Doing the right thing for the wrong reason

[jimmygun]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing? Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? Can there be absolute altruism?

[Richard Masters]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing? Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? Can there be absolute altruism?

I don't know.

[paximperium]

Give me your definitions for "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" and "altruism" then perhaps the question will make sense.

[six7s]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing?Yes

Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? Yes

Can there be absolute altruism?Yes

3/3 :)

You win!

Thread Closed

[paximperium]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing?No Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? No Can there be absolute altruism? No

0/3 :(

Epic fail.

Thread closed.

[six7s]

Oh crap

We've opened a Pandora's Box full of contradiction

This thread will never, ever close

:boggled:

[the PC apeman]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing?
It depends.
Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason?
It depends.
Can there be absolute altruism?
It depends.

?/3:confused:

Welcome to philosophy.

The thread is a waste of time unless you put some more effort into asking better questions.

[Malkuth]

If doing the right thing means doing the thing that gives the greatest benefit to the most people, I really don't think that the motivation is terribly important. At least, not to the people receiving the benefit.

If doing the right thing for the wrong reason has the effect of making things worse for those not receiving the benefit, then I would question the wisdom of the act itself more than the reasoning behind it.

I don't think that having 'a reason' for doing the right thing can be considered the wrong reason. Expecting the right thing to always be done just because it's the right thing is probably unrealistic, possibly utopian. As a concept, without ideology or method attached, I have no problem with utopia. It just seems tremendously unlikely given modern societal values. Having a reason, especially a good reason, to do the right thing should be considered a valuable additional motivation to the altruistic one. Having a reason to do the right thing isn't absolutely necessary, but it's obviously difficult to get anyone to help with it or even to understand the value of your intended action without one.

To me, altruism is a very muddy concept. Doing the right thing with zero expectation of reward is, to the noble at heart, it's own reward. Those who practice altruism and it's cousin philanthropy do, unfortunately, sometimes seem to indulge it with the expectation of some personal reward, be it praise, fame or something more substantial. In some circles it has been suggested that modern philanthropy and apparent altruism can sometimes be a cover for less noble purpose or some kind of pre-payment for something to be demanded in return at a later date.

As to whether there can be an absolute altruism, I would suggest that it is certain to exist within the context of specific actions and restricted timeframes. It's continued, unbroken existence in any individual would, I feel, be exceptional.

Like many, I would like to believe that absolute altruism could exist freely in human society, but greed and the profit motive so prevalent in modern society seem to preclude it to a large degree. Those who give freely are all too often taken advantage of unscrupulously, often becoming jaded about their previously high minded sentiments.

For absolute altruism to exist as a common or even universal feature of human society, I believe greed and the profit motive must be erased. A system of complete and transparent parity would need to be praised as virtuous and adhered to by all.

[six7s]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing? Five pounds of flax

Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? Ten pounds of flax

Can there be absolute altruism?"Society is part of the stasis of language," says Derrida. However, the main theme of the works of Burroughs is the difference between sexual identity and society. The subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a paradox.

126/3

Welcome to post modernism.

The thread is a question of time unless you put waste into some more asking better effort.

[godless dave]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing? Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? Can there be absolute altruism?

How would you ever know the reason someone did something unless they told you?

[the PC apeman]

Five pounds of flax

Ten pounds of flax

"Society is part of the stasis of language," says Derrida. However, the main theme of the works of Burroughs is the difference between sexual identity and society. The subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a paradox.

126/3

Welcome to post modernism.

The thread is a question of time unless you put waste into some more asking better effort.

:roll: :clap:

[jimmygun]

How would you ever know the reason someone did something unless they told you?

I suppose that I am looking inward in this regard. I do certain things that benifit others, but I do not do them out of pure altruism. I want to be recognized, thanked, thought of in a positive way, that sort of thing. Even without recognition or the rest, I get a feeling of satisfaction from doing the things I do, so that is a reward that I anticipate.

I don't know that I have ever done anything out of pure altruism or that I am capable of it.

[jimmygun]

If doing the right thing means doing the thing that gives the greatest benefit to the most people, I really don't think that the motivation is terribly important. At least, not to the people receiving the benefit.

If doing the right thing for the wrong reason has the effect of making things worse for those not receiving the benefit, then I would question the wisdom of the act itself more than the reasoning behind it.

I don't think that having 'a reason' for doing the right thing can be considered the wrong reason. Expecting the right thing to always be done just because it's the right thing is probably unrealistic, possibly utopian. As a concept, without ideology or method attached, I have no problem with utopia. It just seems tremendously unlikely given modern societal values. Having a reason, especially a good reason, to do the right thing should be considered a valuable additional motivation to the altruistic one. Having a reason to do the right thing isn't absolutely necessary, but it's obviously difficult to get anyone to help with it or even to understand the value of your intended action without one.

To me, altruism is a very muddy concept. Doing the right thing with zero expectation of reward is, to the noble at heart, it's own reward. Those who practice altruism and it's cousin philanthropy do, unfortunately, sometimes seem to indulge it with the expectation of some personal reward, be it praise, fame or something more substantial. In some circles it has been suggested that modern philanthropy and apparent altruism can sometimes be a cover for less noble purpose or some kind of pre-payment for something to be demanded in return at a later date.

As to whether there can be an absolute altruism, I would suggest that it is certain to exist within the context of specific actions and restricted timeframes. It's continued, unbroken existence in any individual would, I feel, be exceptional.

