From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:00:08 GMT

From article <1993Jan8.221417.17267@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>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.

>>   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.  

> 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?

>>Unfortunately, this explanation takes remorse for granted, as I've 
>>pointed out many times.
> 
> OK, I'll agree that remorse isn't necessary for everyone to refrain
> from killing bears...I used the term because YOU had expressed some
> reluctance to kill grizzly bears.  To wit:
> 
>    "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..."
> 
> I assumed from this 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.  

Exactly.  There may be other *REASONS*.  And it's a mistake to assume
that these reasons would be determined by feelings.

> Whether
> or not there's remorse isn't the point; the unpleasurable feeling
> to be avoided might well be disgust instead of remorse.  

You're assuming the very fact that you're trying to prove.

> On the other 
> hand, there might be pleasure in letting it live...either way, the 
> motivation is, in the final analysis, selfish.

You're assuming the very fact that you're trying to prove.

[much deleted]

>>rl> I don't enjoy watching rapes, Rich.  And the reason I don't enjoy
>>rl> watching rapes is that I realize that rape is very unpleasant for
>>rl> the victims.   If I were convinced that the victims enjoy being
>>rl> raped, then I suppose I would consider rape to be a fun activity.
>>
>>rl> You'll notice that my "good" and "bad" feelings depend on observations
>>rl> of "good" and "bad", and not the other way around.
>>
>>ry> I don't care WHAT your "good" and "bad" feelings depend on, Russell,
>>ry> the mere fact that you HAVE them is all that's required to support
>>ry> my thesis.
>>
>>Again, your "thesis" is a circular argument that depends on the very
>>premise that you're hoping to prove.
> 
> And again, you make this statement based on faulty conclusions; see
> below.
> 
>>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.

> 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.

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

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

> 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?

>>My friend made similar claims after I pointed out the flaws in his
>>argument that all "badness" is caused by Satan.
> 
> On the other hand, your friend probably didn't pretend, as you do,
> that concern causes no mental discomfort.

It doesn't cause discomfort in me, Rich.  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.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10865 alt.peeves:18875