From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:02:46 GMT


[much deleted]

From article <1993Jan11.033602.6616@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> > 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.
> 
> Yes, we COULD as easily say such a thing...of course we'd be
> justifiably ridiculed by anyone who heard it, so lets avoid the
> embarrassment and not say it, OK?  Unless, of course, you can
> explain what blood cells have to do with motivation and voluntary
> activity.

You're still assuming your conclusions, Rich, namely that all 
activities require some sort of "selfish" motivation.  I don't 
doubt that reptiles may be driven by "good feelings" and "bad 
feelings", as you say, but attempts to explain away every aspect 
of human behavior in such a manner seem silly to me.  

====================================================================
"Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained 
by [good feelings and bad feelings]".  -- Rich Young

"Name one bad thing that cannot be explained by the the presence 
of Satan".   -- Next Door Neighbor  

The fact that a simplistic theory can "explain" events doesn't
mean that the theory is valid.  -- Russell Lawrence
====================================================================

>> I'm still waiting for you to prove your implicit claim that a
>> man who promulgates a prohibition against rape is necessarily
>> behaving selfishly.
> 
> I have explained it a number of times.  The fact that the explanation
> doesn't fit your preconceived and ill-considered ideas doesn't make
> the explanation any less illustrative.  The following few paragraphs
> will explain it yet again.

My preconceived ideas???  You're the one who continues to promote
a circular argument, Rich.

>> >>You're going in circles, Rich.  Why did the "big mucky-muck" choose to 
>> >>exercise his power [to formulate a prohibition against rape] 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?
> 
> It appears that you're trying to use yet another equivocation 
> regarding the word "selfish."  As I have explained before, the
> word "selfish" is used here to describe actions which are taken
> for the benefit of oneself...NOT actions which are taken to
> injure others.  If you'd rather use another word so that you'll
> no longer be confused, please feel free to suggest one.
> 
> Now, to answer your question [which is something you hardly ever
> do for anyone else], the discomfort he feels at the thought of
> future rapes impels him to take some action to assuage that 
> discomfort; thus, he acts to make the act of rape a taboo so that
> he won't have to deal with those uncomfortable feelings again.
> 
> It's really very simple.  It's precisely the same reason that some
> argue so vociferously against the consumption of meat: it's because
> they can't stand the thought of all those sentient creatures dying,
> so they try to formulate a taboo against it.

Again, if the opponents of female-rape and animal-meat-consumption 
are selfish, as you say, why would thoughts of rape and animal-meat-
consumption be troubling to them?  

Most of the people I know who've become vegans did so after a 
learning period in which they gradually became aware of the 
negative impact that their dietary habits have on other beings.  
This learning process is an intellectual one, by and large, 
rather than an emotional one, although it may certainly have 
emotional repercussions once the learner becomes aware of the 
fact that animals experience suffering.

By cutting to the chase and arguing that such individuals became 
vegans because they wanted to avoid "bad feelings", you're not 
supporting your theory;  you're merely ignoring the data.  The 
fact of the matter is that you can't make altruistic thinking go 
away by simply pretending that it doesn't exist.

>> > 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?
> 
> Again, you've assumed that the word "selfish" must always imply 
> that someone [or something] else always suffers when you benefit.
> "Selfishness," as used here, denotes only that which benefits the
> self, REGARDLESS of its effects on others.  Rape might well be 
> unpopular if great numbers of people felt fear that it might occur
> to them.  Note that this doesn't require that someone else be
> injured, but only the fear that the self might be injured.

In such a case, it seems to me that selfish opponents of rape would 
promulgate laws that would protect themselves alone.  For 
example, men might argue that it's wrong to rape men, but 
perfectly ok to rape women.  It's been my experience that 
many men are opposed to the practice of raping women, not because 
they're afraid of being raped themselves or because it arouses 
your unexplainable "bad feelings", but because they're genuinely 
concerned about the victims.  This is called "altruistic" thinking, 
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.
> 
> As I've stated previously, these feelings of discomfort need not
> always have the intensity of gut-wrenching anguish.  Nor must 
> feelings of pleasure be of orgasmic intensity to motivate human
> action.  If you feel better engaging in such lurid hyperbole, so
> be it, but don't expect us to believe that it lends credibility
> to your position.  The mere fact that you spend as much of your
> life arguing about it on Usenet as you do is clear evidence that
> you are engaging in an activity you find somehow pleasurable.  Or
> perhaps you find the thought of admitting error distasteful.  Either
> way, you need not be emotionally involved (though I suspect you are).

So now you're saying that your mysterious "good feelings" and "bad
feelings" need not be emotional in order to motivate a particular
activity.  Would you be willing to admit that an activity may be
driven, as it were, by an idea that is the product of reason, rather 
than "good feelings" or "bad feelings"?

> Your motivation is not that you might change the world, but that
> you will feel good knowing you have changed the world, should you
> succeed.  Or perhaps it's the knowledge that you will feel frustrated
> should you fail that you wish to avoid.  Either way, the motivation is
> your benefit and your benefit alone.

My neighbor would say that your mind is simply clouded by Satan, and
that this fully explains your inability to deal with all the facts.
Simplistic onjectures are fine and dandy, but I'd prefer some proof.

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