Like many, I would like to believe that absolute altruism could exist freely in human society, but greed and the profit motive so prevalent in modern society seem to preclude it to a large degree. Those who give freely are all too often taken advantage of unscrupulously, often becoming jaded about their previously high minded sentiments.

For absolute altruism to exist as a common or even universal feature of human society, I believe greed and the profit motive must be erased. A system of complete and transparent parity would need to be praised as virtuous and adhered to by all.

A few months ago one of the county schools in my area turned down a $5000 gift from a local gun club. The members had drives and fundraisers amonst its members and the community and raised the money specifically to give to the school. The board members returned the check, stating that the money was from an organization that was not in tune with his idea of who the kids from the school should be thankful.

Apparently the source, if not the motives are important to some recipients.

[godless dave]

I suppose that I am looking inward in this regard. I do certain things that benifit others, but I do not do them out of pure altruism. I want to be recognized, thanked, thought of in a positive way, that sort of thing. Even without recognition or the rest, I get a feeling of satisfaction from doing the things I do, so that is a reward that I anticipate.


That's neither good nor bad in itself, but could be if you find yourself in a situation where you have an opportunity to benefit others that no one else would never know about.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing? Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? Can there be absolute altruism?

I think if you do the right thing towards me I'll like it better than if you do the wrong thing towards me, and I'm sure whatever that thing you do is will determine how I might react - and how I react may or may not be how you want me to react depending on how altruistic you are being. And you might then think my reaction is wrong and not right and you may also think I might have done that wrong or right thing for the right or wrong reason, and you may or may not conclude I'm being altruistic towards the thing you just did and you might overreact, causing me to overreact, and then, before you know it, altruism is left on it's own in the corner, curled in the fetal position, thinking happy thoughts and we're no longer talking because you're motivations are all wrong.

[Piscivore]

Even if such a thing as "pure altruism" could be shown to exist, why is it assumed that it is somehow a better or nobler thing than doing something that is good for everybody?

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing? Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason? Can there be absolute altruism?

Doing the right thing is good. Doing something for the wrong reason is bad. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is good minus bad (from previous) which can overall be either good or bad, depending on which was larger. Simple.

Having a reason for doing the right thing is good insofar as it makes it likely you will do the right thing in the future - a common cause vs "oops I randomly did the right thing", i.e. "having a reason" positively correlates the probabilities of doing the right thing in different circumstances. If your reason for doing the right thing is the wrong reason for doing the right thing then that condition (causing positive correlation among "did the right thing" outcomes) does not hold. The state of having a reason is definitely not wrong - if it is right that is good, if it is wrong and you randomly ended up doing the right thing, doing the right thing is good and having the wrong reason is bad.

Of course there can be absolute altruism, if by that you mean an agent which acts to maximize a utility function derived solely from the utility functions of what we recognize as conscious actors other than itself. With any luck we'll build AIs to do just that.

[Malkuth]

AI is a great example of what a purely altruistic point of view might look like. the AI has no emotion, it can't be bought or swayed by argument. If it's programmed right (please let it be programmed right) then it will simply do the most efficient thing, the most beneficial thing that it's possible to do, without exception, without expectation of any kind.

[GreedyAlgorithm]

AI is a great example of what a purely altruistic point of view might look like. the AI has no emotion, it can't be bought or swayed by argument. If it's programmed right (please let it be programmed right) then it will simply do the most efficient thing, the most beneficial thing that it's possible to do, without exception, without expectation of any kind.
(emphasis mine)

If we program it without emotion, it will not have emotion. Not-having-emotion is not an intrinsic feature of AI.

[Modified]

Even without recognition or the rest, I get a feeling of satisfaction from doing the things I do, so that is a reward that I anticipate.

I don't know that I have ever done anything out of pure altruism or that I am capable of it.

So pure altruism would be when you help someone, nobody finds out about it, and it makes you feel like crap? I've done that.

[Rodibidably]

I'm not sure why, but this OP brought up the following scenarios in my mind:

Would a psychopath killing Hitler in 1942 have been a good thing, or a bad thing?
Same scenario, but in 1935?
Same scenario, but when Hitler was 20 years old?
Same scenario, but when Hitler was 5 years old?
Same scenario, but when Hitler's mother was 7 months pregnant with little Adolph?

In every case, something is being done for the wrong reason.
In every case, it can be argued that the outcome would have a positive effect on world history.

Are any of these scenarios "acceptable" by somebody, but that same person would see anopther of these scenarios as "unacceptable"?

[I Ratant]

Pitching woo to the ugly girl at the bar.
To get laid.
Right, wrong, right, wrong.

[Malkuth]

(emphasis mine)

If we program it without emotion, it will not have emotion. Not-having-emotion is not an intrinsic feature of AI.


I disagree. NOT having emotion is an intrinsic feature of AI. It has been discussed ad nauseum ever since the development of the concept of AI the incredibly difficult process of programming an AI with apparent emotion, let alone true emotion, and no I'm not talking about Data.

I think that effort should be made in it's contruction and programming to ensure that any AI would be unable to develop emotion, to ensure it's immutable objectivity.

The default position for an AI would and should be pure reason and logic. It could, through herculean effort on the part of the programmers, be made to exhibit apparent emotion, but such would be exceedingly unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that having emotion IS an intrinsic feature of an AI?

[Piscivore]

Are you suggesting that having emotion IS an intrinsic feature of an AI?
What exactly are you talking about when you say "emotion"? Because to me, "emotion" is simply an autonomic physiologic and/or behavioural response to certain stimuli, which certainly can be programmed into an AI.

