Does Morality/Ethics really exist?

[Zarathustra]

The topic can be quite verbose, so for the purposes of debate, I'll open my position in summarized fashion:

Since Morality and Ethics so far as we know, are constructs mainly of a human societal nature, they should exist outside of it.

Proponents of the concept of Moral/Ethical behavior are in effect, really only proponents of the two prime motivators of human behavior which are,
Fear and Greed.

In this sense, the two need not exemplify extremes of human motications, but simply put;

Greed= Desire for acquisitions.

i.e., I help others because it meets my own ends/makes me feel good. (Greed)

Fear= Loss of acquisitions.

i.e., I don't break the law, kill, maim, do harm to others because it will place me in a position for incarceration/retribution/lower my social/financial standing. (Fear)

Your thoughts?

[Skeptical Greg]

Of course they exist ..

Are you really asking if they are subjective ?

Yes, they are.

[JoeEllison]

Huh? "Fear and greed"? You should spend less time rooting around your rear end for ideas...

[Zarathustra]

Of course they exist ..

Are you really asking if they are subjective ?

Yes, they are.

Subjective to me, would mean, of differing interpretations.
No, rather my position is that they do not exist at all beyond just being social concepts, in that we create, adhere, and live by their various incarnations out of nothing more than human fear or greed.

[Zarathustra]

Huh? "Fear and greed"?

Then show me a human behavior which is not motivated by either fear and greed.

[Robin]

The topic can be quite verbose, so for the purposes of debate, I'll open my position in summarized fashion:

Since Morality and Ethics so far as we know, are constructs mainly of a human societal nature, they should exist outside of it.

Proponents of the concept of Moral/Ethical behavior are in effect, really only proponents of the two prime motivators of human behavior which are,
Fear and Greed.

In this sense, the two need not exemplify extremes of human motications, but simply put;

Greed= Desire for acquisitions.

i.e., I help others because it meets my own ends/makes me feel good. (Greed)

Fear= Loss of acquisitions.

i.e., I don't break the law, kill, maim, do harm to others because it will place me in a position for incarceration/retribution/lower my social/financial standing. (Fear)

Your thoughts?
Or to sum up, the purpose of ethical/moral systems is to help people feel good and/or prevent them feeling bad.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we can generalise it to the whole system rather than particularise it to the individual or set of individuals.

Of course we are all the best judges of what it is that makes us feel good – for some it is material goods, for others it is helping people.

So there is no one-size-fits-all system that will maximise pleasure/minimise pain for the population in general.

So the aim of ethical/moral systems should be to maximise the access of everyone to the basics of comfortable survival and then to maximise the ability of everyone to live the way they please – as long as this does not prevent others from living as they please.

In other words life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now why didn’t someone else think of that?

[fishbob]

Response to Zarathustra, post 5:

Nose picking.
And posting on the internet.

[JoeEllison]

Then show me a human behavior which is not motivated by either fear and greed.

Most of them... since most of the things we do don't get us anything. You are seriously projecting your personal feelings of emptiness onto all of humanity. Not all of us fluctuate between "gimme!!!" and "don't hit me!"

The fact that you, personally, see life that way is just a reflection of you.

[Robin]

Subjective to me, would mean, of differing interpretations.
No, rather my position is that they do not exist at all beyond just being social concepts, in that we create, adhere, and live by their various incarnations out of nothing more than human fear or greed.
That is another way of saying they do exist. As ideas created by societies.

Ideas exist - they have causal power, ie the idea of God, the idea of democracy.

[Zarathustra]

Most of them... since most of the things we do don't get us anything. You are seriously projecting your personal feelings of emptiness onto all of humanity. Not all of us fluctuate between "gimme!!!" and "don't hit me!"

The fact that you, personally, see life that way is just a reflection of you.


ad hominem.

Then if that is your position, I challenge you to provide an example of a human behavior which would not fit into the category of either greed or fear.
A simple enough task I assume.

[JoeEllison]

ad hominem.

Then if that is your position, I challenge you to provide an example of a human behavior which would not fit into the category of either greed or fear.
A simple enough task I assume.
Everything that doesn't involve getting paid. Reading for pleasure, enjoying a meal, playing sudoku. I'm not acquiring anything, and there's no fear of losing anything.

And, no... not ad hominem. You can't hide from your problems by crying "everyone who says anything negative is just being mean!" We might just be right.

[Skeptical Greg]

Subjective to me, would mean, of differing interpretations.
Uh, huh .. That would be subjective..

No, rather my position is that they do not exist at all beyond just being social concepts, in that we create, adhere, and live by their various incarnations.... Which means they are subjective ..


... out of nothing more than human fear or greed.Which are subjective..


What was your question again?

Do morals and ethics really exist ?

Yes they do .. Even when they are based on fear and greed ..

[Zarathustra]

That is another way of saying they do exist. As ideas created by societies.

Ideas exist - they have causal power, ie the idea of God, the idea of democracy.

Here's an example: If I kill a fellow human, and no one finds out about it to exact punishment, is it still wrong?

Would then animals be subject to such ethics?
if so, why?


So in this case, is murder a universal wrong, or only so as a concept within the confines of a society which considers it so?
~And if we accept this as true, (In the sense that observations of science can be considered true), then would given the fact that the ideas concerning the concept of "gods" be also considered true if the majority of a certain society accepts them as well?
My position is that both are illusory.

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's an example: If I kill a fellow human, and no one finds out about it to exact punishment, is it still wrong?
Yes

Would then animals be subject to such ethics? No



So in this case, is murder a universal wrong, or only so as a concept within the confines of a society which considers it so?Yes
Yes



~And if we accept this as true, (In the sense that observations of science can be considered true), then would given the fact that the ideas concerning the concept of "gods" be also considered true if the majority of a certain society accepts them as well?
My position is that both are illusory.
Your position is illusory .

[Piscivore]

"You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!"

"greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

[Zarathustra]

Everything that doesn't involve getting paid. Reading for pleasure, enjoying a meal, playing sudoku. I'm not acquiring anything, and there's no fear of losing anything.


Reading for pleasure, enjoying a meal, and playing Sudoku- all Aquisitions of pleasure falls into the Greed category.

Note that as I am using it here, it does not have to be to the extreme.


And, no... not ad hominem. You can't hide from your problems by crying "everyone who says anything negative is just being mean!" We might just be right.

ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made .

Since you were not debating the facts of the question, but rather relaying an emotive response, it was indeed an act of ad hominem, unless you are redefining the word as it stands now.

[Robin]

Here's an example: If I kill a fellow human, and no one finds out about it to exact punishment, is it still wrong?

Would then animals be subject to such ethics?
if so, why?


So in this case, is murder a universal wrong, or only so as a concept within the confines of a society which considers it so?
~And if we accept this as true, (In the sense that observations of science can be considered true), then would given the fact that the ideas concerning the concept of "gods" be also considered true if the majority of a certain society accepts them as well?
My position is that both are illusory.
This does not appear to relate to anything I said in either of my posts. Did you confuse my post with somone else's?

Please read what I actually said (in both posts) and then respond.

Thanks

[Zarathustra]

"You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!"


Indeed I can, unless you can provide a third category.

[Piscivore]

[If I kill a fellow human, and no one finds out about it to exact punishment, is it still wrong?] YesUm, no.
Whether someone finds out or not is irrelevant to whether it may be immoral or not.

[is murder a universal wrong]Yes
No.

[Zarathustra]

This does not appear to relate to anything I said in either of my posts. Did you confuse my post with somone else's?

Please read what I actually said (in both posts) and then respond.

Thanks

I read the post, and I found it unintelligible.

[Zarathustra]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Your position is illusory .


And this is your position because......

[JoeEllison]

You know what this reminds me of? Have any of you seen Donnie Darko? That idiot pedophile character played by Patrick Swayze?

Or is it just me?

[Zarathustra]

You know what this reminds me of? Have any of you seen Donnie Darko? That idiot pedophile character played by Patrick Swayze?

