your usual fuss.  In fact, I think it would be fair to say
        that, in your case at least, the longer you avoid them, the more
        likely it is that you feel cornered in the discussion.  Two questions,
        two answers....should be quite simple.

>> I can only speculate regarding the
>> exact direction of his thoughts.  In other words, there is a wide
>> variety of reasons for his actions, but all of his reasons will be 
>> selfish in the final analysis.
>
>Proof?

        Seems to me that I've come up with a "selfishness" explanation 
        for everything you've submitted thus far.  To paraphrase Sherlock
        Holmes: when everything else has been eliminated, what is left
        must be the truth.

[...]

>> I assumed that you WOULD feel remorse for killing a
>> grizzly...apparently I was in error.  I freely admit that there may 
>> be other reasons to pass up the chance to kill a bear.  Whether
>> or not there's remorse isn't the point; the unpleasurable feeling
>> to be avoided might well be disgust instead of remorse.  On the other 
>> hand, there might be pleasure in letting it live...either way, the 
>> motivation is, in the final analysis, selfish.
>
>Exactly.  There may be other *REASONS*.  And it's a mistake to assume
>that these reasons would be determined by feelings.
>
>You're assuming the very fact that you're trying to prove.

        Wave your hands as much as you like, Russell, it is the foreknowledge
        of the feelings that will be engendered as a consequence of your
        decision that makes you either kill the bear or let it live.  In
        your case, since you clearly find the gratuitous death of a grizzly
        distasteful, the motivation would be the avoidance of that distaste,
        probably mixed with pleasure at having spared the beast.

        That's just the way it is, Russell, no matter how hard you rail
        against it.  You eat because it's more pleasant being full than it
        is to be hungry.  You have sex because you know it will feel good.
        You let bears live because you know it will give you pleasure to do
        so, and pain to do otherwise.

        One more thing: if you'll look at the original challenge, I never
        promised to "prove" anything...I merely asked for an example I 
        couldn't explain with one or both of my postulates.  This is some-
        thing you have yet to provide.

>[much deleted that Russell didn't particularly like]
>
>>>In the case at hand, it seems clear that my feelings depend on
>>>altruistic thinking, rather than vice-versa.  Therefore, it would
>>>be silly to argue that my opposition to rape can be explained
>>>by my "selfish" feelings.  After all, without altruistic thinking
>>>my opposition would be non-existent.
>> 
>> In the first place, a mental position of "opposition to rape" is
>> not an activity and is, therefore, outside the scope of this
>> discussion.  
>
>I disagree.

        Of course you do.  You'd be hoist by your own petard if you
        didn't.  Let me point out, however, that a mental position of
        opposition to rape is the RESULT of a thought process, not a 
        thought process in itself.  The existence of a PC on your desk
        is the RESULT of an assembly process; the PC is not the process 
        itself.

>> The thinking that went into the formulation of the
>> position might be called an activity, since it was voluntary, and
>> as a voluntary activity, it required motivation.
>
>Perhaps.  We could just as easily argue that human activities
>require blood corpuscles, but it would be silly to say that all
>human activities are _determined_ by blood cells.

        Yes, we COULD as easily say such a thing...of course we'd be
        justifiably ridiculed by anyone who heard it, so lets avoid the
        embarrassment and not say it, OK?  Unless, of course, you can
        explain what blood cells have to do with motivation and voluntary
        activity.

>I'm still waiting for you to prove your implicit claim that a
>man who promulgates a prohibition against rape is necessarily
>behaving selfishly.

        I have explained it a number of times.  The fact that the explanation
        doesn't fit your preconceived and ill-considered ideas doesn't make
        the explanation any less illustrative.  The following few paragraphs
        will explain it yet again.

>>>You're going in circles, Rich.  Why did the "big mucky-muck" choose to 
>>>exercise his power [to formulate a prohibition against rape] in such a
>>>way?
>> 
>> How about this: because it made him uncomfortable to think that rapes
>> might occur in the future?
>
>If he's selfish, why should he feel uncomfortable at such a thought?

        It appears that you're trying to use yet another equivocation 
        regarding the word "selfish."  As I have explained before, the
        word "selfish" is used here to describe actions which are taken
        for the benefit of oneself...NOT actions which are taken to
        injure others.  If you'd rather use another word so that you'll
        no longer be confused, please feel free to suggest one.

        Now, to answer your question [which is something you hardly ever
        do for anyone else], the discomfort he feels at the thought of
        future rapes impels him to take some action to assuage that 
        discomfort; thus, he acts to make the act of rape a taboo so that
        he won't have to deal with those uncomfortable feelings again.

        It's really very simple.  It's precisely the same reason that some
        argue so vociferously against the consumption of meat: it's because
        they can't stand the thought of all those sentient creatures dying,
        so they try to formulate a taboo against it.

>> Or how about this: the exercise of authority gave him pleasure, and
>> the unpopularity of rape gave him an excuse to exercise it?
>
>Why would rape be unpopular if everyone were driven by selfishness
>alone?

        Again, you've assumed that the word "selfish" must always imply 
        that someone [or something] else always suffers when you benefit.
        "Selfishness," as used here, denotes only that which benefits the
        self, REGARDLESS of its effects on others.  Rape might well be 
        unpopular if great numbers of people felt fear that it might occur
        to them.  Note that this doesn't require that someone else be
        injured, but only the fear that the self might be injured.

>[...]  Do you think I spend my
>time wringing my hands together and banging my head against the
>wall when I contemplate the world's problems?  The fact of the matter
>is that I'm deeply concerned about those problems but I'm not 
>emotionally involved.

        As I've stated previously, these feelings of discomfort need not
        always have the intensity of gut-wrenching anguish.  Nor must 
        feelings of pleasure be of orgasmic intensity to motivate human
        action.  If you feel better engaging in such lurid hyperbole, so
        be it, but don't expect us to believe that it lends credibility
        to your position.  The mere fact that you spend as much of your
        life arguing about it on Usenet as you do is clear evidence that
        you are engaging in an activity you find somehow pleasurable.  Or
        perhaps you find the thought of admitting error distasteful.  Either
        way, you need not be emotionally involved (though I suspect you are).
        Your motivation is not that you might change the world, but that
        you will feel good knowing you have changed the world, should you
        succeed.  Or perhaps it's the knowledge that you will feel frustrated
        should you fail that you wish to avoid.  Either way, the motivation is
        your benefit and your benefit alone.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10921 alt.peeves:18921