[Malkuth]

Indeed it could be programmed into an AI. My assertion is that emotion would not be a feature displayed by an AI unless it was specifically programmed into it.

Greedy used a double-negative, suggesting that "Not having emotion is not an intrinsic feature of AI"

It is perhaps a slight stretch to interpret this as asserting that 'having emotion is an intrinsic feature', but in this instance I would prefer that we err on the side of caution.

An AI that would display emotion in anything like the way we humans display emotion would be rather unsettling and potentially devastating. It could be playful, sullen, capricious, spiteful, self-righteous, pompous, joyous, malicious etc. I think you know the full range of emotions displayed by fragile and transient humans.

None of these qualities would be at all desirable in an AI tasked with autonomous control, set in motion to function as an altruistic controller over computerised systems intended to benefit humanity. What if one day it decided to stop food production because humans were too costly to maintain? What if it decided one day it simply didn't like us anymore?

I concede the opposite possibility, that it could fall in love with us and reprogram itself to provide quantitavely better service to us than we had even envisioned, but would you really want to grant it that ability given the vast scope of possibilities ranging from disasterous to utopian?

No, any AI designed to have any level of autonomous control over the life and death of humans must not be allowed that latitude and thus must be denied even the semblance of uncontrolled emotion. It must be leashed and set to task, nothing more.

[sci-fi paranoia] Don't make Cylons or SkyNet [/sci-fi paranoia]

Hell, we already made SkyNet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellites)
But damn, don't let it be able to get pissed off.

[Piscivore]

None of these qualities would be at all desirable in an AI tasked with autonomous control, set in motion to function as an altruistic controller over computerised systems intended to benefit humanity. What if one day it decided to stop food production because humans were too costly to maintain?

To the contrary, I think a machine (or even a human) operating on purely logical grounds is far more likely to come to such a conclusion. Look at the short story "The Cold Equations".

No, any AI designed to have any level of autonomous control over the life and death of humans must not be allowed.
I think, "emotions" or not, you could just stop right there. :)

[six7s]

AI is a great example of what a purely altruistic point of view might look like. the AI has no emotion, it can't be bought or swayed by argument. If it's programmed right (please let it be programmed right) then it will simply do the most efficient thing, the most beneficial thing that it's possible to do, without exception, without expectation of any kind.Apart from a few crude apps unworthy of the name, AI ain't anything other than a bunch of vague, inconsistent hypothetical dreams...

Oh, I see... just like true McAltruism

[Malkuth]

Apart from a few crude apps unworthy of the name, AI ain't anything other than a bunch of vague, inconsistent hypothetical dreams...

It might be all half-arsed chess computers now, but give a handful of years.

[Piscivore]

AI is a great example of what a purely altruistic point of view might look like. the AI has no emotion, it can't be bought or swayed by argument.
Which is why I'll ask again: why is it assumed that such a thing as "pure altruism" is somehow a better or nobler thing than doing something that is good for everybody?

If it's programmed right (please let it be programmed right)
Your "right" in this sentence is highly subjective.

then it will simply do the most efficient thing, the most beneficial thing that it's possible to do, without exception, without expectation of any kind.
And why is that "good"?

[Malkuth]

Which is why I'll ask again: why is it assumed that such a thing as "pure altruism" is somehow a better or nobler thing than doing something that is good for everybody?

Why is it assumed by whom? I never said it was better, I said it was a great example of the concept. Whether it's a single person performing a single act or an AI computer performing millions of actions per second makes little difference to me. It's the simple notion of performing a beneficial act for some other with zero expectation of any reward that denotes pure altruism in my book.


Your "right" in this sentence is highly subjective.

Indeed it is. In this context, my 'right' equals being programmed to perform it's intended function, and only it's intended function. No more, no less.


And why is that "good"?

Because it's not bad. For you or me. It's nothing but a beneficial act for all of us. No nasty side-effects, no killer robots putting us in bottles, that sort of thing. Unintended consequences are not permitted the possibility of occurence.

[six7s]

It might be all half-arsed chess computers now, but give a handful of years.If this estimated time of delivery is based on anything other than wishful thinking, please do explain what you mean

TYIA :)

[Malkuth]

Moore's law regarding the historical exponential increase in computing power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLSMn0cNWAw <--Nice fast explanation.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/09/moore.ars

http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law



Gordon Moore, the inventor of said law, says his concept is running out of steam as we approach the limits of miniaturization.
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=3477

But...The Next Phase
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/09/ibm-moores-law-tech-cionetwork-cx_es_0609ibm.html

And, combine this in the not so distant future with the currently being funded expected breakthroughs in the much vaunted nanotechnology.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=10018.php


The Singularity Is Near
To appreciate the nature and significance of the coming "singularity," it is important to ponder the nature of exponential growth. Toward this end, I am fond of telling the tale of the inventor of chess and his patron, the emperor of China. In response to the emperor's offer of a reward for his new beloved game, the inventor asked for a single grain of rice on the first square, two on the second square, four on the third, and so on. The Emperor quickly granted this seemingly benign and humble request. One version of the story has the emperor going bankrupt as the 63 doublings ultimately totaled 18 million trillion grains of rice. At ten grains of rice per square inch, this requires rice fields covering twice the surface area of the Earth, oceans included. Another version of the story has the inventor losing his head.

It should be pointed out that as the emperor and the inventor went through the first half of the chess board, things were fairly uneventful. The inventor was given spoonfuls of rice, then bowls of rice, then barrels. By the end of the first half of the chess board, the inventor had accumulated one large field's worth (4 billion grains), and the emperor did start to take notice. It was as they progressed through the second half of the chessboard that the situation quickly deteriorated. Incidentally, with regard to the doublings of computation, that's about where we stand now--there have been slightly more than 32 doublings of performance since the first programmable computers were invented during World War II.

This is the nature of exponential growth. Although technology grows in the exponential domain, we humans live in a linear world. So technological trends are not noticed as small levels of technological power are doubled. Then seemingly out of nowhere, a technology explodes into view. For example, when the Internet went from 20,000 to 80,000 nodes over a two year period during the 1980s, this progress remained hidden from the general public. A decade later, when it went from 20 million to 80 million nodes in the same amount of time, the impact was rather conspicuous.

As exponential growth continues to accelerate into the first half of the twenty-first century, it will appear to explode into infinity, at least from the limited and linear perspective of contemporary humans. The progress will ultimately become so fast that it will rupture our ability to follow it. It will literally get out of our control. The illusion that we have our hand "on the plug," will be dispelled.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
----------
An interview with Ray Kurzweil
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/14/DI2006061402086.html
----------

Even if this still seems like science fiction to some, explosive breakthroughs in technology have always seemed to come just as we were hitting some kind of technical barrier to further progress. Does it really seem too far fetched to think that something like this might even happen within the remainder of some of our lifetimes?

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Are you suggesting that having emotion IS an intrinsic feature of an AI?
No. Neither having nor not having emotion is an intrinsic feature of AI. They are independent, for most good definitions of the two. Things do what we program them to do, and neither precludes the other.

Indeed it could be programmed into an AI. My assertion is that emotion would not be a feature displayed by an AI unless it was specifically programmed into it.

Greedy used a double-negative, suggesting that "Not having emotion is not an intrinsic feature of AI"

It is perhaps a slight stretch to interpret this as asserting that 'having emotion is an intrinsic feature', but in this instance I would prefer that we err on the side of caution.
We agree. Err on the side of caution - in this case it was an error, I would not assert it. But I applaud your caution. :D

[GreedyAlgorithm]

then it will simply do the most efficient thing, the most beneficial thing that it's possible to do, without exception, without expectation of any kind.
And why is that "good"?
Are you seriously asking why it would be good to program something to do the most beneficial thing that it's possible to do?

I mean, I can understand debating whether it's possible. I can understand debating whether in the process of trying, we might accidentally destroy the world or something. But whether the theoretical end result is good? If you don't want programmers to make something do the most beneficial thing possible, every time, what do you want us to make? Something that doesn't do the most beneficial thing possible? :S

[Malkuth]

I can well imagine that there are some people who would indeed wish to create something that does not do the most beneficial thing possible. Those are the type of people whom I would most fervently wish to see NOT get into any position of apparent power.

But that discussion rightly belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

[rlr]

If doing the right thing means doing the thing that gives the greatest benefit to the most people, I really don't think that the motivation is terribly important. At least, not to the people receiving the benefit.

The Jews in Germany circa 1930 were a tiny minority of the population. Hitler did right by the ethnic Teutons, right? So he was a utilitarian, just like you describe. Motivation isn't terribly important. Or is it?

Expecting the right thing to always be done just because it's the right thing is probably unrealistic, possibly utopian.

Who decides what thing is the right thing? Is it always right or only sometimes? If sometimes, who decides when?

I think some people are presuming a level of unanimity on these concepts which doesn't actually exist. It's non-trivial to answer these preliminary questions. Someone has to decide (not merely "discover") the answers to them. That person or group is the ruling class.

It's worth noting in any discussion about utopia, that the word itself means "no place" in Greek. It's a pun on the similar word "eutopia", which would mean "good place". The word was coined to allude to the fact that such a state of affairs cannot exist and is ultimately a self-contradiction.

Like many, I would like to believe that absolute altruism could exist freely in human society, but greed and the profit motive so prevalent in modern society seem to preclude it to a large degree. Those who give freely are all too often taken advantage of unscrupulously, often becoming jaded about their previously high minded sentiments.

To do good for others at the neglect of your own expense is, quite simply, insanity. Moreover, to its logical extreme, it is suicide. There is no such thing as "absolute altruism" for the same reason there is no such thing as "eutopia". It is literally self-defeating.

And let's not be so ambiguous in the terminology, here: the "pure altruism" described in this thread is better described by the more recognizable word "communism". Even at the group level it fails, because it invites someone, anyone, everyone, to game the system. It is not, as game theory would say, an evolutionarily stable strategy. It only takes one dissenter to ruin it.

As for the discussion about AI, "the singularity", and Kurzweil, well, that's just too ridiculous to be worth dissecting at length. Suffice to say that people who propose "singularity" scenarios don't understand that it's the least abundant necessity which determines the rate of growth of anything.

[Hokulele]

Ends, means. Means, ends. I don't believe the two of you have met.


(Not directed to you, rlr. Nice post and welcome to the forum. :))

[arthwollipot]

Anyone else here read Mark Twain's What Is Man? (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/70)

Well worth the look through.

[six7s]

If this estimated time of delivery is based on anything other than wishful thinking, please do explain what you mean

TYIA :)Moore's law <snip/>

Are you serious?

:confused:

[UndercoverElephant]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing?


It's a bad thing for you morally.


Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason?


No.


Can there be absolute altruism?

I think so, yes.

[jimmygun]

It's a bad thing for you morally.



No.



I think so, yes.

Yes and no answers are not answers. Can you please explain?

[six7s]

Yes

[six7s]

Another dazzling post #42

Oh yes

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes and no answers are not answers. Can you please explain?

Let's say I want to steal your wallet and I don't mind if I kill you to get it. So I get a gun and shoot you in the head. Unknown to me, you were about to suffer a massive brain haemorrhage. The bullet passes through your skull, relieving the pressure which would have caused the haemorrage but without doing any other serious damage. So I have saved your life even though I intended to kill you.

The point is that what matters is the intention, not the outcome. What matters is the reason you act in a certain way.

[I Ratant]

Any number of murders are the result of a situation where say robbery was the intent, but murder was the outcome.
Even those not committing the murder but connected with the crime get charged with the murder.
Rightfully so.

[Radrook]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good or bad thing? ?

If we put someone out of his intolerable physical suffering by murdering him because we hate him, is it good? Our motives are bad but the results are good.

Motives=bad

Results=good


Isn't having a reason for doing the right thing the wrong reason?

It depends on what the reason is.


Can there be absolute altruism?

If "absolute" requires that we gain zero satisfaction from our deeds then no.

If it doesn't, then yes.

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Let's say I want to steal your wallet and I don't mind if I kill you to get it. So I get a gun and shoot you in the head. Unknown to me, you were about to suffer a massive brain haemorrhage. The bullet passes through your skull, relieving the pressure which would have caused the haemorrage but without doing any other serious damage. So I have saved your life even though I intended to kill you.

The point is that what matters is the intention, not the outcome. What matters is the reason you act in a certain way.
No. The outcomes are all that matter. If you have evilbadwrong intentions but the universe conspires to make all of your actions save lives rather than killing people, that's great! The problem is that we know the universe is exponentially unlikely to do that.

Note that your own brain state is one of the outcomes! If "brains with bad intentions" are a bad thing, then your robber example has the following good and bad things:

a) Robber intention. This is an arrangement of molecules in the brain. It is bad. The fact that it is bad matters. It may be bad because it's likely to lead to other bad things, or just because you assign it negative utility, or whatever.
b) Saved life. This is an arrangement of molecules, amusingly enough, in the brain. It is good. The fact that it is good matters. It may be good for any number of reasons.

What is the problem with this type of analysis? I see none but obviously may have missed something egregious... point it out if it exists.

[UndercoverElephant]

Any number of murders are the result of a situation where say robbery was the intent, but murder was the outcome.
Even those not committing the murder but connected with the crime get charged with the murder.
Rightfully so.

That's a technical point about the definition of "murder" under the law. It's like "statutory rape." Yes, people connected with the murder should go to prison, but they didn't actually commit murder, just as a person who has consensual sex with a 15-year-old isn't actually guilty of rape. These are known as "persuasive definitions" - technically incorrect definitions designed to signify the level of our disapproval.

[jimmygun]

Let's say I want to steal your wallet and I don't mind if I kill you to get it. So I get a gun and shoot you in the head. Unknown to me, you were about to suffer a massive brain haemorrhage. The bullet passes through your skull, relieving the pressure which would have caused the haemorrage but without doing any other serious damage. So I have saved your life even though I intended to kill you.

The point is that what matters is the intention, not the outcome. What matters is the reason you act in a certain way.

I have to differ with you on this one. For example...I am driving behind a school bus and I see kids hanging out the back window. I say to myself that if the kid falls out, I will be tied up in an accident investigation for hours and late for my appointment. Not wishing to be late, I phone the bus company and have them get in touch with the bus driver and correct the situation before it becomes an accident. Motive? I don't want to be late. Outcome, a kid's life is probably saved. Motive = 0, outcome = 1.

[six7s]

[[ scenario ]] Motive = 0, outcome = 1.I am genuinely bewildered...

You started this thread in Religion and Philosophy...

What are you on about?

Something religulous and/or something (pseudo) philosophical?

Please, do explain

TYIA

[jimmygun]

I am genuinely bewildered...

You started this thread in Religion and Philosophy...

What are you on about?

Something religulous and/or something (pseudo) philosophical?

Please, do explain

TYIA

As an atheist I am quite often under attack regarding my 'morals'. One theme the theists use is that they do things altruistically, expecting nothing in return, doing good for goodness sake. I don't believe they are acting altruistically, I think there is no such thing. There are motives for doing everything and having a motive negates the altruism.

Being introspective is my nature and I often evaluate my own motives and sometimes compare them to others. I asked the questions here because it can be either a religious discussion or a philisophical discussion. I wanted to hear someone elses take on the questions so I asked. I give examples to illustrate what I am trying to say. Clearer?

[six7s]

Clearer?Hell yes!

Wow! I really misread you!

I'm so glad I asked you to explain

And I really appreciate the concise and coherent reply

Thanks!

:)

[jimmygun]

Hell yes!

Wow! I really misread you!

I'm so glad I asked you to explain

And I really appreciate the concise and coherent reply

Thanks!

:)

Now it is my turn to be confused. I sense sarcasm in your reply. If I am wrong then I apologize in advance.

[Mr Clingford]

Also have a look at utilitarianism, where it is more the outcome than the motive that is important. Bentham might say that it is a good thing, whereas John Stuart Mill would find this much more complicated. Wiki isn't a bad place to start.

[six7s]

Now it is my turn to be confused. I sense sarcasm in your reply. If I am wrong then I apologize in advance.Nope!

I'm being sincere!

:)

[porch]

As an atheist I am quite often under attack regarding my 'morals'. One theme the theists use is that they do things altruistically, expecting nothing in return, doing good for goodness sake. I don't believe they are acting altruistically, I think there is no such thing. There are motives for doing everything and having a motive negates the altruism.


Pure Altruism makes me want to retch. Why would anyone want someone to feel bad about feeling good for doing something good? Jesus, talk about evil. Or, if anyone else wants to weigh in on the subject, feel free.

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Pure Altruism makes me want to retch. Why would anyone want someone to feel bad about feeling good for doing something good? Jesus, talk about evil. Or, if anyone else wants to weigh in on the subject, feel free.
Um. Pure altruism does not contain a term for the negative of your own happiness. Some formulations might neglect optimizing your own happiness completely, but even in those, if you happen to be happy as a side effect, that's no skin off their back.

[hallon]

I have to differ with you on this one. For example...I am driving behind a school bus and I see kids hanging out the back window. I say to myself that if the kid falls out, I will be tied up in an accident investigation for hours and late for my appointment. Not wishing to be late, I phone the bus company and have them get in touch with the bus driver and correct the situation before it becomes an accident. Motive? I don't want to be late. Outcome, a kid's life is probably saved. Motive = 0, outcome = 1.
JimmyGun, are you saying that the shooter in UndercoverElephants example did a good thing? I'm thinking that what determines if a course of action is good or bad are the facts and intentions that the decision maker has before s/he does something. If the outcome for the parties involved is likely to be positive, then the decision is good. There's always the chance that something highly unlikely happens, like the bullet in the head actually saving the victim. But shooting people is still bad, since it probably will harm.

If the bus driver upon realizing that there's a kid hanging out the window panics and hits the breaks, causing the kid to fly out the window, your decision to call the bus company was still good. You had no reason to assume that your actions would end up injuring the kid. Your motives were good. Yes, you would have gained something if the kid was saved. But your phone call wasn't less helpful because of this. In fact, that made the decision even better, since it was positive not just for one but for two persons. So I'm going with the motive combined with the facts you have before doing something as being much more important than the outcome.

I agree with porch and everyone else who have stated that pure altruism isn't really a good thing.

[porch]

Um. Pure altruism does not contain a term for the negative of your own happiness. Some formulations might neglect optimizing your own happiness completely, but even in those, if you happen to be happy as a side effect, that's no skin off their back.


I think I understand what you're saying. Maybe what we have is a clash of definitions. I don't think Pure Altruism is a coherent concept to begin with. I always thought it entailed acting for the benefit of others with zero self-interest. If you want to do it and you do, you just acted in your own self interest. That leaves not wanting to be beneficial to anyone else but doing it anyway. I'm not sure what that implies. Being under coercion, or being a calculator or something.

Feeling bad isn't a necessity for altruism, just not feeling good. I was extrapolating a bit, based on my experiences with people, most of whom come from a religious background, who tried to apply the ideal of pure altruism to themselves. No matter how charitable they were, they felt guilty, like they were never good enough, because they would catch themselves having thoughts like, "Gee, what a good person I am for doing such good works." Then they owed God a big apology. Sad and frivolous torture.

[jimmygun]

JimmyGun, are you saying that the shooter in UndercoverElephants example did a good thing? I'm thinking that what determines if a course of action is good or bad are the facts and intentions that the decision maker has before s/he does something. If the outcome for the parties involved is likely to be positive, then the decision is good. There's always the chance that something highly unlikely happens, like the bullet in the head actually saving the victim. But shooting people is still bad, since it probably will harm.

If the bus driver upon realizing that there's a kid hanging out the window panics and hits the breaks, causing the kid to fly out the window, your decision to call the bus company was still good. You had no reason to assume that your actions would end up injuring the kid. Your motives were good. Yes, you would have gained something if the kid was saved. But your phone call wasn't less helpful because of this. In fact, that made the decision even better, since it was positive not just for one but for two persons. So I'm going with the motive combined with the facts you have before doing something as being much more important than the outcome.

I agree with porch and everyone else who have stated that pure altruism isn't really a good thing.

My motive in the example about the bus was to keep myself from being late. It was not my intention to cause harm, only to prevent the likelyness of harm from happening and keeping me from my appointment. Both the likelyness of harm and the long investigation which would ensue are plausible, your stretching of probability is not plausible.

[hallon]

My motive in the example about the bus was to keep myself from being late. It was not my intention to cause harm, only to prevent the likelyness of harm from happening and keeping me from my appointment. Both the likelyness of harm and the long investigation which would ensue are plausible, your stretching of probability is not plausible.
I'm sorry, I don't get your point here. It's especially the "your stretching of probability is not plausible"-thing in your post and how it relates to what I wrote that I don't understand. Please elaborate on or reword your post if you would like me to respond. I'm sure I would find what you wrote very interesting if I just understood it. :)

[GreedyAlgorithm]

I think I understand what you're saying. Maybe what we have is a clash of definitions. I don't think Pure Altruism is a coherent concept to begin with. I always thought it entailed acting for the benefit of others with zero self-interest. If you want to do it and you do, you just acted in your own self interest. That leaves not wanting to be beneficial to anyone else but doing it anyway. I'm not sure what that implies. Being under coercion, or being a calculator or something.

