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, 4 Jan 93 04:21:25 GMT

In <C0B2Cq.Gp3@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>From article <1993Jan3.195037.22962@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>
>> In <C096un.7GF@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>> Bull.  The word "sympathy" denotes either emotional OR intellectual;
>> you simply ASSUMED that I meant strictly emotional.  You are, as 
>> usual, in error.  This is becoming an unfortunate habit with your
>> postings.
>
>You're arguing against your own position, Rich.  Would you care to 
>explain how a thinker's intellectual understanding of the suffering of 
>another entity is somehow bound up in "good feelings" or "bad 
>feelings", in accordance with your motivation theory?  To give you a 
>specific example, if a man were to study the workings of a desktop 
>computer and conclude that the computer experiences neither pain nor 
>pleasure when it's abused, would his conclusions be motivated by his 
>own "good feelings" or "bad feelings" as you say?  Alternatively, if 
>the same man were to study the behavior of a dog in a pain-avoidance 
>experiment and conclude that the dog clearly experiences pain, would 
>you be inclined to argue that his conclusions are determined by "good 
>feelings" or "bad feelings"?  

	Oh good grief!  His examination of the computer is what's driven
	by one or both of my "principles," not his conclusions upon completing
	the examination, for crying out loud.  His conclusions are presumably 
	driven by what he finds in his examination.  It is the anticipated 
	pleasure of satisfying his curiosity that drives him to remove the 
	first screw.  By the same argument, it is the anticipation of 
	satisfying his curiosity about canine pain that drives him to 
	experiment...his conclusions are presumably dictated by what he 
	observes.

	I had hoped for better from you, but it's clear that you have
	absolutely no understanding of my meaning, else you'd not offer 
	such inane and completely irrelevant arguments.  "Conclusions" are
	not "motivations."

>>>Let's hope you can learn from my candor and perhaps come to an 
>>>understanding of the fact that other individuals may not suffer 
>>>from your particular limitation...  namely your apparent 
>>>inability to appreciate that other minds do, indeed, exist, and 
>>>that other minds are, indeed, capable of experiencing unpleasant 
>>>mental events.  
>> 
>> Where do you get this stuff!?  I have no such "inability" and you
>> would be hard-pressed to show otherwise...  
>
>You'd be far more hardpressed to show that your claims about human
>motivation are truly universal.

	This may be your fondest desire, but evidence to date doesn't
	support your estimate: you have yet to supply me with a human
	action which can't be explained by one of my two "principles."

>> Indeed, it is precisely 
>> BECAUSE I can "...appreciate that other minds...are...capable of
>> experiencing unpleasant mental events" that I am motivated to
>> act.  It is BECAUSE I sympathize that I feel uncomfortable in not
>> acting and therefore move to assuage this mental discomfort.  It is
>> because I do not wish to bear the burden of mental discomfort
>> associated with inaction that I donate to The Nature Conservancy, 
>> for example.
>
>Yet, you seem to be saying that you wouldn't bother donating if 
>you weren't driven to do so, solely by your own emotional 
>pleasure and pain.  Please don't assume that other individuals 
>share this particular limitation.  

	"Mental discomfort" is not equivalent to "emotional pleasure and
	pain," and your continued attempts to make it so won't alter that
	fact.  You seem to think that these motivations are always the
	result of some gut-wrenching anguish.  Not so.  The mental discomfort
	involved may be no more than a desire to avoid constant telephone
	solicitations (although it's not in this case).

>> ...
>>> I wouldn't sacrifice myself to feed a starving grizzly.  On the 
>>> other hand, I wouldn't kill a grizzly simply to satisfy a childish
>>> quest for funfilled sports.  Why?  Because I can appreciate the fact 
>>> that grizzlies aren't mindless automata and that grizzly 
>>> existence is meaningful to the grizzlies themselves.  
>
>> [...]  I, too, would neither sacrifice myself to a starving grizzly nor
>> kill it for trophy.  But what prevents YOU from doing so?  The con-
>> viction that the grizzly isn't "mindless?"  No.  It's the knowledge 
>> that, if you DID do one or the other of these things, you would 
>> either be dead (and I assume you don't WANT to be dead) or feel 
>> remorse (and I assume you don't WANT to go through life knowing that
>> you've killed a grizzly bear).  It really has very little to do with
>> the grizzly bear.
>
>Once again, you're assuming your conclusions.   Let's suppose, just
>for the sake of argument, that a man would, indeed, feel remorse
>about killing a bear... yet feel no remorse about killing a chicken
>egg or a brain-dead comatose human.   If the mindfulness of bears
>and chicken eggs and brain-dead humans isn't a factor, why would he
>have qualms about one act of killing, but not about other acts of 
>killing?

	Can you not think of such a list yourself?  Perhaps such a man
	simply enjoys killing chickens because it gives him a sense of
	power over another creature, or perhaps he's amused at the sight
	of the headless corpse racing aimlessly about his yard, or perhaps
	he just likes to eat chicken dinners.  All of these demonstrate
	a desire to increase pleasurable feelings.  Note that I used
	chickens rather than chicken eggs here because it is impossible 
	to kill that which is not alive: the average store-bought chicken
	egg.  It doesn't alter the point, however, and the point is that
	there are as many self-centered reasons for killing as there are
	for not killing; some may be ethically acceptable in our society
	and some may not, but that doesn't change the fact that the motivation
	is basically the benefit of the actor, not the acted upon.

>Be that as it may, Rich, be advised that I've killed hundreds of 
>conscious animals and many thousands of unconscious chicken eggs, 
>yet harbor no feelings of guilt over those actions.