Or is it just me?

Perhaps you simply see yourself in others.

[JoeEllison]

Perhaps you simply see yourself in others.

Nice try... but your childish "I know you are but what am I" behavior goes right alongside your "I see the world the way a three year old does, as all greed and fear". We can all see it, you can't avoid it, and I can also assume you haven't seen "Donnie Darko"? I can make you a copy of it and send it to you.

How would a gift, freely given, with nothing expected in return, count as "greed" or "fear", unless you redefine the words until they are meaningless?

[Piscivore]

Indeed I can, unless you can provide a third category.

You "can" only if you expand the definitions of the two words so broadly that they become meaningless.

For example, "Aquisitions of pleasure" does not fit into anyone else's definition of "greed". If I tell you my friend was acting "greedy" at the mall the other day, that could mean almost anything- from a little window shopping to relieve stress, looking at cute boys, having a rare hot dog from the vendor at the food court, to buying everything up to her credit limit, shoplifting, rape and murder (if she enjoys these things)- under your "definition".

Your categories are meaningless and pointless, even if, (and perhaps because) they are simple. They add not one bit to our understanding of human behaviour. They have no predictive value. They do not have any value in determining morals and ethics.

[Cosmo]

Then if that is your position, I challenge you to provide an example of a human behavior which would not fit into the category of either greed or fear.
A simple enough task I assume.

Altruism?

[Piscivore]

You know what this reminds me of? Have any of you seen Donnie Darko? That idiot pedophile character played by Patrick Swayze?

Or is it just me?

No (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3277671&postcount=15). :D

[Robin]

I read the post, and I found it unintelligible.
Well why didn't you just say so, instead of going off on an irrelevant tangent????

If you find a post unintelligible then you can either say so, or ignore it.

But instead you responded as though you had simply misunderstood it. Why?

[PAC]

The theory of the social contract suggests that by nature humans are bound only by their own individual sense of self control. However, in order to gain the benefits provided by a structured society we voluntarily give up some self determination. In this thought process moral/ethical behavior is developed by a society in order for the members of the society to gain
benefits by cooperating with others.

[Zarathustra]

Nice try...
I notice that you tend to say this a lot.
As Indigo Montoya would say.
"I do not think this means what you think it means".

[six7s]

Your thoughts?

I think, that for me to reply to what was your 42nd post is somehow apt :)

Shame it doesn't make much sense :(

Equally sad is that several posts have been made to explain that you are being nonsensical but, for some reason, you are choosing to carry on regardless

TIP: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging :)

Since Morality and Ethics so far as we know, are constructs mainly of a human societal nature, they should exist outside of it. :confused: Huh? Why 'outside'? How? Please feel free to illustrate by identifying other human constructs that exist outside it (whatever 'it' is)

Proponents of the concept of Moral/Ethical behavior are in effect, really only proponents of the two prime motivators of human behavior which are,
Fear and Greed.

Ummm... yeah... whatever floats your boat.

Greed= Desire for acquisitions.

Fear= Loss of acquisitions.

Maybe in your simplified world

Meanwhile, here on Earth, especially in parts where is English is spoken, the terms are defined rather differently

However, may I suggest that before you start redefining terms, you first acknowledge what is widely agreed upon

How does a word get into the dictionary? How can I get my word into the dictionary?
(http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/t54.html)
A word gets into the dictionary by being used. That's the only way. Lexicographers - the people who make dictionaries - don't make words; they find them and record them. They are like the entomologist who goes into the rain forest looking for new species of beetles. Similarly, you can't invent a word and petition to have it admitted into the dictionary. You can invent a word and use it, of course, and if your word catches on it might end up in the dictionary some day. However, this is extremely unlikely.

NB Its highly unlikely that using existing words for new (and trivial) concepts will be readily accepted


Furthermore, the words morals and ethics both mean 'mores, customs, manners (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moral)' or, 'normal' i.e. the way we normally do stuff, think, act, etc. They are not 'concepts' that have 'proponents'

To ask if 'normal' exists is patently absurd

[Zarathustra]

Altruism?

Excellent.
However I am of the view that egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)is at the root of this motivation, which falls under Greed.

[Robin]

Excellent.
However I am of the view that egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)is at the root of this motivation, which falls under Greed.
Relevant words "...I am of the view that ...".

In other words, whatever examples anybody gives, you will shoehorn it into your own world view and give no more reason why we should believe you than "coz I sed so".

[Piscivore]

Furthermore, the words morals and ethics both mean 'mores, customs, manners (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moral)' or, 'normal'

No, they used to mean that.

Nowadays, they mean this:
mor·al
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

and

eth·ics
–plural noun 1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.


It is certainly possible to have morals and ethics that deviate from the "norm", even to the point of exclusivity, that are equally valid.

Oskar Schindler comes to mind.

[Piscivore]

Excellent.
However I am of the view that egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)is at the root of this motivation, which falls under Greed.

No, it doesn't.

ETA: Five different dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed) and none of them mention "self-interest" as a component of "greed".

[Zarathustra]

Relevant words "...I am of the view that ...".

In other words, whatever examples anybody gives, you will shoehorn it into your own world view and give no more reason why we should believe you than "coz I sed so".

The fact that human behavior is governed by the nature of either Greed (we can call it desire to satisfy semantics) or fear is hardly shoe-horning.

Everything that one does is ultimately a selfish action.
Therefore, morality and ethics are not governed by some higher authority as some would believe, but are simply rules of specific society, and only apply within the context of said society. Indeed there are general, cross-cultural ethos that propagate through most of human societies, but again, ultimately they are illusory.
Were I to visit a culture where killing was moral and kindness were sin, it would only serve to point out that ethics are once more, context specific.

If one removes the individual from the enviornment where these "rules" are in play, then they cease to exist.

So at the root of my argument, ultimately there is no right and wrong, no good and evil, no positive and negative beyond that which we ourselves fool each other into thinking so.

To put it another way, Murder and giving someone flowers is, when observed beyond the scope of human judgment, equal in value.

~The universe doesn't care if I'm a good or bad guy,
It just pushes to pass on my genes and then die.

Of course, In reality I still have to pay my bills, tolerate my neighbors and generally be a law abiding citizen and good husband if I wish to have more stuff and not have it taken away.
But at the end of the day, as try as I might, I'm in no position to fool myself that I'm doing whatever it is I'm doing for any other greater good than my own ego and self interests.

[Piscivore]

Eris help the boy, he's discovered Ayn Rand. :oldroll:

[six7s]

No, they used to mean that.

Nowadays, they mean this:


mor·al
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

or 'normal'
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

or 'how to be normal'
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

or 'what we do to be normal'
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

or 'being normal'
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

or 'being normal'
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.

OK... fairy nuff...

[Zarathustra]

Oskar Schindler comes to mind.

Altruism is to placate the Ego.
Whilst no one can say definitively what Oskar Schindler was thinking in the course of his actions, we can probably state that he did so because he felt what he was doing was the correct action.

He felt perhaps fear for the subjects in which he helped.
His ego's reward?
The personal good feeling of knowing his fears had been allayed to varying degrees, that what he did was a good and moral thing in his mind.

It amazes me how far the mind will go to satisfy the ego.

This can be said of the opposite as well.
For look at the lengths that a person such as Hitler went to satisfy his own.

[Zarathustra]

Eris help the boy, he's discovered Ayn Rand. :oldroll:

I would have thought my user name would have given that away by now.
:D

But seriously,
No.

[six7s]

Altruism is to placate the Ego

Placate? Am I correct in inferring that a rather large dose of Judaeo/Christian style GUILT was behind this rather sweeping statement?

If so, maybe this'll help: :broomstic

[Piscivore]

or 'normal'

or 'how to be normal'

or 'what we do to be normal'

or 'being normal'

or 'being normal'

No, none of those things have anything at all to do with being "normal".

