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: Tue, 5 Jan 93 05:51:24 GMT

In <C0CyLL.6pD@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>>>....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."
>
>I agree.  And hence, it's a mistake to confuse altruistic conclusions
>with selfish motivations.  

        This is truly incredible ("in" being a prefix meaning "not").
        What on Earth is an "altruistic conclusion?"  And why are you
        talking about conclusions when the thread is about motivations?

        What is it that you are trying to accomplish, Russell?  This latest
        response of yours is probably one of the top ten most inane and
        irrelevant sentences you've yet tried to foist upon us.  As I said
        before, it's becoming pathetically clear that you haven't got the
        tiniest clue about that which we are supposedly discussing.

        "Altruistic [freaking] conclusion???"  Please.

>> [...]  ...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.
>
>The topic at hand is whether or not it's possible for a man to
>engage in thinking that isn't selfish.

        WRONG!!!  DEAD, FLAT-OUT, IRREVOCABLY, AND INCONTROVERTIBLY WRONG!!!

        The topic at hand is whether the motivation behind human action is
        selfish.  How you transmogrified this into whether "it's possible
        for a man to engage in thinking that isn't selfish" is quite
        beyond me.

>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.

>>>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.  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.
>
>You've already admitted that conclusions aren't motivations, Rich.

        So what?  I've not only admitted it, I've insisted upon it.
        What does that fact have to do with the price of tea leaves
        in Beijing?  I asked you to give me an example of a human action
        whose motivation cannot be explained by one of my principles;
        so far, you've given me bovine excreta.

>If memory serves, your initial argument involved the claim that 
>there's no such thing as altruistic thinking, ....

        Then your memory ill serves you.  I've not claimed anything
        about altruistic thinking.  I've claimed that altruistic ACTION
        does not exist because the motivation behind all human ACTION
        is selfish.  You can have all the altruistic thoughts you like,
        but until you translate one into action, those thoughts mean squat.

>... and you went on to 
>say that one individual behaves as he does toward other 
>individuals solely because of his desire to experience good 
>feelings or avoid bad feelings.    Is that still your contention?

        In point of fact, it was more general than that: remove the phrase
        "toward other individuals" and you'll have it almost right...for a
        change.

[...]

>>    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.
>
>Do you think you can rightfully dismiss altruistic intellectual 
>conclusions as "selfish" by simply asserting that the thinker was 
>initially prompted to consider the problem by some selfish urge?  

        What the hell is an "altruistic intellectual conclusion???"

        Unless some overt action is taken, altruistic thoughts are no
        more than mental masturbation.  It's the ACTION that counts,
        Russell, and if you'll retrieve the posting wherein I first
        detailed my two principles, you'll find the word "action"
        clearly in evidence.

[...]

>>>[Taboos against rape] initially arise when 
>>>a small group of thinking individuals manage to figure out that 
>>>rape is unpleasant for the victims, and hence, unjust.
>>
>> If the idea of rape didn't cause 
>> them some mental discomfort, why would they have bothered to 
>> formulate a proscription against it?
>
>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.]

[...]

>> 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.

[...]

>>>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...
>
>Why would he have experienced unpleasurable feelings,  Rich?

        How long HAVE you enjoyed watching rapes take place, Russell?

[...]

>If all thinking is driven by selfish intent, why would he have 
>broken with prior tradition by concluding that rape is an abomination?

        Why have you broken with prior tradition and concluded that
        killing cattle for lunch is an abomination?

[...]

>The taboo creator in your example would be immune to such
>pressures.  You yourself have mentioned that such a man would have
>had the power to force his views on others (in your hypothetical
>example.)  I'm still waiting for you to explain how his decision
>to implement a taboo was bound to his own selfish "feelings".

        When you answer the question above, you'll have the answer to
        this one.

>> 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.
>
>So you say.

        Yes in-deed, -deed, -deedy, I DO say.  And the fact that you can't
        come up with anything better than "so you say" would tend to indicate
        that I'm right.

        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.

-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals