Motivation

[mur'phon]

Alright, at school a few days ago we talked about why we do things, what motivates us. The discusion went well enough until I sugested that our motivation, in all circumstances is what benefits ourselves the most. This can be anything from a guy who is nice to someone because it makes him feel good to the guy sacrificing himself for others because he can't stand the guilt of being a survivor. People can be wrong though, I might lie to cover my brother hoping he'll do the same, but he can still "betray" me. We also dosen't need to be aware of what we get in return. An aid worker might well think he does something "because it's right", while the real reason is that he enjoys being someone important/seeing the face of victims he helps.

 

Now, another thing that thing is that if we always do what we think is best for ourselves, free will goes out of the window, since we can't act any other way. Togehter this means that we are all equally good/bad, in the sence that we act for the same reason, and dosen't have a choice.

 

I don't really like this outlook, so if you guys/gals could shred this thought to pieces it would be apreciated.

[EnderWiggin]

Kind of reminds me of this book. Talks a lot about motivations for things.

 

But as to your actual ideas:

 

I agree with the first one. We, in most cases, do what's best for us.

 

But I don't think that removes free will, as it's not what happens every time.

 

What about the marine who throws himself on the grenade for his brothers-in-arms?

 

No rewards for him. (I know, I think he gets into heaven too. But willing suspension of disbelief, ok? Maybe he's an atheist.)

 

_EW_

 

EDIT::

What motivates us? Genes + Environment (including learning and history) + Ambition; perhaps?

I just think that makes us who we are.

[jonathan7]

What motivates us? Genes + Environment (including learning and history) + Ambition; perhaps?

 

Free-will is an interesting one, and I think quite a few would say we don't have free will in the classical sense.

 

Personally I take a Matrix like view to the world;

 

"Because you didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it".

 

In discussing the moral side to motivation I thought the following was very interesting;

 

In Harry Potter the two key characters apart from Harry himself are Professor Dumbledore and Lord Voldermort. One lives for others and the other lives for himself. Lord Voldermort' date=' ever since he was merely Tom Riddle and a student of Hogwarts, put his own selfish interests first. Dumbledore does not think of his own interests. The same applies in the Lord of the Rings where Gandalf is pitted against Sauron and Sarauman. Again the contrast is between a life lived for others and a life lived for self. Evil is a choice – but it then becomes a way of life that affects the whole personality. It is possible to turn one’s back on past choices but it is exceptionally difficult – to a large extent we are made by the choices we have made, but hope always remains as forgiveness and a new start are always possible, even at the last moment. – Peter Vardy, Thinkers Guide to Evil 190-191[/quote']

[Achilles]

Point of clarification: Is the argument that we always act in our own best interest or is it that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act?

 

If it's the former, how would you explain phenomena such as self-destructive behavior, suicide, etc?

[jonathan7]

Point of clarification: Is the argument that we always act in our own best interest or is it that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act?

 

If it's the former, how would you explain phenomena such as self-destructive behavior, suicide, etc?

 

And also for the latter how do you explain the example in thread of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades? That's not self preserving behaviour, nor is it in your best interests.

[Achilles]

The latter would address selflessness, rather then self-interest (the former).

[Darth InSidious]

I question that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.

[jonathan7]

I question that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.

 

Are you saying that there is or is not a truly selfless act?

 

See the consensus among psychologists is there is no such things as a truly selfless act. I totally disagree, call me a romantic but I think altruism exists.

[Darth InSidious]

I'm saying that there is... Sorry, I thought the link would clarify my meaning.

[jonathan7]

I'm saying that there is... Sorry, I thought the link would clarify my meaning.

 

No worries, to be honest I hadn't noticed the link until after I had posted; Kolbe was a legend.

 

Slightly off-topic; but I thought this was interesting...

 

Kolbe decided to build the monastery on a mountain side that' date=' according to Shinto beliefs, was not the side best suited to be in tune with nature. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Kolbe's monastery was saved because the blast of the bomb hit the other side of the mountain, which took the main force of the blast. Had Kolbe built the monastery on the preferred side of mountain as he was advised, his work and all of his fellow monks would have been destroyed.[/quote']

 

Providence or chance?

[EnderWiggin]

And also for the latter how do you explain the example in thread of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades? That's not self preserving behaviour, nor is it in your best interests.

 

Hmm.... where have I heard this example before? Oh yeah, that's right.

 

But I don't think that removes free will, as it's not what happens every time.

 

What about the marine who throws himself on the grenade for his brothers-in-arms?

 

_EW_

 

How very original

 

_EW_

[jonathan7]

Hmm.... where have I heard this example before? Oh yeah, that's right.

 

And also for the latter how do you explain the example in thread of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades? That's not self preserving behaviour, nor is it in your best interests.

 

To be fair I was just using your example, and I thought I had conveyed that

 

It's an interesting question, and I have often heard people try to argue altruism doesn't exist; I myself think they live in a rather depressing world!

 

How very original

 

_EW_

 

I try

[Arcesious]

Ah, as I can see so far, we're rediscussing a old debate we once had about morality in another thread... I think it was one of those 'God debate' threads...

