From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:01:33 GMT

From article <1993Jan2.185951.8619@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>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.

Your use of the phrase, "suffer bad feelings", clearly indicated that
you were using the word, "sympathy", to label a state of emotional
involvement rather than an intellectual understanding of the plight of
a particular victim.   Has it occurred to you that some individuals can, 
and do, make ethical decisions on the basis of their intellectual 
understanding of a situation?  Or, do you really believe that all ethical
decisions arise from various emotional attachments?

>>>> 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?

Of course.

Let's hope you can learn from my candor and perhaps come to an 
understanding of the fact that other individuals may not suffer 
from your particular limitation...  namely your apparent 
inability to appreciate that other minds do, indeed, exist, and 
that other minds are, indeed, capable of experiencing unpleasant 
mental events.  

>>>...and so do you.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>A definitive response, indeed.  Yes, we know, you'd sacrifice yourself
>to feed a starving grizzly.

I wouldn't sacrifice myself to feed a starving grizzly.  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 and that grizzly 
existence is meaningful to the grizzlies themselves.  

>> 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."

I'd be pleased to talk about taboos that don't depend on "good 
feelings" or "bad feelings".  Are you prepared to do the same?

Or, are you going to insist that your "first principles" [pleasurable
feelings and guilty feelings] are capable of explaining every kind 
of human endeavor, bar none.

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

I don't recall seeing _any_ explanations from you that didn't
involve an initial assumption of the very claim that you were
hoping to prove.  Let's clarify the problem by considering a 
specific taboo, namely the prohibition against rape that is
common in many societies.   Would you mind explaining how
such prohibitions rise and fall in accordance with your theory?

[In formulating your answer, please don't assume the initial
existence of the very taboo that you're hoping to explain].

>>>> 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.

Your "theory" is a circular argument, Rich.  

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