[Piscivore]

He felt perhaps fear for the subjects in which he helped.
His ego's reward?
The personal good feeling of knowing his fears had been allayed to varying degrees, that what he did was a good and moral thing in his mind.

It amazes me how far the mind will go to satisfy the ego.

This can be said of the opposite as well.
For look at the lengths that a person such as Hitler went to satisfy his own.
That's a whole lot of assuming you are doing there.

Any response to my earlier comments (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3277711&postcount=25)?

[six7s]

No, none of those things have anything at all to do with being "normal".

Sez you

I, however, think that they do

And I am slightly confuzzled as to what you consider normal

However, I don't feel a need to know

[Piscivore]

I would have thought my user name would have given that away by now.

"Zarathustra" brings to my mind first "Little Fuzzy", by H. Beam Piper, then Neitzsche, then the relatively obscure Persian god, then Strauss. Rand doesn't even register in relation to that word for me.

[Piscivore]

Sez you

I, however, think that they do

Are you saying that whatever is the majority opinion is what is moral and/or ethical? That it was perfectly moral to lynch Black people in the US SE in the 60s, and immoral not to?

I do not think you are saying this, and I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just think that getting your definitions from an etymological dictionary isn't the best idea.

[Zarathustra]

Placate? Am I correct in inferring that a rather large dose of Judaeo/Christian style GUILT was behind this rather sweeping statement?


In this sense I refer to the definition of placate as in: to calm or satisfy.
As in the satisfaction of a desire.

[Zarathustra]

That's a whole lot of assuming you are doing there.

Any response to my earlier comments (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3277711&postcount=25)?

As I pointed out, they are assumptions, but what I'm getting at here is the root of one's motivations.

What you have been doing, is engaging in the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Common Practice"
I think most people on this forum can visualize and identify with the concept of the two categories concerning Greed and Fear, which, are hardly revolutionary.
Granted, I may be using them a little bit more abstractly than accustomed to, but disagreements about word usage aside, I think the arguement does stand for itself.

Besides, it's deliciously ironic to use that word considering under common societal ethics it is generally considered unethical.
:D

[Robin]

The fact that human behavior is governed by the nature of either Greed (we can call it desire to satisfy semantics) or fear is hardly shoe-horning.

Everything that one does is ultimately a selfish action.
But that is your own opinion and not backed up by any evidence or argument
Therefore, morality and ethics are not governed by some higher authority as some would believe, …
I am not aware that anybody here has suggested that they are.
…but are simply rules of specific society, and only apply within the context of said society.
I quite agree.
Indeed there are general, cross-cultural ethos that propagate through most of human societies, but again, ultimately they are illusory.
Were I to visit a culture where killing was moral and kindness were sin, it would only serve to point out that ethics are once more, context specific.

If one removes the individual from the enviornment where these "rules" are in play, then they cease to exist.
Again, I quite agree, there is no universal moral law. For example see Tim Flannery's "Thowim Way Leg" for an account of the old PNG highlander's fond nostalgia for the old cannibal days.
So at the root of my argument, ultimately there is no right and wrong, no good and evil, no positive and negative beyond that which we ourselves fool each other into thinking so.

To put it another way, Murder and giving someone flowers is, when observed beyond the scope of human judgment, equal in value.

~The universe doesn't care if I'm a good or bad guy,
It just pushes to pass on my genes and then die.
But it is irrelevant that the universe doesn’t care. It is whether we care that is important.
Of course, In reality I still have to pay my bills, tolerate my neighbors and generally be a law abiding citizen and good husband if I wish to have more stuff and not have it taken away.
But at the end of the day, as try as I might, I'm in no position to fool myself that I'm doing whatever it is I'm doing for any other greater good than my own ego and self interests.
You are fooling yourself if you think you know the answers about why people behave the way they do. We may behave in a particular way because in the past it has provided a comparative survival advantage, but no longer does.

For example perhaps the behaviour of physically defending your own societal group from outsiders was set in a period before the development of weapons and when this type of behaviour provided more survival benefits than lethal consequences.

The fact is we just don’t know and in some ways it is irrelevant.

A moral or ethical system is a rule set that is defined in such a way as to provide a certain societal outcome, given our animal natures.

If the rule set does in fact provide the societal outcome that we want then we are hardly fooling ourselves about anything.

And if some people choose to trade their personal survival to protect this rule set then, maybe it is ego, maybe it is genetic determinism, maybe it is a rational decision. Maybe it is a complex combination of a number of such factors.

I wouldn’t be so rash as to suggest I know all the answers about this, perhaps you shouldn’t be either.

[Zarathustra]

Are you saying that whatever is the majority opinion is what is moral and/or ethical? That it was perfectly moral to lynch Black people in the US SE in the 60s, and immoral not to?


Appeal to Emotion.

In any event, my answer, as unpopular as it may be, is that nature doesn't care one way or the other what anyone does. Only humans do.

[Zarathustra]

I wouldn’t be so rash as to suggest I know all the answers about this, perhaps you shouldn’t be either.


In a debate, the position must be zealously defended.
My personal feelings have no relevance on the matter.

Where I am proven wrong, we learn something.
Where I am proven right, we learn something.

[six7s]

Are you saying that whatever is the majority opinion is what is moral and/or ethical?

Yes... or at least 'yes' when the 'majority' is readily identifiable and finite

That it was perfectly moral to lynch Black people in the US SE in the 60s, and immoral not to?

I'm not a huge fan of an absolute term such as 'perfectly' in this context - for two reasons:

It suggests a value judgement where none is appropriate
It suggests absolutism - which was (obviously) not the case as lynching and racism in general were seen as reprehensible/repugnant by some (ie not none) of the people in that society
...I'm not trying to start a fight here...
Y'ain't gonna get one neither.... AND... I have read enough of your posts to assume as much :)

I will readily admit that my 'point' was a bit blunt and solely semantic in nature... but hey, this is a text-based medium... and the OP was twisting words (for what end, I have no eyed deer)

I just think that getting your definitions from an etymological dictionary isn't the best idea.

Fairy nuff

Won't be the last time my idea ain't the best

However, for the time being, I'm not really all that concerned... simply cos I think playing semantic games with distorted definitions is futile

[six7s]

In this sense I refer to the definition of placate as in: to calm or satisfy.
As in the satisfaction of a desire.

So... altruism satisfies the desire of the ego?

OK... now I'm even more confuzzled

[six7s]

but disagreements about word usage aside, I think the arguement does stand for itself

Ermmm.... with disagreements about word usage put aside, you don't have an argument

[Zarathustra]

But that is your own opinion and not backed up by any evidence or argument


No, I assert that I'm pretty much on the money as far as human nature is concerned, and those who think that their actions are without some sort of selfish benefit are committing a most grievous fallacy upon themselves.
The proof that you are asking for can be seen plainly.
Example:
Assuming you go to work in the morning, what is the impetus for you to get out of bed?
Fear of getting fired?
Desire to do a job well done?
If your job serves others, is it satisfaction that comes with providing what you see as a positive affect?
Do we receive a feeling of purpose?

Or is it to make more money, and therefore have the means to provide more of the things which make you happy?
Or perhaps fear of these things being taken away?

What about personal relationships?
Why do we compliment and do nice things for other people?
Is it because we feel good ourselves when we see others?

What makes one stick to a job they hate?
Or continue to live with a spouse they despise?

The answer and evidence are fear and greed.
The desire to be more and more happy, and the fear of losing it.
Fear of loss or greed for that which makes us feel good.
For those that dismiss greed as a definition for want of more happiness, I submit to you this question:

Is there ever a point in one's life where they claim they have all the happiness they could ever want, or it is human nature to want more happiness?

[Zarathustra]

So... altruism satisfies the desire of the ego?

OK... now I'm even more confuzzled

Why do people engage in seemingly unselfish acts for others?
If the answer is "Because it's the right thing to do," then this would tend to predicate the person's feeling of abiding by his/her own feeling of ethics, which ultimately makes them feel good, which shows that even unselfish actions outwardly produces benefit to the actor.