 

As it was summed up, was was pretty much concluded was:

 

If you do soemthing 'good' even if it has no material benefit to you, it makes you feel good, and doing it to make you feel good is, in fact, a selfish act in a sense, even if it was a 'good' thing to do. Good and evil are not necessarily inherently good or evil, because those two 'sides' of morality are subject to the interpretation of the person's view on 'good' and 'evil'. IE, do the 'wrong' thing to do the 'right' thing, 'good' thing to do the 'wrong' thing... What you consider 'good' may be 'bad', or what you consider 'evil' might actually be 'good'...

 

 

Same way the other way around for all three of those analogies... Yay for reverse phycology/philosophy...

[Achilles]

See the consensus among psychologists is there is no such things as a truly selfless act. I totally disagree, call me a romantic but I think altruism exists.

I would tend to agree with the psychologists. I challenge you to find a "selfless act" that does not have some measure of intrinsic reward.

 

I submit that "selfless actions" are the pursuit of an ideal, not a category unto themselves.

 

EDIT: I think Arcesious sums it up nicely above.

EDIT (again): I said that before he edited his post.

If you do soemthing 'good' even if it has no material benefit to you, it makes you feel good, and doing it to make you feel good is, in fact, a selfish act in a sense, even if it was a 'good' thing to do.

I agree.

 

It's an interesting question, and I have often heard people try to argue altruism doesn't exist; I myself think they live in a rather depressing world!

Why?

[jonathan7]

I would tend to agree with the psychologists. I challenge you to find a "selfless act" that does not have some measure of intrinsic reward.

 

I submit that "selfless actions" are the pursuit of an ideal, not a category unto themselves.

 

Lets take the example of the Marine above; I don't think he has the time to weigh up if something is of benefit to him or not; he does it because he wants to save his friends and that costs him his life; indeed I think the longer he has to think about it the less likely it is for him to jump on the grenade.

 

Why?

 

Because I think some people will do things because its the right thing regardless of what it costs them; they don't do it for their benefit; and if they sacrifice their life and are say an atheist I do not possibly see what they can of possibly gained...

 

I think some things cannot be measured (like motivation) and to say no-one has ever performed a selfless act I think cannot be substantiated.

 

Ah, as I can see so far, we're rediscussing a old debate we once had about morality in another thread... I think it was one of those 'God debate' threads...

 

I would try and keep that kind of debate more in the relevant threads, I don't wish to see this thread to go 'religious' but think certain aspects may well be touched on.

[KinchyB]

It's an interesting question, and I have often heard people try to argue altruism doesn't exist; I myself think they live in a rather depressing world!

 

I'm rather curious to see how you prove that altruism does exist...

 

I honestly cannot think of 1 single example where someone displays a true act of altruism.

 

Definition:

 

the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

 

So, what would qualify as altruism?

[Achilles]

Lets take the example of the Marine above; I don't think he has the time to weigh up if something is of benefit to him or not; he does it because he wants to save his friends and that costs him his life; indeed I think the longer he has to think about it the less likely it is for him to jump on the grenade.

Quite right. The intrinsic reward of knowing that he has saved (will hopefully save) his friends means that it is not a "selfless act". We might be able to argue that it's a "mostly selfless act", but we cannot negate any reward he may have taken from his actions.

 

Because I think some people will do things because its the right thing regardless of what it costs them;

I agree but that's not the same thing.

 

they don't do it for their benefit;

Of course they do it for the benefit. Whether they (or you) realize that or not does not change the reality of it.

 

and if they sacrifice their life and are say an atheist I do not possibly see what they can of possibly gained...

Because intrinsic rewards have nothing to do with theism/atheism.

 

I think some things cannot be measured (like motivation) and to say no-one has ever performed a selfless act I think cannot be substantiated.

I think I would accept your example of a selfless act that has no intrinsic reward as a sufficent counterargument. Nothing you've said here addresses my point.

 

I would try and keep that kind of debate more in the relevant threads, I don't wish to see this thread to go 'religious' but think certain aspects may well be touched on.

Says the man that just brought up atheism.

[jonathan7]

For a simple overview there are examples in the animal kingdom; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

 

For humans, what was wrong with DI's example?

 

Quite right. The intrinsic reward of knowing that he has saved (will hopefully save) his friends means that it is not a "selfless act". We might be able to argue that it's a "mostly selfless act", but we cannot negate any reward he may have taken from his actions.

 

He's not alive to reap any benefits from his action...

 

Says the man that just brought up atheism.

 

I brought that up purely as the objection for a religious person doing an altruistic act is its for there God and therefore it was in there interest to do so, therefore it was my opinion the atheist example was useful.

[Arcesious]

Alright...

 

Marine sees grenade. Allies don't have enough time to run. Marine either thinks of the fact that he'll be happy to have saved his friends, or how famous he'll be when he saves everyone's lives. He ignores the fact that he won't be around to benefit himself at all from this action, and jumps on the grenade...

