bd-from-kg

To all:

I'll be away for the weekend. See you Monday, or maybe late Sunday.

MadMordigan

I have offered psychological explanations for this phenomenon in other threads, but the important thing at this point is simply the empirical fact that empathy (in the sense of knowledge and understanding of another person) does in fact have the effect described.

This fact is neither universal amoung people, nor universal across all decisions. As I illustrated above, no matter how well you appreciated the fact that I honestly and sincerely want your cash, no matter how well you understandstood the desires, dispositions, attitudes, beliefs, etc. that drive me to want you to send me your life savings, you aren't going to do so, are you? You'd probably tell me to pump sand, and you'd probably be morally justified in doing so.

Having been a professional salesman and independant contractor for over 7 years, I can claim some experience with manipulating people's behaviour. People do not generally buy cars based upon how much it would mean to the salesman. I've witnessed and tried the 'Its-been-a-really-slow-month-and-I-really-would-like-you-to-do-this-deal-to-get-the-boss-off-my-back' close, and in my experience, it has piss poor results. However, when a person agrees with the salesman that making a purchase is in the customer's best interest, then the results are almost universally sucessful.

If we can agree that a social morality should be evaluated based upon how well it prevents or encourages behaviours, then the differing efficacies between appeals to empathy and appeals to self interest must be taken into account.

I'm of the opinion that people are motivated by both selfish and altruistic factors, but that the relative weight of these factors differs for each person and for each situation. Focusing exclusively on either selfish or selfless motivating factors will miss a great deal of opportunity to provoke the behaviours we wish from each other.

tronvillain

Lord Snooty:
You are correct... actions can also be motivated by the prevention of a negative payoff. It is not a matter of "giving people too much credit", it is a matter of recognizing that all actions are the product of internal motivations. Someone being altruistic despite a complete lack of payoff is insane (in fact, I doubt you could even find an example).

LordSnooty

Internal motivations perhaps, but not necessarily self-serving motivations. Being objective does not necessarily mean being cynical.

I can think of plenty.

Paul

tronvillain

There is nothing cynical about it - internal motivations are always ultimately self-serving, though they often also serve the motives of others. So, you can think of "plenty" of examples? Enlighten the rest of us.

bd-from-kg

tronvillain:

When you originally said that your definition of self-interested acts includes altruistic ones, I assumed that you were merely making a linguistic point: if you define “self-interested” in such a way that all acts are self-interested, of course altruistic acts (being acts) are by definition self-interested. I considered this to be a rather pointless maneuver from a practical point of view, since it makes the term “self-interested” useless: the term “self-interested act” becomes redundant, like “round circle”.

But now you say that “being altruistic despite a complete lack of payoff is insane”. I assume that when you say that an act has no payoff you mean that it is not self-interested. However, an insane act is still an act, so it would seem that you consider non-self-interested acts (unlike square circles) to be possible. So at this point I’m baffled: what could you possibly mean by “self-interested” such that non-self-interested acts are possible but insane? Perhaps you could clarify this by giving an example of a possible non-self-interested act and explain why you would consider it insane?

tronvillain

I said that all acts are self-interested, not that all acts are self-interested by definition. An example of a non-self interested act would be giving someone money despite not recieving any payoff - you don't get anything material in return, you aren't going to get any of the money back, you don't get to deduct anything from your taxes, you don't feel better about yourself for having done it, you do not avoid anything negative because of it, and so on. It is, in other words, an action without explanation. Insanity.

LordSnooty

Well, if you're going to use this example anyway - I did this the other day. I gave £10 to a charity. I won't get it back, and I certainly don't feel better about myself for having done it. I do not consider that I had any payoff as a result of having done it, and yet I don't regret having done it.

Am I insane?

Paul

tronvillain

So, you gave ten pounds to charity for no reason whatsoever? I am afraid I don't believe you - you are either lying or deluded. Perhaps you could go into a little more detail about what happened.

bd-from-kg

tronvillain:

OK, let’s analyze this. First off, you refer to the results of the act, but whether an act is self-interested, altruistic, or whatever doesn’t depend on the actual results, or even on the expected results, but on why you do it – i.e., on the motive. So let’s rephrase this accordingly: you don’t do it because you expect to get any of the money back, or because you expect to be able to deduct something from your taxes, or because you expect to feel better about yourself for having done it, or because you expect to avoid anything negative because of it, and so on.

However, this hardly exhausts the possible reasons for doing something. For example, you might do it because you expect that it will save your son’s life, or because you expect that it will help save your country from being taken over by Nazis, or because you solemnly promised your dying mother that you would do it. You might confess to a terrible crime because you actually committed it, and if you don’t confess an innocent man will hang for it.

If you really regard any actions taken for such reasons to be “without explanation” and “insane”, please justify this opinion. Is someone who gives up his life to save the lives of others making a mistake in logic? Is his action not rationally related to his ends? Wherein does the supposed insanity lie? In what sense are acts which can be explained in ways such as these “without explanation”?