Apparently doing the "right" thing in unison with personal morality, and seeing a desired outcome makes us feel exceptionally good.

The irony of course, is that if we admit that this is the motivator, it will reduce the image we are attempting to portray to others, thereby lessening or in some cases negating the personal satisfaction one receives from such an act.

[Zarathustra]

Ermmm.... with disagreements about word usage put aside, you don't have an argument

Simply writing the words "you don't have an argument" will not serve to prove your position, and disprove my own.

[six7s]

...this would tend to predicate the person's feeling of abiding by his/her own feeling of ethics, which ultimately makes them feel good, which shows that even unselfish actions outwardly produces benefit to the actor

That you feel qualified to make such a statement suggests to me that you don't know enough to be a regarded as an authority

[six7s]

Simply writing the words "you don't have an argument" will not serve to prove your position, and disprove my own.

My position is that, in light of your vacuous posts, you do not have an argument

I can't prove such a negative

The onus is on you to prove me wrong

[Zarathustra]

That you feel qualified to make such a statement suggests to me that you don't know enough to be a regarded as an authority

Being human, I assure you, I'm quite qualified.
The only authority I am appealing to is human nature observed.

So I'll beg the question:

What is your evidence to show that people do "good" things for others if not to personal receive benefit?
Mind you, I've already covered that one feeling good for the sake of doing "good" things already falls under the desire for personal happiness, which is a selfish benefit.

[Zarathustra]

My position is that, in light of your vacuous posts, you do not have an argument

I can't prove such a negative

The onus is on you to prove me wrong

You see? Proof positive.
By launching an ad hominem attack instead of debating properly, you inflate your own ego, and thus make yourself feel better.

Unfortunately this does nothing to aid your position.

[Mobyseven]

Subjective to me, would mean, of differing interpretations.
No, rather my position is that they do not exist at all beyond just being social concepts, in that we create, adhere, and live by their various incarnations out of nothing more than human fear or greed.

Okay, lets see how this game plays out. I'm betting that people will name things as far away as possible from 'fear' and 'greed', and the keen philosophical mind of Zarathustra will chime in and say, "No, no - see it might not seem like they're based on fear or greed, but they really are because [insert bizarre rationalisation]!"

How's this? Helping an old lady cross the road, without any expectation or desire for reward.

[Robin]

No, I assert that I'm pretty much on the money as far as human nature is concerned, and those who think that their actions are without some sort of selfish benefit are committing a most grievous fallacy upon themselves.
The proof that you are asking for can be seen plainly.
Example:...
You have provided neither proof nor evidence, not even example, just a series of (highly selective) questions and answers that are your own personal opinion.

Who knows the answer as to why people behave as they do? You are simply fooling yourself if you claim to understand what the leading scientists in the field of mind studies would not claim.

And as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to the point about morality/ethics.

There is a set of rules which, if adhered to by a sufficiently large majority, will lead to a societal outcome that most of us would regard as desirable.

This set of rules appears to provide the result required and so we hold to them.

In this sense, of course, morality and ethics is about maximising pleasure and minimising pain on a societal level. That is fine by me, what else would or should it be about?

But the question is not about why we go to work or why we compliment people. Go to where the rubber hits the road - why do people stick to these rules when they are personally and fatally disadvantaged by them?

You claim "ego", but do not provide any reasoning or evidence for this, you simply assume your conclusion.

[Robin]

How's this? Helping an old lady cross the road, without any expectation or desire for reward.
Have you ever come across the TV show "Little Britain"?

[six7s]

Being human, I assure you, I'm quite qualified.
The only authority I am appealing to is human nature observed

Ummm... that's not quite what I meant by authority... but never mind

What is your evidence to show that people do "good" things for others if not to personal receive benefit?

It's been a while since I studied this, but I do recall some keywords that might help:

Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030 for satisfy wants needs altruism maslow (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=satisfy+wants+needs+altruism+maslow&btnG=Search)

Mind you, I've already covered that one feeling good for the sake of doing "good" things already falls under the desire for personal happiness, which is a selfish benefit.

The sooner you acknowledge that you might, just might, be missing a few crucial points, the sooner you'll be open to different perspectives

[six7s]

You see? Proof positive.
By launching an ad hominem attack instead of debating properly, you inflate your own ego, and thus make yourself feel better.

Unfortunately this does nothing to aid your position.

I think you'll find you are as wrong as a very wrong thing


I have not launched an ad hom


You seem no wiser than I in regard to 'proper' debating


I have no need to inflate my ego via an online forum


I feel great already... no 'better' (nor no worse) for this petty diversion


My 'position ' needs no aid because it is, in case you forgot/failed to notice/whatever, quite simply that "in light of your vacuous posts, you do not have an argument"


Feel free to rip to shreds any or all of the above, esp if it makes you feel better

[six7s]

Have you ever come across the TV show "Little Britain"?


Across? No

During? Maybe

:p

[Mobyseven]

Have you ever come across the TV show "Little Britain"?

First season: Good.

Second season: Great.

Third season: Unwatchable.

Did I miss something in the third season?

ETA: Oh wait. Ew. Must scrub brain.

[Skeptical Greg]

You see? Proof positive.
By launching an ad hominem attack instead of debating properly, you inflate your own ego, and thus make yourself feel better.

Unfortunately this does nothing to aid your position.

Contrary to popular belief, ad hom is not fallacious by default .

For example; if someone says something stupid, and it is pointed out, it is hard to avoid the implication that the bearer of stupid, was in fact stupid at that particular moment.
The person who points it out, would appear to have improved their position; relatively speaking ..

Not saying that happened here of course ...

[Piscivore]

As I pointed out, they are assumptions, but what I'm getting at here is the root of one's motivations.
And by what alchemy do you know anyone's motivations?

What you have been doing, is engaging in the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Common Practice"
No, I haven't because I'm talking about common definitons, not practices. Common definitions are essential or we talk past each other. Read the post again to which I directed you- all the behaviours I listed would be covered under your expanded "definition" of "Greed", and so renders "Greed" essentially meaningless because noone can possibly know what you could possibly mean by "Greed".

I think most people on this forum can visualize and identify with the concept of the two categories concerning Greed and Fear, which, are hardly revolutionary.
But the concepts as you use them have no meaning. If you say little Susie Sunshine eats an ice cream because of Greed- so what? You've expanded the definition so far that it is equivalent to saying Guido the Pimp killed his crack whore because of Greed or Mrs. Finnegan gave the homeless guy on the corner a quarter out of Greed. It means nothing. One might as well say they all did these things because of Shmelnitz. Your categories tell us nothing at all about the behaviour.

Granted, I may be using them a little bit more abstractly than accustomed to,
"A bit"? That's like saying Picasso took a few liberties with perspective.

but disagreements about word usage aside, I think the arguement does stand for itself.
It does not stand because you have not actually said anything. Your "greed and fear" hypothesis is devoid of any signifigance whatsoever.

Besides, it's deliciously ironic to use that word considering under common societal ethics it is generally considered unethical.
:D
What word?

Appeal to Emotion.
Well, first: no, it isn't. Just the second thing that popped into my mind (the first, naturally, was Nazi Germany.) I'm glad you are studying the fallacies but they are not weapons of war to be tossed around like grenades to "destroy" a point, they are tools for identifying errors.

The analogy would be as apt if I used the example of someone who thought bribery and graft immoral in a culture where these behaviours were the "norm".

Second, if you will notice, that post was addresssed to someone else and was not part of what I was saying to you. If you are not paying attention to what is said and just want to automatically gainsay whatever anyone posts I'll say goodnight. If I want to get into one of those conversations Claus is far more entertaining.

In any event, my answer, as unpopular as it may be, is that nature doesn't care one way or the other what anyone does. Only humans do.
I do not recall saying otherwise. What has that to do with your "Greed and Fear" hypothesis?