 

Pretty much, he did do a selfless act, to a far degree, but there still would be that little bit of personnal reward he would seek from doing it, either having saved his friend's lives, or winning some sort of military metal after he dies... It is, mostly, a selfless act, but even then, ignoring the fact that he won't be around afterwards to benefit from it, he still did it, to a miniscule degree, for personnal benefit at the very moment he did it.

[Achilles]

For a simple overview there are examples in the animal kingdom; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

Wouldn't "sacrifice" require some measure of self-awareness?

 

For the animals that do demonstrate consciousness, how do you intend to rule out intrinsic rewards? For animals that do not, how do you intend to rule out it being a "dog eat dog" world?

 

For humans, what was wrong with DI's example?

It doesn't negate the counterargument.

 

He's not alive to reap any benefits from his action...

He was alive to enjoy them right up until the moment he died. I have an relevant example with a longer timeline if you think it will help.

 

I brought that up purely as the objection for a religious person doing an altruistic act is its for there God and therefore it was in there interest to do so, therefore it was my opinion the atheist example was useful.

I wasn't saying that it wasn't useful. I was only pointing out that your call to leave religious themes out of the discussion was rather hypocritical.

[KinchyB]

For humans, what was wrong with DI's example?

 

I think a good question is, how would he have felt had he not helped the individual? By taking his place he actually avoids a feeling of guilt and regret, which is technically motivation and selfish. So the reward...not feeling guilty and having no regret. This is pretty much the same as the jumping on a grenade example.

 

Also, the only thing we know about this entire situation is what has been written by other people. There is no account of why Maximilian Kolbe did what he did from his own mouth. We are making an assumption that it was an altruistic act without knowing all the details.

 

He's not alive to reap any benefits from his action...

 

Well, why do you have to be alive to reap the benefits? Altruism is doing something unselfishly, so if you jump on a grenade to save your friend (albeit nice) there are several circumstances that could completely negate it being an altruistic act.

 

Basically, unless a complete detailed account of their two lives (or anyone who is up for an altruism award) is given you can't really say 100% if it's an altruistic act or not. It's nice to think this can happen, however, we also have a tendency to romanticize these types of situations so odds are what we know is not really what happened.

[Rev7]

Marine sees grenade. Allies don't have enough time to run. Marine either thinks of the fact that he'll be happy to have saved his friends, or how famous he'll be when he saves everyone's lives. He ignores the fact that he won't be around to benefit himself at all from this action, and jumps on the grenade...

 

Pretty much, he did do a selfless act, to a far degree, but there still would be that little bit of personnal reward he would seek from doing it, either having saved his friend's lives, or winning some sort of military metal after he dies... It is, mostly, a selfless act, but even then, ignoring the fact that he won't be around afterwards to benefit from it, he still did it, to a miniscule degree, for personnal benefit at the very moment he did it.

Yes. I personally see a selfless act as not thinking of yourself. Sometimes it is just a reaction.

 

However, how would this soldier get a personal reward when he is already dead? I don't think that many people would jump on a grenade just to get a medal of honor.

[Achilles]

However, how would this soldier get a personal reward when he is already dead? I don't think that many people would jump on a grenade just to get a medal of honor.

Intrinsic rewards are only for the person performing the act (intrinsic as in "internal"). Extrinsic rewards (i.e. "external" rewards such as a medal) are completely different.

 

If a soldier feels a momentary sense of duty or..."altruism", which inspires him or her to perform the act, then the sense of satisfaction in performing the act itself is the intrinsic reward. The argument is that since they did recieve some reward for the act, then it is not truly selfless (i.e. to some extent they were doing it for themselves as well).

 

I'm perfectly ok accepting that actions that are only 99% selfless are still noble or that actions performed in the pursuit of the ideal of altruism are similarly noble, however it would seem that others are not.

[EnderWiggin]

Alright...

 

Marine sees grenade. Allies don't have enough time to run. Marine either thinks of the fact that he'll be happy to have saved his friends, or how famous he'll be when he saves everyone's lives. He ignores the fact that he won't be around to benefit himself at all from this action, and jumps on the grenade...

 

He won't be happy to have saved his friends. You can't use emotion as an argument, since he's dead.

 

Name one man who did the example. You don't become famous after doing that. People think highly of you, but I don't think you can use that as one of the reasons the soldier used to justify committing suicide in order to save the lives of his friends. Selfless, IMHO, and he doesn't even take a long time to decide. He chooses after what, 3 seconds?

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

He won't be happy to have saved his friends. You can't use emotion as an argument, since he's dead.

Technically, he's alive until he's dead. After that point, you're correct.

 

Name one man who did the example. You don't become famous after doing that..

Not really relevant to the argument. Fame might be a source of motivation, but it isn't the only thing on the list.

 

People think highly of you, but I don't think you can use that as one of the reasons the soldier used to justify committing suicide in order to save the lives of his friends. Selfless, IMHO.

And that moment of knowing that your actions might save the lives of your friends? I agree that it's mostly selfless, but it's not entirely selfless.

 

What do we gain by arguing for this "all or nothing" dichotomy?