	And there is nothing in my principles which states that you SHOULD
	feel guilty.  Why this unhealthy fascination with guilt, Russell?
	I'm sure you didn't break those eggs for the pure pleasure of making
	an omelette for breakfast...you were forced into it by an evil
	troll.  But you see, even then, you did it to avoid the wrath of
	the troll: a totally selfish reason.

>As such, I'm 
>not convinced by your assumption that other individuals are 
>driven by the same motivations that drive Rich Young.  

	Fine, then give me an example of a human action whose motivation
	cannot be explained by my principles.

>> True altruism, on the other hand, would be, upon observation of a
>> starving grizzly, to demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice yourself
>> so that it might live.
>
>If you're going to limit our use of the term "altruism" to such extreme
>examples, please specify a word that the rest of us can use to describe
>the behavior of individuals who take into account the consequences that 
>their actions will have on others without necessarily deciding to commit
>suicide.

	No need to be so parochial about the definition: 

	   altruism, n., unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of
			others.

	I merely ask for an example of the above definition, and in so
	doing, claim that there is no such thing as an unselfishly
	motivated act.

>>>rl> Please explain the appearance of taboos without assuming your 
>>>rl> conclusions, ie without assuming "feelings of guilt", perceptions 
>>>rl> of "disharmony", and various other states that are meaningless 
>>>rl> without the norms that you're trying to explain in the first 
>>>rl> place.  
>>>
>>>ry> taboo, n., 1: a prohibition against touching, saying, or doing
>>>ry> something for fear of immediate harm from a mysterious
>>>ry> superhuman force; 2: a prohibition imposed by social custom
>>>ry> or as a protective measure.
>>>
>>>ry> Now, Russell, why don't YOU talk about "taboos" without reference
>>>ry> to "feelings of guilt", or "disharmony?"  Next time, look up the
>>>ry> word before you presume to get "clever."
>>>
>>>I'd be pleased to talk about taboos that don't depend on "good 
>>>feelings" or "bad feelings".  Are you prepared to do the same?
>> 
>> Interesting.  Note, Gentle Reader, this is how Russell attempts to
>> extricate himself from a sticky situation.  He clearly screwed up
>> when he challenged me on the "taboo" issue on the grounds of 
>> "feelings of guilt" and societal "disharmony", so now he pretends
>> that "good feelings" and "bad feelings" are the same thing, hoping
>> against hope that I won't notice and that his earlier faux pas
>> regarding the definition of "taboo" will be forgotten.
>> 
>> News flash: "feelings of guilt" and societal "disharmony" are hardly
>> congruent with "good feelings" and "bad feelings."  Make up your mind,
>> Russell.
>> ...
>
>As I've pointed out, Rich, your argument is blatantly circular.  Using
>the notion of "good feelings" and "bad feelings" in an equivocal
>sense won't make the circularity disappear.  

	Uh-huh.  You've yet to demonstrate this circularity.  Oh, you've
	concocted a theory alright, but it doesn't demonstrate circularity
	of argument on my part.  Rather, it demonstrates fuzzy thinking on
	your part.

>> How about you departing from tradition and supplying a thought
>> for once instead of simply asking a question?  Please explain
>> to us why a proscription regarding rape has arisen in some 
>> societies.  I'm sure we'd all be interested in your reasoning.
>
>Sure.  It seems to me that such prohibitions initially arise when 
>a small group of thinking individuals manage to figure out that 
>rape is unpleasant for the victims, and hence, unjust.

	And what, exactly, was it that clued in the original group,
	Russell?  Or as you so cleverly put it, "what motivated the
	one who came before you?"  If the idea of rape didn't cause 
	them some mental discomfort, why would they have bothered to 
	formulate a proscription against it?

>It'd be
>silly to assume that such individuals were driven to such conclusions
>by "good feelings" or "bad feelings", just as it would be silly to 
>assume that "good feelings" or "bad feelings" necessarily motivate 
>a man's conclusion that computers don't feel pain. 

	Indeed.  As I've shown above, it'd be silly to assume that 
	conclusions have any relevance to this discussion at all.  It's
	motivations we're discussing.

>>>Your "theory" is a circular argument, Rich.  
>> 
>> Then prove it, Russell.  Sure, I can see what you're trying to show:
>> "I feel bad because there's a taboo, but there's a taboo because I
>> felt bad."  Is that about it?
>
>Yep, that's about it.
>
>> As usual, you're in error.  It goes like this: "I avoid this 
>> behavior because there's a taboo, and if I violate it I may suffer;
>> the taboo exists because someone before me judged this action and 
>> was capable of enforcing that judgement either through consensus or
>> by force."
>
>What motivated this particular individual who came before you, Rich?
>Are you going to tell us that he formulated the taboo because he had
>guilty feelings?  

	No, but I'm going to tell you, for the umpteenth time, that he
	did it because the idea of rape resulted in unpleasurable feelings,
	which may include, but are not limited to, guilt.  Please note
	that the unpleasurable feelings which were responsible for the
	creation of the taboo in the first place are not necessarily the
	same ones which cause adherence to the taboo in those who follow.
	That is, the taboo creator may have felt rape to be an abomination,
	but you might adhere to the taboo not because you find rape to be
	such a heinous deed, but because the thought of 20 years in a cell
	should you happen to get caught is decidedly unpleasant.

	The "taboo" argument is bankrupt, Russell; a taboo is simply one 
	person's ideas either adopted by, or forced upon, a group.  Arguing
	from a group standpoint doesn't make my principles any less valid.

	Try again.  Give me one example of a human activity whose motivation
	cannot be explained in terms of increasing pleasurable feelings or
	reduction or avoidance of unpleasurable feelings.  Just one, Russell.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals