From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:23:24 GMT

From article <1993Jan6.044433.24122@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In <C0EJ65.Gsy@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>>Message-ID <1992Nov6.162026.7683@pixel.kodak.com>
>>======================================================================
>>ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
>>ry> these:
>>ry>
>>ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
>>ry> one performing the activity, or,
>>ry> 
>>ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>>ry> in the one performing the activity.
>>======================================================================
>>
>>I think we've demonstrated that it's foolish to "explain" all activities,
>>including a particular pattern of thinking, by your theory.   [Like it
>>or not, thinking is a form of human activity, Rich.]
> 
> Two things here, Russell:
> 
> 1. How does this provide the definition of an "altruistic
>       conclusion?"

I had assumed that your question was rhetorical, Rich.

conclusion: a) the last division of a discourse;  b) the last 
step in a reasoning process;  c) the third and last part of a 
syllogism;  etc.  

altruistic: of or motivated by altruism.

altruism: unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

> 2. How does this explain your referral to "conclusions" when
>    the thread is clearly about "motivations?"

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]".

As I've pointed out repeated, I don't see how you can explain
"bad feelings" without appealing to altruistic thinking.

> Now, let's get to the definition of "activity":
> 
> activity, n., 1: the quality or state of being active; 2: a
>                vigorous or energetic action; liveliness.
> 
> active, adj., 1: characterized by action rather than by con-
>                templation or speculation; 2: productive of
>                action or movement.
> 
> Any questions?

Yes, I have a question.  Why did you leave out some of the other 
definitions?

2: energetic action; liveliness; alertness
3: a normal function of the body or mind

>>>>If the mindfulness of the bear or the live chicken egg isn't a 
>>>>factor, why would the man feel remorse in one case but not in the 
>>>>other?
>>> 
>>> How should I know!?  Ask HIM.  HE'S the one getting his jollies
>>> by killing them.  The mere fact that he's getting his jollies is
>>> all the proof I need.  It doesn't matter how he feels AFTER the 
>>> fact; it's how he felt BEFORE the fact that I'm discussing.  It's
>>> what made him do it in the first place that interests me here.
>>
>>You've assumed that he's "getting his jollies", just as you assumed
>>that he was "feeling remorse".  It's quite apparent that you can't
>>explain the feelings of remorse without relying on the very assumptions
>>that you've been trying to prove.
> 
> OK, let's be rash and assume that you're right for just a brief
> moment, and that I'm "relying on the assumptions I'm trying to
> prove."  Why'd he do it, Russell?  Why'd he kill all them chickens,
> if not for his own benefit?

I'm sure that he did kill the mindless chicken eggs for his own 
benefit.  The unanswered question, however, is this: 

   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.  Unfortunately, this explanation takes
remorse for granted, as I've pointed out many times.

>>>>Why would a man conclude that it's ok to bang the keyboard of
>>>>a computer but not ok to bang the face of a dog?   Answer: 
>>>>because he realizes that computers, unlike dogs and rape 
>>>>victims, don't feel pain.
>>> 
>>> Yes, and.......?  C'mon, Russell, you can do it.......
>>> 
>>> [Don't show this to Russell, Gentle Reader, or he'll never under-
>>> stand the ideas involved: the man feels some mental discomfort upon
>>> seeing the dog's pain, and so formulates a proscription, or taboo,
>>> against banging the face of dogs so that he won't have to observe
>>> such an act in the future...and undergo more mental distress.  His
>>> motives in formulating the taboo are ultimately selfish.]
>>
>>Again, why would the man feel discomfort if he were unconcerned
>>about the dog's predicament?
> 
> If he were truly unconcerned, he wouldn't feel any discomfort
> of course, but that's not what you said.  Your [straw] man
> concluded "...that it's ok to bang the keyboard of a computer
> but not ok to bang the face of a dog."  Clearly he's made a value
> judgement through some mental process which is based on his
> perception of doggie discomfort.  If he were unconcerned, then
> "OK" or not "OK" wouldn't even enter into it.  The action would
> be ethically irrelevant.

Are you admitting that the man wouldn't feel any discomfort if
he were unconcerned about the dog's predicament?   Please tell us
why you think that such concerns can be explained by the man's
alleged selfishness?   

>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Yet, you'd have us believe that altruistic ideas are somehow bound
>>>>and determined by motivation.
>>> 
>>> No, that's what you'd have us BELIEVE I said, Russell.  I've
>>> ACTUALLY said no such thing.
>>
>>Thinking is an activity, Rich.  Reread your original statement.  [...]
> 
> See definitions, above, Russell, then YOU go re-read my original
> statement.

See my additional definitions.  

You're entitled to use words as you see fit, but an amendment of 
your original statement to exclude mental activities from the
debate wouldn't be wise.  After all, feelings are a mental activity, 
too, are they not?  

Moreover, the concept of altruism, at its very core, hinges on 
mental perception and cognition.  Were you hoping that you could 
make "altruism" disappear by insisting that we can admit "feelings"
into the discussion, but not other forms of mental activity?

> [...]
> 
>>I don't enjoy watching rapes, Rich.  And the reason I don't enjoy
>>watching rapes is that I realize that rape is very unpleasant for
>>the victims.   If I were convinced that the victims enjoy being
>>raped, then I suppose I would consider rape to be a fun activity.
>>
>>You'll notice that my "good" and "bad" feelings depend on observations
>>of "good" and "bad", and not the other way around.
> 
> I don't care WHAT your "good" and "bad" feelings depend on, Russell,
> the mere fact that you HAVE them is all that's required to support
> my thesis.

Again, your "thesis" is a circular argument that depends on the very
premise that you're hoping to prove.

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.

> ...
>>> Give me one example of a human action that can't be explained either
>>> by the desire to increase pleasurable feelings in the one performing
>>> the action, or the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable feelings
>>> in the one performing the action.  Forget everything except this
>>> request, if you like, but DO answer (not simply "address") it.
>>
>>The formulation of prohibitions against rape, Rich, but you knew that 
>>already.
> 
> Your example is refuted.  If rape were something about which all
> members of a society were unconcerned, there would be no taboo, but
> concern = mental discomfort which results in a taboo because some
> big mucky-muck had the horsepower to say, "I don't like it, so you'd
> better not do it," and make it stick.

You're going in circles, Rich.  Why did the "big mucky-muck" choose to 
exercise his power in such a way?

> Your example is not only refuted, it's pathetic.

My friend made similar claims after I pointed out the flaws in his
argument that all "badness" is caused by Satan.

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