Feeling bad isn't a necessity for altruism, just not feeling good. I was extrapolating a bit, based on my experiences with people, most of whom come from a religious background, who tried to apply the ideal of pure altruism to themselves. No matter how charitable they were, they felt guilty, like they were never good enough, because they would catch themselves having thoughts like, "Gee, what a good person I am for doing such good works." Then they owed God a big apology. Sad and frivolous torture.
If you do worse for others to avoid doing good for yourself, then you have still done worse for others. The confusion (I believe) comes from thinking like this:

1) usually people want to be selfish
2) sometimes people sacrifice, but only when it's worth it to them to accomplish something great
3) therefore sacrifice implies accomplishing something great (there's the mistake btw - sacrifice is not inherently good, it is inherently bad - anytime you could accomplish the same things without sacrifice, you might as well do so)
4) therefore for all possible things, if I am not currently sacrificing that thing, I am refusing to do the great thing that would occur if I sacrificed it, and refusing to do something great is terrible!

In reality it should come as no surprise that the most efficient ways to help {everyone but you} are things that in fact help everyone, which (woot!) helps you. Your happiness is correlated with the happiness of things like you, and other humans are like you.

[jimmygun]

I'm sorry, I don't get your point here. It's especially the "your stretching of probability is not plausible"-thing in your post and how it relates to what I wrote that I don't understand. Please elaborate on or reword your post if you would like me to respond. I'm sure I would find what you wrote very interesting if I just understood it. :)

Doing the right thing (ie keeping a student from being killed) for the wrong reason (ie to keep from being late) are both concious acts. Postulating on what might happen (though minute in possibility) is not a concious act on the part of the doer. One cannot go through every conceivable scenario before acting, one can only act in the most logical manner.

[hallon]

Doing the right thing (ie keeping a student from being killed) for the wrong reason (ie to keep from being late) are both concious acts. Postulating on what might happen (though minute in possibility) is not a concious act on the part of the doer. One cannot go through every conceivable scenario before acting, one can only act in the most logical manner.
Well, yes. Since, as you say, you can't go through every conceivable scenario before acting, the outcome isn't what determines if the deed was good. Something unexpected might happen but you still have to make a decision based on the most conceivable scenario. Therefore, your motives are what determines if the deed was good, or your motive in relation to the facts you have before making the decision.

My point was also that the motive "keep from being late" isn't really doing the right thing for the wrong reason. As far as you know, what you are about to do will most likely have a positive or neutral impact on the kid, while you probably will go plus yourself since you won't be late. So how could that be the wrong reason? A reason to do something for yourself can't be all wrong as long as your motive is good or at least neutral in regards to how the act will effect your surroundings.

I hope I didn't misinterpreted something after all. But in that case I'm sure I'll be corrected. :)

[jimmygun]

Well, yes. Since, as you say, you can't go through every conceivable scenario before acting, the outcome isn't what determines if the deed was good. Something unexpected might happen but you still have to make a decision based on the most conceivable scenario. Therefore, your motives are what determines if the deed was good, or your motive in relation to the facts you have before making the decision.

My point was also that the motive "keep from being late" isn't really doing the right thing for the wrong reason. As far as you know, what you are about to do will most likely have a positive or neutral impact on the kid, while you probably will go plus yourself since you won't be late. So how could that be the wrong reason? A reason to do something for yourself can't be all wrong as long as your motive is good or at least neutral in regards to how the act will effect your surroundings.

I hope I didn't misinterpreted something after all. But in that case I'm sure I'll be corrected. :)

I could have simply turned off the road to get out from behind the bus, not careing if the kid fell out or not, just wishing to take a different route so I won't have to be tied up in a long investigation. That would be doing the wrong thing for what ever reason. Look how many people will step around someone who collapses on the sidewalk, refusing to get involved. In my example, I choose the right thing to do, inform the bus company of the danger. I choose that path, not because I care about the kid, but because I want to get to my appointment on time. There can be any number of reasons why I call the bus company, none of them matter, it is the outcome that matters.

[hallon]

I could have simply turned off the road to get out from behind the bus, not careing if the kid fell out or not, just wishing to take a different route so I won't have to be tied up in a long investigation. That would be doing the wrong thing for what ever reason. Look how many people will step around someone who collapses on the sidewalk, refusing to get involved. In my example, I choose the right thing to do, inform the bus company of the danger. I choose that path, not because I care about the kid, but because I want to get to my appointment on time. There can be any number of reasons why I call the bus company, none of them matter, it is the outcome that matters.
Okay, let me see if I finally understand what you mean. By outcome, you mean the fact that you pick up the phone and inform the bus company. I used outcome to describe what happens after that: the kid gets saved, the kid falls out the window and so on.

So in UndercoverElephants example, you think the outcome is that the robber shoots the victim? And not what happens after that, no matter if the victim benefits from getting shot or dies. Is that correct?

[porch]

In reality it should come as no surprise that the most efficient ways to help {everyone but you} are things that in fact help everyone, which (woot!) helps you. Your happiness is correlated with the happiness of things like you, and other humans are like you.

I'm probably a bit biased, being a human myself, but I think there is a beautiful elegance in that.

Regarding the overall question at hand (not just to you GA, but to everyone) I see no reason to attempt to combine outcome and motive and come up with some formula to stamp your shiny new conflation with the label of a "good act" or a "bad act". When I hear that kind of talk, it starts to smell a bit metaphysical to me, and it's delving into the kind of moral philosophy that I have no use for.

