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: Sun, 3 Jan 93 19:50:37 GMT

In <C096un.7GF@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>ry> Sure, and this "appreciation" of which you speak makes it difficult
>ry> to ignore those other beings.  This is principle number 2: reduction
>ry> or prevention of "bad" feelings.  If, given your sympathy for these
>ry> other beings, you did nothing, you would suffer bad feelings, so
>ry> you do something to prevent that.  The motivation is selfish, though
>ry> the result may well be beneficial for both parties.
>
>rl> I didn't use the word "sympathy", Rich.
>
>ry> True, the word "sympathy" was never used in your paragraph, however:
>
>ry> sympathy, n., an inclination to think or feel alike: emotional or
>ry> intellectual accord.
>ry>
>ry> It's clear that this is the idea to which you were referring when you
>ry> said "...capable...of appreciating what goes on inside the heads of
>ry> other beings."  I wish you'd look up these words before you criticize
>ry> me for using them.
>
>Your use of the phrase, "suffer bad feelings", clearly indicated that
>you were using the word, "sympathy", to label a state of emotional
>involvement rather than an intellectual understanding of the plight of
>a particular victim.

	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.

>Has it occurred to you that some individuals can, 
>and do, make ethical decisions on the basis of their intellectual 
>understanding of a situation?

	Of course it has occurred to me.  So what?

>Or, do you really believe that all ethical
>decisions arise from various emotional attachments?

	Did I actually SAY this, Russell?  I suggest that you re-read past
	text very carefully.  What I have said is that the motivation behind
	all human behavior is either the desire to increase pleasurable 
	feelings, or the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable feelings.
	Neither of these things necessarily involves emotion, although they
	do involve a certain mental "comfort" or "discomfort".

[...]

>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.  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.

	The event or situation is irrelevant except as a trigger.  The 
	important question you must ask yourself is, "Why does it make a
	difference to me, such that I must act?"  The answer is always, 
	"Because I'd feel rotten if I didn't," or, "I'll feel good (or at
	least better) if I do."

	Can you think of one activity in which you might engage which does 
	not involve ANY mental pleasure or discomfort?

[...]

>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 am sorely tempted to ask you for a description of what it is about
	the bear's existence that makes it "meaningful," but I'll resist, 
	since it's not relevant to the topic.]

	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.

	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.

>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.

>Or, are you going to insist that your "first principles" [pleasurable
>feelings and guilty feelings] are capable of explaining every kind 
>of human endeavor, bar none.

	My two principles are "pleasurable feelings" and "unpleasurable
	feelings," not "pleasurable feelings" and "guilty feelings."  If you
	are going to re-state my principles, then please do so with accuracy.

[...]

>Let's clarify the problem by considering a 
>specific taboo, namely the prohibition against rape that is
>common in many societies.   Would you mind explaining how
>such prohibitions rise and fall in accordance with your theory?
>
>[In formulating your answer, please don't assume the initial
>existence of the very taboo that you're hoping to explain].

	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.

	[In formulating your answer, please explain how the genesis of
	this particular taboo addresses human motivation and its role
	in the presence or absence of true altruism.]

[...]

>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?

	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."


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