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: Sat, 2 Jan 93 18:59:51 GMT

In article <C05I28.5FM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>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.

	True, the word "sympathy" was never used in your paragraph, however:

	   sympathy, n., an inclination to think or feel alike: emotional or
			intellectual accord.

	It's clear that this is the idea to which you were referring when you
	said "...capable...of appreciating what goes on inside the heads of
	other beings."  I wish you'd look up these words before you criticize
	me for using them.

[...conclusions based on ignorance of word definition deleted...]

>>>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.

	You're quite welcome; might we hope for the same from you?

>> ...and so do you.
>
>Not really.

	A definitive response, indeed.  Yes, we know, you'd sacrifice yourself
	to feed a starving grizzly.

>> 	"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.  

	To borrow a phrase: so you say.  You can call it "bltzflk" if you
	like, the basic truth of it won't change.  Humans are motivated by
	the desire to feel good (principle #1), or the desire to avoid
	feeling bad (principle #2), period.

>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.  

	taboo, n., 1: a prohibition against touching, saying, or doing
		something for fear of immediate harm from a mysterious
		superhuman force; 2: a prohibition imposed by social custom
		or as a protective measure.

	Now, Russell, why don't YOU talk about "taboos" without reference
	to "feelings of guilt", or "disharmony?"  Next time, look up the
	word before you presume to get "clever."

	By the way, I did explain the appearance of taboos in my first 
	sentence...without assuming any conclusions.

>>>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.

	OK, we've seen this excuse, now give me a case I can't refute.  The
	mere fact that you don't find my "theory" credible doesn't mean
	that it's not accurate.


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