From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:15:39 GMT

From article <1993Jan5.055124.5824@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> 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.

This thread began when you set forth one of your unsubstantiated, 
"prove-me-wrong" type theories:

Message-ID <1992Nov6.162026.7683@pixel.kodak.com>
======================================================================
ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
ry> these:
ry>
ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
ry> one performing the activity, or,
ry> 
ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
ry> in the one performing the activity.
======================================================================

I think we've demonstrated that it's foolish to "explain" all activities,
including a particular pattern of thinking, by your theory.   [Like it
or not, thinking is a form of human activity, Rich.]

> ...
>>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.

You've assumed that he's "getting his jollies", just as you assumed
that he was "feeling remorse".  It's quite apparent that you can't
explain the feelings of remorse without relying on the very assumptions
that you've been trying to prove.

> ...
>>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.]

Again, why would the man feel discomfort if he were unconcerned
about the dog's predicament?

> [...]
> 
>>> 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.

Thinking is an activity, Rich.  Reread your original statement.  
Feel free to modify it if it no longer reflects your true 
beliefs.  

> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>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?

I don't enjoy watching rapes, Rich.  And the reason I don't enjoy
watching rapes is that I realize that rape is very unpleasant for
the victims.   If I were convinced that the victims enjoy being
raped, then I suppose I would consider rape to be a fun activity.

You'll notice that my "good" and "bad" feelings depend on observations
of "good" and "bad", and not the other way around.

> [...]
> 
>>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?

Here are some of the reasons why I consider the killing of cattle to
be a poor choice:

-- cattle do, indeed, have feelings and their lives are meaningful to
	them in some way.
-- the consumption of animal flesh appears to be unhealthy.
-- the production of animal flesh causes environmental and economic
	problems that are easily avoided.

My decisions re: cattle consumption are "driven", as it were, by 
reasoning based on the observed facts and not by my desire to avoid
"bad feelings" or seek out "good feelings".  If the facts showed that

-- cattle are unconscious automata;
-- the consumption is flesh is healthy; and
-- flesh consumption is good for the economy and the environment,

then I would be on your side of the fence, arguing that meat consumption
is a good activity.

> 
> [...]
> 
>>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.

I've answered your question.  Now please answer mine.

>>> 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.

As I pointed out previously, one of my neighbors claims that all 
bad events in the world are caused by Satan.  The fact that you'd 
have difficulty convincing him otherwise doesn't indicate that 
he's right.  It merely indicates that he's very adept at fooling 
himself.  

> 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.

The formulation of prohibitions against rape, Rich, but you knew that 
already.

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