[Piscivore]

Yes... or at least 'yes' when the 'majority' is readily identifiable and finite
How about the converse? Is a minority opinion by default immoral? E.G. the abolitionists, or the draft dodgers in in '69?

It suggests a value judgement where none is appropriate
Wait- morals and ethics are all about value judgements, aren't they?
It suggests absolutism - which was (obviously) not the case as lynching and racism in general were seen as reprehensible/repugnant by some (ie not none) of the people in that society.
That's my point. They opposed "The Norm", yet were still moral and ethical.

and the OP was twisting words (for what end, I have no eyed deer)
I think I do, but I'm keeping it to myself. I just don't see correcting an error with another error as a wise move. :)

[six7s]

How about the converse? Is a minority opinion by default immoral? E.G. the abolitionists, or the draft dodgers in in '69?

No, not immoral by default:

Not immoral in the eyes of the abolitionists and/or draft dodgers themselves
Immoral in the eyes of those who disagreed


Wait- morals and ethics are all about value judgements, aren't they?

OK... in one sense (the prevalent use of the words), yes.

But... and I freely admit that it is a huge BUT, just cos a whole bunch of people hijack some terms doesn't mean... oh, you can guess the rest... I'm obviously approaching advanced BOF status.

Anyhoo... you said "perfectly moral" (to lynch etc), and, to my addled brain, the word perfectly was incongruous/inapt/etc

That's my point. They opposed "The Norm", yet were still moral and ethical.

My (perhaps ill-conceived and maybe even stillborn) point is/was that they weren't opposing their own norms

I think I do, but I'm keeping it to myself. I just don't see correcting an error with another error as a wise move. :)

Dang! Wisdom! Completely forgot about that :o

[Piscivore]

No, not immoral by default:

Not immoral in the eyes of the abolitionists and/or draft dodgers themselves
Immoral in the eyes of those who disagreed

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

OK... in one sense (the prevalent use of the words), yes.

But... and I freely admit that it is a huge BUT, just cos a whole bunch of people hijack some terms doesn't mean... oh, you can guess the rest... I'm obviously approaching advanced BOF status.

Anyhoo... you said "perfectly moral" (to lynch etc), and, to my addled brain, the word perfectly was incongruous/inapt/etc
Yeah, "perfectly" was a poor choice of words. I was using it idiomatically and that's also a bad idea with an equivocator around. Thanks for the catch.

[Piscivore]

Okay, lets see how this game plays out. I'm betting that people will name things as far away as possible from 'fear' and 'greed', and the keen philosophical mind of Zarathustra will chime in and say, "No, no - see it might not seem like they're based on fear or greed, but they really are because [insert bizarre rationalisation]!"

I think you are correct in this, and that's why his hypothesis is meaningless. He might as well have said all human behaviour is the result of respiration and digestion- even if it were proved true, it really tells us nothing at all about human behaviour. It makes no distinctions whatsoever, and distinctions are the whole purpose of classification.

[Zarathustra]

I think you are correct in this, and that's why his hypothesis is meaningless. He might as well have said all human behaviour is the result of respiration and digestion- even if it were proved true, it really tells us nothing at all about human behaviour. It makes no distinctions whatsoever, and distinctions are the whole purpose of classification.

Well said, and a very interesting point.

[Zarathustra]

And by what alchemy do you know anyone's motivations?


Years of direct observation over the course of living a normal life.
My conclusion thus far, sparing any highly unlikely divine intervention event, is that humans are motivated by either acquisition or fear of loss of acquisition. I have yet to read of anyone who can present a scenario in which a specific human behavior falls outside of the two categories. If I am presented with one which I cannot satisfactorily add to either of the two, I would be forced to reconsider my position, as this is logical and reasonable. If, on the other hand, no such scenario is forthcoming, then the position must stand until such evidence is manifest.
On the semantics of Greed and Fear, I have defined them here for the purposes of the argument, since a common debate tactic is to get the opponent to change their definitions and verbiage, I remain with the original
definitions.


But the concepts as you use them have no meaning. If you say little Susie Sunshine eats an ice cream because of Greed- so what? You've expanded the definition so far that it is equivalent to saying Guido the Pimp killed his crack whore because of Greed or Mrs. Finnegan gave the homeless guy on the corner a quarter out of Greed. It means nothing. One might as well say they all did these things because of Shmelnitz. Your categories tell us nothing at all about the behaviour.


This is another good point, since the crux of my position is to argue that all human behaviors are ultimately ones of pure self-interest.
The catagories were a construct of illustration, since many people (Including myself) often identify with categorical models. I much appreciate you pointing this out.


Well, first: no, it isn't. Just the second thing that popped into my mind (the first, naturally, was Nazi Germany.) I'm glad you are studying the fallacies but they are not weapons of war to be tossed around like grenades to "destroy" a point, they are tools for identifying errors.



I must admit that when looking at the entire body of fallacies, I wasn't comfortable with using them as I have done here, as one could in fact, use them for just about anything with varying degrees of validity. However, as I am certain you well already know, personal insults, name calling, purposeful belittlement sans constructive logical evidence does not further the debate and is, by definition, ad hominem.

[Piscivore]

Years of direct observation over the course of living a normal life.

Let's play a game. You walk into a hospital waiting room and see a big fat guy eating a brownie. Why is he eating the brownie?

My conclusion thus far, sparing any highly unlikely divine intervention event, is that humans are motivated by either acquisition or fear of loss of acquisition.
That's actually someone elses' conclusion, but that's not important. The only way you can come to this conclusion is by equivocating with the definitions of "acquisition". For example, you spoke of "acquisition of pleasure"- sometimes pleasure must be sought, but sometimes pleasure happens spontaneously- happening to see a spectacular sunset, or meeting an old friend on the street. In these cases the person in question "Acquired pleasure", in the first sense of the definition (http://www.answers.com/acquire?cat=biz-fin)- "To gain possession of"- but then you jump to assuming motivation, which implies the second sense- "To get by one's own efforts".

This is a fallacy, called "equivocation".

I have yet to read of anyone who can present a scenario in which a specific human behavior falls outside of the two categories.
Of course you haven't, because, as has been said, you've exaggerated the definitions of your categories to include every aspect of human behaviour.

If I were to decide that I was going to classify every living thing that was not a plant a "dog", first of all, no one would understand-or worse misunderstand- what I meant when I pointed at a polar bear and said "doggie". Second, I wouldn't be saying anything meaningful about the polar bear because "doggie" equally means "ostritch", "fish", "tax collector", "prostitute", "anthrax bacillium", "that cute girl down at the chemist's", "Mom", and everything else living that was not a plant.

If I am presented with one which I cannot satisfactorily add to either of the two, I would be forced to reconsider my position, as this is logical and reasonable.
But it is not reasonable and logical to assume that this is the only possible way to prove the hypothesis is unsound. Which, you do:

If, on the other hand, no such scenario is forthcoming, then the position must stand until such evidence is manifest.
You've by your definition excluded any such scenario, so to claim that this is the only logical and reasonable evidence against your position is either an egregious error or disingenuous.

You are also shifting the burden of proof. It is your claim that all human behaviours are motivated by either acquisition or fear of loss of acquisition, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support that position. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to disprove it, and you do not get to claim it true because no one disproves it.

On the semantics of Greed and Fear, I have defined them here for the purposes of the argument, Your "definitions" are flawed at their core. And an incorrect premise, even when coupled with a valid argument, derives an incorrect conclusion. Which is what you have.

since a common debate tactic is to get the opponent to change their definitions and verbiage, I remain with the original definitions.
That seems to be a fallacy of composition; because some criticisms are merely "debate tactics", they are all invalid. Is that what you are saying?

This is another good point, since the crux of my position is to argue that all human behaviors are ultimately ones of pure self-interest.
Again, the only way you can do so is to expand the definition of "pure self-interest" to encompass all aspects of human behaviours. Which is pointless, fallacious, and meaningless.

The catagories were a construct of illustration, since many people (Including myself) often identify with categorical models. I much appreciate you pointing this out.
But they do not illustrate anything, except that a human can call something anything it wants to.

I must admit that when looking at the entire body of fallacies, I wasn't comfortable with using them as I have done here, as one could in fact, use them for just about anything with varying degrees of validity.
Well, as "correctly" and "incorrectly" could be seen as "varying degrees of validity" I guess that's right. :)

However, as I am certain you well already know, personal insults, name calling, purposeful belittlement sans constructive logical evidence does not further the debate and is, by definition, ad hominem.
Good thing we haven't done that then.

[Jimbo07]

A physical basis for moral/ethical (dare I say social) interaction? I don't think it's conclusive, yet, but you might want to look at Mirror Neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neurons). Specifically, look at the section regarding empathy. While I heard a psychologist on the radio the other day disagreeing that empathic or social behavior is not due to mirror neurons (more than the sum of our parts, I guess), that's not the point.

The point is there may be a physical basis for doing what we do (mirror neurons, or some other mechanism). We may be retrofitting words to behaviors that existed before the development of language!

[Piscivore]

We may be retrofitting words to behaviors that existed before the development of language!

Given what we can observe in animal behaviours and how humans use language (in this thread, even) I think that is highly probable.

[Zarathustra]

Let's play a game. You walk into a hospital waiting room and see a big fat guy eating a brownie. Why is he eating the brownie?


Given the fact that you mentioned he was overweight, we can deduce it is not for the purposes of sustenance, hence we can further deduce the following possiblities:

1. The man derives pleasure from the process of eating. Furthermore, since he is at a hospital we can assume that he is aware that eating sweets in his condition is unhealthy, therefore we can further link that the pleasure the man experiences from eating outweighs his knowledge and concern for his health.

Self-interest prevails.

2. If the man were on a regimen whereby the brownie contained medicine, his actions are of self-interest as he knows the brownie is medicine and will help him.

again, in this scenario, self-interest prevails.

3. Were the man in a situation of being given 6 months to live, perhaps (due to facing a painful death, or a financial/emotion burden upon those he cares for (loss) the brownie is poisoned and he is committing suicide.

Self-interest once would appear to once more prevail.



The only way you can come to this conclusion is by equivocating with the definitions of "acquisition". For example, you spoke of "acquisition of pleasure"- sometimes pleasure must be sought, but sometimes pleasure happens spontaneously- happening to see a spectacular sunset, or meeting an old friend on the street. In these cases the person in question "Acquired pleasure", in the first sense of the definition (http://www.answers.com/acquire?cat=biz-fin)- "To gain possession of"- but then you jump to assuming motivation, which implies the second sense- "To get by one's own efforts".


Another excellent point, however I am not referring to spontaneous pleasurable events, but rather as you pointed out, active motivations, so I'm not certain where you are going with that line.


This is a fallacy, called "equivocation".


After reading up on equivocation just now, I am forced to admit that apparently you are correct.


Of course you haven't, because, as has been said, you've exaggerated the definitions of your categories to include every aspect of human behaviour.


I'd be interested to read on why you have concluded that it is illogical to create such divisions.


If I were to decide that I was going to classify every living thing that was not a plant a "dog", first of all, no one would understand-or worse misunderstand- what I meant when I pointed at a polar bear and said "doggie". Second, I wouldn't be saying anything meaningful about the polar bear because "doggie" equally means "ostritch", "fish", "tax collector", "prostitute", "anthrax bacillium", "that cute girl down at the chemist's", "Mom", and everything else living that was not a plant.


I don't think this is a necessarily an accurate depiction of what I have done here in that most reasonable persons can mostly likely infer that Greed (absent of the negative connotation) fall under a broad definition of acquisition, and that fear may seen as loss. While as i accept it is not the common usage, I simply don't think it's that much of a stretch, and i'll explain why with an example:

A man gives a kidney to another person, thereby shortening his own life and possibly extending another's only measurably. What possible reason could someone have for committing such an outwardly seeming act of kindness?
What are the motivations?

I can see only two:

1. The man is doing what his personal morality deems as correct, which is why I had invoke the concept of Ego. The man's desire to do what he feels is right and "ethical" outweighs even the high risk of detriment to his own life. We can therefore equate doing what the Ego (or Super ego) tells him is the correct action and thus he receives a measure of pleasurable feeling in doing what he feels is correct.

Self interest. (Greed)

2. The man fears the condition of suffering and/or loss associated with the other person's death or pain, and again, since the ego forces him to take the action he perceives as correct, he must then perform action 1 for the same reasoning. It could also be said that the man fears the condition which would be generated by inaction as well.

Self-interest (Fear)


Hmmmm...
At this point I can now see your point where it becomes difficult to follow and illogical.
So really it seems that all we have is ultimately acts of self interest.


Your "definitions" are flawed at their core. And an incorrect premise, even when coupled with a valid argument, derives an incorrect conclusion. Which is what you have.


It would appear so.


Again, the only way you can do so is to expand the definition of "pure self-interest" to encompass all aspects of human behaviours. Which is pointless, fallacious, and meaningless.


And this is because why, exactly?

[/QUOTE]

[Robin]

A physical basis for moral/ethical (dare I say social) interaction? I don't think it's conclusive, yet, but you might want to look at Mirror Neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neurons). Specifically, look at the section regarding empathy. While I heard a psychologist on the radio the other day disagreeing that empathic or social behavior is not due to mirror neurons (more than the sum of our parts, I guess), that's not the point.

The point is there may be a physical basis for doing what we do (mirror neurons, or some other mechanism). We may be retrofitting words to behaviors that existed before the development of language!
I would say that of course there is a physical basis for our moral/ethical and social interactions in fact all our behaviour. What other basis could there be?

[Piscivore]

Given the fact that you mentioned he was overweight, we can deduce it is not for the purposes of sustenance,
Fat people do not get hungry?

The man derives pleasure from the process of eating.
How do you know what he is experiencing? Maybe he is eating out of habit and distraught over this action.

Furthermore, since he is at a hospital we can assume that he is aware that eating sweets in his condition is unhealthy,
Maybe this is the first time he is seeing a doctor. How do you know? How do you even know he is here for himself? He may be waiting on someone.

therefore we can further link that the pleasure the man experiences from eating outweighs his knowledge and concern for his health.
That seems an unwarranted conclusion if you can not positively establish what he is experiencing or what knowledge he posesses.

If the man were on a regimen whereby the brownie contained medicine, his actions are of self-interest as he knows the brownie is medicine and will help him.
Is there such a regimen? Maybe he has diabetes and his blood sugar is low, which is a similar, mor likely situation, so I'l grant you that.

Were the man in a situation of being given 6 months to live, perhaps (due to facing a painful death, or a financial/emotion burden upon those he cares for (loss) the brownie is poisoned and he is committing suicide.
In a hospital, where he is likely to be revived? From a plate from which others might eat? Do you think this is likely?

You said "years of direct observation over the course of living a normal life" allowed you to know another person's motivations, but here you've just guessed a few. And you missed several, including the one I had in mind.

Self-interest prevails.
again, in this scenario, self-interest prevails.
Self-interest once would appear to once more prevail.
I know what your hypothesis is, but right now we are only talking about what you think you know about human motivations.

Another excellent point, however I am not referring to spontaneous pleasurable events, but rather as you pointed out, active motivations, so I'm not certain where you are going with that line.
The point about equivocation, below.

After reading up on equivocation just now, I am forced to admit that apparently you are correct.
English is a beautiful, complex language with many layers of meaning and well suited to artistic expression. For that exact reason it however it is also inexact and easily confounding. You'll find equivocation to be a very common error around here.

I'd be interested to read on why you have concluded that it is illogical to create such divisions.
Create what divisions? You are eliminating them.