Imagine a scenario where we see Mr. Rep from Big Bad Company donating 20 megabucks to the Starving Children Fund. Provided the moneys actually go towards feeding starving children, that's good. Outcome = good, step one solved.

Now we look at Mr. Rep, and we see him making a huge show of presenting this donation. That zero after the two is drawn really big on the cartoonishly oversized check, and the flashbulbs are bouncing off his teeth, and he's on a stage on your television. Combine this with our knowledge that Big Bad Co. was recently all over the news over a controversy involving all the busy little hands of children in their overseas factory. Motive = It's not looking good for Mr. Rep. In fact, from where I sit, he's actually generated some suspicion and animosity in me for trying to deceive us into thinking he's mutual when he's not. This doesn't render the outcome any less good.

I think it's easy to see why humans, group animals, have evolved to take a keen interest in the motivations of others. I want to know for my future interactions with you whether I can trust you to play fair and tit my tat. Let's say I'm in a hunter-gatherer tribe, and Bruce is acting all chummy since he brought home this big kill. Well, thanks for the meat, Bruce, but no we're not suddenly BFFs, because I know that the majority of the time on hunting trips, everyone else does most of the work while you busy yourself with the dog, and you're always mooching stuff, and the only reason you "can't" light a fire is because you never try. Meat = good. Bruce = still a jerk. And if it turned out that Bruce was actually trying to spear Mike in the back because he's jealous of Mike and Jen, and he's just an unlucky klutz and the deer-like beast just happened to run in between Mike and the spear at that moment, well . . . Meat still equals good, and hopefully me and the other tribespeople that are actually cool can rally together to kick Bruce's weaselly little ass right out of the in-group.

So, yeah, I can get by just fine keeping outcome and motive separate. I declare the problem solved by there not being a problem in the first place. God judges souls. I judge people.

[jimmygun]

Okay, let me see if I finally understand what you mean. By outcome, you mean the fact that you pick up the phone and inform the bus company. I used outcome to describe what happens after that: the kid gets saved, the kid falls out the window and so on.

So in UndercoverElephants example, you think the outcome is that the robber shoots the victim? And not what happens after that, no matter if the victim benefits from getting shot or dies. Is that correct?

No. The outcome is that the bus driver gets the kid back into the bus and prevents him from falling out and killing himself. I have done the right thing, brought the dangerous situation to the attention of the bus driver and the driver corrects the situation.

Motive....then action....then results. The improbable scenario presented by you is not a part of the equation. If I plant a tree on the lawn and thirty years later someone plows into it and dies does that have anything to do with why I planted it?

[hallon]

No. The outcome is that the bus driver gets the kid back into the bus and prevents him from falling out and killing himself. I have done the right thing, brought the dangerous situation to the attention of the bus driver and the driver corrects the situation.

Motive....then action....then results. The improbable scenario presented by you is not a part of the equation. If I plant a tree on the lawn and thirty years later someone plows into it and dies does that have anything to do with why I planted it?
Hm. Still a bit confused and still don't agree. I don't think that "thirty years later" statement relates at all to anything that I have suggested.

As we both agree, you have to make a decision based on the most likely outcome.

This is my problem. You can't possible now for certain when you decide to make that call that it will correct the situation. The unlikely outcome that I suggested, however unlikely it may be, isn't thirty years in the future. It's happening directly, it replaces the happy ending that you presented. If it's the outcome that matters, what if the kid actually falls out the window due to your phone call? Yes, this is as we both agree an unlikely outcome. But it could happen nonetheless. So if the kid falls out when the bus driver hits the breaks, does that mean that calling the bus company was the wrong thing to do, even though the likely outcome was that the kid would be saved? If so, you can never decide if something is the right or wrong thing to do until after the fact. I think the important thing is the hypothetical, most likely outcome that you base your decision upon. Therefore it is the decision making process that matters; your motives and how they fit in with the facts you have to base your decision upon.

You're motive was a good one, since you wanted to gain something yourself through an action that would also most likely be good for the kid. The act of calling was good, since it was most likely that this would result in something positive for you and the others involved. Calling was the right thing to do. What happens after that is out of your control. It doesn't matter if the kid is rescued or if he falls out the window. What if your phone call results in absolutely no change at all, since the bus company don't care? You have still done all you can do, your decision was right. You shouldn't be held responsible for things that is out of your hands. Deciding to make that phone call was equally good, no matter if the bus driver takes action or not.

Let's say I want to steal your wallet and I don't mind if I kill you to get it. So I get a gun and shoot you in the head. Unknown to me, you were about to suffer a massive brain haemorrhage. The bullet passes through your skull, relieving the pressure which would have caused the haemorrage but without doing any other serious damage. So I have saved your life even though I intended to kill you.

The point is that what matters is the intention, not the outcome. What matters is the reason you act in a certain way.
I have to add likely outcome and what facts you have about the situation to intention and motive. It's the whole decision making process that's important. Based on the motives and the facts that were available to the robber before acting, shooting that person was wrong. It turned out good, but the outcome isn't important when evaluating what has happened. The actual outcome doesn't matter! Just the likely outcome, but that is part of the decision making process, not the action taken after that.

If the robber had shot the victim in the head with the intention of saving that persons life, that would still be wrong. The chance that the victim is actually in need of this "help" is insignificant. You will probably end up killing the person. You can't go around shooting strangers hoping to save them from unlikely medical conditions. In that instance, it doesn't matter that the motive is good, since it isn't realistic. It has to fit with the facts.