I don't think this is a necessarily an accurate depiction of what I have done here in that most reasonable persons can mostly likely infer that Greed (absent of the negative connotation)
Simply put, greed "absent the negative connotation" is not greed. Despite what our Mr. Gekko (or the scriptwriter) might have claimed. He makes the same error in the quote I offered as you do, which is why I posted it.

fall under a broad definition of acquisition,
You've got that backwards. Greed is already defined (http://www.answers.com/greed&r=67) as an aspect of acquisition. You have to (and have) broadened the definition of greed to make acquisition part of greed.

and that fear may seen as loss.
"May be seen" does not equal "must be" though.

While as i accept it is not the common usage, I simply don't think it's that much of a stretch, and i'll explain why with an example:

A man gives a kidney to another person, thereby shortening his own life and possibly extending another's only measurably. What possible reason could someone have for committing such an outwardly seeming act of kindness?
What are the motivations?

I can see only two:

1. The man is doing what his personal morality deems as correct, which is why I had invoke the concept of Ego. The man's desire to do what he feels is right and "ethical" outweighs even the high risk of detriment to his own life. We can therefore equate doing what the Ego (or Super ego) tells him is the correct action and thus he receives a measure of pleasurable feeling in doing what he feels is correct.

Self interest. (Greed)

2. The man fears the condition of suffering and/or loss associated with the other person's death or pain, and again, since the ego forces him to take the action he perceives as correct, he must then perform action 1 for the same reasoning. It could also be said that the man fears the condition which would be generated by inaction as well.

Self-interest (Fear)

Okay, just as a parenthetical, Freud's "work" has been thoroughly discredited, so using his fanciful constructs in your thinking is going to guarantee error. But what I think you are trying to say can be said without his nonsense, so we'll let it pass.

Secondly, both of your points can be adequately ascribed to "self-interest" without the "Greed and Fear" hypothesis, or the tortuous linguistic gymnastics involved:
"The man receives a measure of pleasurable feeling in doing what he feels is correct." and "The man would experience suffering associated with the other person's death or pain"

We do not even have to go into his motivations. At all.

However and thirdly, this is one tiny aspect of a vast panoply of human behaviours, and a small sample used to extrapolate over a large population is a Hasty Generalisation.

Hmmmm...
At this point I can now see your point where it becomes difficult to follow and illogical.
So really it seems that all we have is ultimately acts of self interest.
Which is not really all that new or shocking a prospect, and we do not have to create those categories to explain it. I'm not saying that all human behaviour is or is not derived soley from self interest, but it can be discussed more accurately if we avoid multiplying categories beyond necessity.

And this is because why, exactly?
Well, I may have been getting ahead of myself a bit, but for similar reasons to what we've been discussing about "greed". If one can manipulate the unknown motivations for or the language describing a behaviour so it reflects self-interest, one runs the risk of creating error to support a premise instead of finding fact.

In your kidney analogy, if the man does recieve pleasure from doing what he thinks is right, that might be self interest- but what if he has been compelled to do it? What if it is done without his consent?

And if we cannot know his motivation, how can we determine if he acted in self-interest or not? We can postulate hypotheticals all week long, but that isn't evidence.

Also, declaring "all" something "is", "is caused by", or "causes" something else is usually unwarranted, because we do not, cannot have all the evidence.

[Zarathustra]

Fat people do not get hungry?


Indeed, but at that level, it's still falls under self-interest.


How do you know what he is experiencing? Maybe he is eating out of habit and distraught over this action.


Again, primarily my argument was really regarding conscious action, not impulse or unconscious action. If he is aware of what he is doing, he is satisfying a need, so it would be another act of self-interest.


In a hospital, where he is likely to be revived? From a plate from which others might eat? Do you think this is likely?


Why not? Unless you can say that no one has ever taken their own life in a hospital, though your point regarding it being a place where revival is likely is quite compelling, unless the actor is in a frame of mind which they may not consider such possibilities, which could be quite likely.



You said "years of direct observation over the course of living a normal life" allowed you to know another person's motivations, but here you've just guessed a few. And you missed several, including the one I had in mind.


Drat. I knew that wouldn't fly.:D


Simply put, greed "absent the negative connotation" is not greed. Despite what our Mr. Gekko (or the scriptwriter) might have claimed. He makes the same error in the quote I offered as you do, which is why I posted it.


You've got that backwards. Greed is already defined (http://www.answers.com/greed&r=67) as an aspect of acquisition. You have to (and have) broadened the definition of greed to make acquisition part of greed.



Arg. ~And therein goes my hypothesis, crashing noisily to the floor.



Okay, just as a parenthetical, Freud's "work" has been thoroughly discredited, so using his fanciful constructs in your thinking is going to guarantee error. But what I think you are trying to say can be said without his nonsense, so we'll let it pass.


Now this is interesting.
I was aware that the large body of Freud's work was discredited, but what of the Ego?
Would you happen to have any credible links to information regarding this?
(I'm not trying to be smart here, rather I was genuinely unaware that this particular idea had been discredited.)


Which is not really all that new or shocking a prospect, and we do not have to create those categories to explain it. I'm not saying that all human behaviour is or is not derived soley from self interest, but it can be discussed more accurately if we avoid multiplying categories beyond necessity.


A little Occam's razor never hurt anybody.
So my question to you now is, since you appear to understand why I was attempting to convey, how would you have formulated the argument?


In your kidney analogy, if the man does recieve pleasure from doing what he thinks is right, that might be self interest- but what if he has been compelled to do it? What if it is done without his consent?


If he was compelled, say at gunpoint, it is an issue of fear, and also thus of self-interest. If it was without his consent, say, he was in a coma and it was removed without his knowing, then the motivation would be moot.

[Earthborn]

Everything that one does is ultimately a selfish action.My main problem with people who claim that all human behaviour somehow selfish is that in order to maintain such a position, one needs to come up with really bizarre explanations for why people do seemingly unselfish things. Explanations that do not provide any testable predictions on the way humans behave, because humans can apperently behave in all sorts of ways.

The suggestion that all human behaviour is ultimately selfish does not provide testable predictions that exclude the opposite: that all human behaviour is ultimately altruistic. With the same ease that one can attribute selfishness to seemingly altruistic acts, one can attribute altruism to seemingly selfish acts. Perhaps the "ultimate" reason for a businessman to accumulate personal wealth is to give away much of it to charity to serve others. Perhaps the politician who strives for power does so because he thinks with power he can make the world a better place for others.

People who argue that all human behaviour is ultimately selfish need use the same fallacy as people who argue that all human behaviour is ultimately altruistic: assume that whatever is the result of a decision is the ultimate cause of it. "Someone gives to charity and feels good about doing so, therefore that person has given to feel good" it is argued, but there is no reason to assume that this was the reason for doing so prior to doing it. It may be that someone gives to charity for the benefit of others. With the same evidence you can argue that this person acquires personal wealth in order to benefit others.

Egoism and altruism are two sides of the same coin of human behaviour. Humans are highly social animals and therefore it is in one's own self-interest to be altruistic. Societies depend on the individuals within them, it is highly impractical to make all decisions for all people centrally and therefore it is in the interest of the whole of society to let people go after their own egoistic goals. You can claim that all humans do is ultimately egoistic because there is a dash of egoism in altruistic behaviour, but you would be claiming a half-truth; there is also a dash of altruism in egoistic behaviour and it would not disprove that both egoism and altruism exist.

Being human, I assure you, I'm quite qualified.
The only authority I am appealing to is human nature observed.You do realise of course that being human, you are not an impartial observer of human nature?

What is your evidence to show that people do "good" things for others if not to personal receive benefit?There are many people who have done things for which they did not received and could not reasonably have expected to receive personal benefit. They did it for others. Self-sacrifice is not all that uncommon: there are people who protest for the freedom of others while they can expect jail or horrible punishments. There are people who blow themselves up in the hope that it will stop an enemy from hurting their people. There are people who take lousy jobs to provide for their children and not just because it makes them feel good to see their children smile as staying at home with them makes it more likely to see them smile.

Mind you, I've already covered that one feeling good for the sake of doing "good" things already falls under the desire for personal happiness, which is a selfish benefit.You are just making stuff up to maintain the claim that altruistic behaviour is somehow still egoistic. You fail to realise that you can do the opposite as well and come to a similarly valid half-truth.

[Zarathustra]

You are just making stuff up to maintain the claim that altruistic behaviour is somehow still egoistic. You fail to realise that you can do the opposite as well and come to a similarly valid half-truth.

Which valid-half truth would that be exactly?


Also, am I to understand by you believe altruistic behavior arises from anything other than self-interest? Then from what? Some nebulous goody-two-shoes gene perhaps?
Or from divine imbuement of holy chocolaty goodness?

True, this is a sort of grey area I have been avoiding since as of yet science really cannot fully explain why it is we do some of the things we do.
But not knowing that certainly does not add weight to an argument that humans are somehow more "noble" or "ethical" than a Yeti crab, a house fern, or a even doorknob for that matter.


You do realise of course that being human, you are not an impartial observer of human nature?


True enough, though somedays I feel like I am.
:D

[Earthborn]

Which valid-half truth would that be exactly?As I told you, the opposite of the claim that all altruistic behaviour is motivated by self-interest: the claim that all egoistic behaviour is motivated by altruism.

Also, am I to understand by you believe altruistic behavior arises from anything other than self-interest?I believe that it isn't possible to meaningfully argue that one arises as the result of the other, as both behaviours develop side by side.

Then from what? Some nebulous goody-two-shoes gene perhaps?
Or from divine imbuement of holy chocolaty goodness?Your "self-interest" concept is no better and no less vague than those concepts.

True, this is a sort of grey area I have been avoiding since as of yet science really cannot fully explain why it is we do some of the things we do.All the more reason not to start with bold but unfalsifiable and unverifiable claims that "self-interest" is the motor behind all human behaviour.

But not knowing that certainly does not add weight to an argument that humans are somehow more "noble" or "ethical" than a Yeti crab, a house fern, or a even doorknob for that matter.Making such a claim is a moral judgement and science doesn't provide answers for those. Are you claiming that crabs, ferns and doorknobs are solely motivated by self-interest?

True enough, though somedays I feel like I am.
:DI noticed.

[six7s]

...that certainly does not add weight to an argument that humans are somehow more "noble" or "ethical" than a Yeti crab, a house fern, or a even doorknob for that matter

Is anyone (in the context of this discussion) promoting such an argument?

ETA: minus the doorknob

[Piscivore]

Again, primarily my argument was really regarding conscious action, not impulse or unconscious action. If he is aware of what he is doing, he is satisfying a need, so it would be another act of self-interest.
Ah, well, see, before you said "all".

What is really going to blow your mind (so to speak) later is that there is research (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Awareness_of_Intention) that seems to show that the body begins to act before one "decides" to do so.


Why not? Unless you can say that no one has ever taken their own life in a hospital, though your point regarding it being a place where revival is likely is quite compelling, unless the actor is in a frame of mind which they may not consider such possibilities, which could be quite likely.
Maybe, but bringing a plateful of poisoned brownies to a hospital? Ten out of ten points for style, but minus several million for plausability.

Drat. I knew that wouldn't fly.:D :D

Now this is interesting.
I was aware that the large body of Freud's work was discredited, but what of the Ego?
Would you happen to have any credible links to information regarding this?
(I'm not trying to be smart here, rather I was genuinely unaware that this particular idea had been discredited.)
I do not have any links right now, but as I understand it when people started doing real, experimental, scientific studies in psychology Freud's Id, Ego, and Superego- as well as Jung's Archetypes, Collective Unconsciousnesses, and Shadows, and a whole host of other unnecessary entities were packed of to live with the fairies in the garden.
Further, for what I understand the Mind is packing its bags and the Soul is already down at the bus stop.

A little Occam's razor never hurt anybody.
Well, it has cut up a few Egos. :)

So my question to you now is, since you appear to understand why I was attempting to convey, how would you have formulated the argument?
If I were to do, probably something like "It appears that almost all of our voluntary actions are motivated by some kind of self-interest."

However, Earthborn has some good points in that regard.

If he was compelled, say at gunpoint, it is an issue of fear, and also thus of self-interest.
Well, "at gunpoint" or by threat of force isn't the only way to compell someone- you can play on their guilt or patriotism, or a whole other host of emotions besides fear. Fear is probably the most basic of our emotions, but not the only one.

If it was without his consent, say, he was in a coma and it was removed without his knowing, then the motivation would be moot.
So why is it motivation moot if it is an involuntary act but important if voluntary?

[Cosmo]

Zarathustra is advocating basic ethical egosim which, as seen on the wikipedia page he linked to, has its fair share of criticisms and problems.

In addition, it's becoming clear to me that Zarathustra's position is unfalsifiable - there is no possible human behavior that, to him, does not fall under his (loosely) defined concepts of "fear" and "greed". This thread is a waste of time; mere mental masturbation for him. He enjoys the contortions that are required to group such a wide array of behaviors under only two words.

[Piscivore]

This thread is a waste of time; mere mental masturbation for him. He enjoys the contortions that are required to group such a wide array of behaviors under only two words.

I wouldn't say that, he's seemed pretty reasonable to me.

[Zarathustra]

I believe that it isn't possible to meaningfully argue that one arises as the result of the other, as both behaviours develop side by side.


I consider this a technical fact which is irrelevant to my actual model much as
an internet cloud in a network model does not reflect the actual minutia of events which occur within it.


Making such a claim is a moral judgement and science doesn't provide answers for those. Are you claiming that crabs, ferns and doorknobs are solely motivated by self-interest?


I think I can reasonably claim that doorknobs lack self-interest, but as for furry crustaceans and feathered plants, this sort of gets into another realm altogether, into another arguement regarding humans and automaton-like behaviors.
Due to the fact that Crabs and plants have not taken over the world yet, I'll assume that they lack the cognitive ability needed to do any behaviors but that of self-interest.
:D

[Piscivore]

Due to the fact that Crabs and plants have not taken over the world yet, I'll assume that they lack the cognitive ability needed to do any behaviors but that of self-interest.
:D

How about ants (http://www.livescience.com/animals/060508_mm_ants_rule.html)?

[Earthborn]

I consider this a technical fact which is irrelevant to my actual modelYour model describes how "self-interest" preceeds everything, but the order of how things develop are irrelevant? Interesting position to take. Highly illogical though.

Due to the fact that Crabs and plants have not taken over the world yet, I'll assume that they lack the cognitive ability needed to do any behaviors but that of self-interest.So people only act out of self-interest, but only creatures that have the cognitive ability to act out of something other than self-interest can take over the world?

I certainly agree with you that bacteria have taken over the world, and I can also accept the argument that they can act out of altruism, but -- with all due respect to our microbial overlords -- I don't think this is because of their great intellect.

(Maybe you could adress my examples of self-sacrifice?)

[Zalbik]

The original claim seems to be that people do the things they believe will bring about benefit. Or contrariwise, people do not do things that they believe will bring them harm

Zarathustra, if that is what you mean, why not just say so? All this misdirection by redefining the words "greed" and "fear" is just a pointless time-waster, regardless of how "funny" you may think such misdirection is.

The above claim seems obvious. It has nothing to do with "greed" or "fear"...it has to do with common sense. Why would I do something that harms me? That seems....harmful!

I just don't understand what argument you are trying to make from it. Something about morality not being an absolute...therefore....???

Oh, and as a counter-example to your self-interest thoughts. What about firefighters, soldiers, police, etc. in situations where they risk their own lives in order to save the lives of others. are you claiming that the "benefit" they receive outweighs the risk of death?!? Cause if not, it certainly seems to be a case of something not wholly driven by <i>self</i> interest.

Also, can you provide any counter-example which you could not shoehorn into your definition of "greed". What sort of thing are you looking for? I think you have defined it so broadly, that ANY reasonable human action would fall under this definition.