Motivations to act

[Hydesland]

Is there really such a thing as a pre-meditated act that wasn't fundamentally self interested?

Put it this way, if someone does not think an action will bring him/her any kind of satisfaction (even if it's simply moral satisfaction, the avoidance of guilt), why would he/she ever consciously do it, other than out of natural instinct that overrides conscious control?

Perhaps all conscious actions are fated to be self interested, in order for someone to do an action, the person must want to do it first (given the alternatives at the present time), so satisfaction from fulfilling this want must always take precedence - if the person thinks there is no gain or advantage over the alternative actions, he would not want to do it in the first place.

If humans don't do actions unless they bring satisfaction to themselves in some way, does this not mean that pure altruism* is impossible?

More importantly, what is the relevance of objective ethics, if such were to exist? If there was some method to demonstrate that some action is objectively moral, why would that in itself be relevant to whether the individual should perform the act - the fact that some descriptive word can be applied to it? Surely, ultimately for an individual, moral acts are performed on the basis of guilt or compassion, and not on some cold objective analysis. If someone doesn't have empathy or compassion for anyone, and doesn't care about their fate, why would he/she care about ethics or morality? In this case, if you're trying to convince someone of something they ought to do, wouldn't it be better to focus on what drives their guilt and compassion, rather than on some abstract and extremely complicated analytic processes that philosophers create to determine what is ethical?

*I understand that many ethicists allow for an act to be altruistic even if it is self-interested ultimately, as long as the satisfaction is derived purely from helping others, hence the 'pure' modifier

[Cyndonian Legion]

Is there really such a thing as a pre-meditated act that wasn't fundamentally self interested?

No.

If humans don't do actions unless they bring satisfaction to themselves in some way, does this not mean that pure altruism* is impossible?

"Pure" is a non-existent and irrelevant distinction in moral concepts. Altruism is entirely compatible with utilitarianism.

Surely, ultimately for an individual, moral acts are performed on the basis of guilt or compassion, and not on some cold objective analysis.

Unless one finds that acting on an objective analysis is the only compassionate way to go about doing things.

On another note, here's an interesting lecture about motivation and economic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Ryadn]

Why does an act have to be pre-meditated in order for it to be altruistic? If I see a kid about to run in front of a car and I pull them back, you can call it 'instinct', but it's still altruistic. Altruism IS one of our instincts.

[Hydesland]

"Pure" is a non-existent and irrelevant distinction in moral concepts. Altruism is entirely compatible with utilitarianism.

I mean pure in the sense of the traditional definition, doing an action solely for the benefit of others, and not for your own interests.

[Hydesland]

Why does an act have to be pre-meditated in order for it to be altruistic? If I see a kid about to run in front of a car and I pull them back, you can call it 'instinct', but it's still altruistic. Altruism IS one of our instincts.

Are you sure that wasn't conscious? That you didn't think about it even for a second? I mean, would you simply be unable to control yourself? If that is the case, then talk of altruism is not really relevant because your action is already determined.

[Yootwopia]

Is there really such a thing as a pre-meditated act that wasn't fundamentally self interested?

Dunno mate.

[Ryadn]

Why does an act have to be pre-meditated in order for it to be altruistic? If I see a kid about to run in front of a car and I pull them back, you can call it 'instinct', but it's still altruistic. Altruism IS one of our instincts.

Are you sure that wasn't conscious? That you didn't think about it even for a second? I mean, would you simply be unable to control yourself? If that is the case, then talk of altruism is not really relevant because your action is already determined.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I see a child in danger and my immediate impulse is to rescue her. How my body responds to that impulse is determined by many factors, most of which I'm not consciously aware---we take in a lot of information without realizing it, all the time. Thus many of the factors in my decision could be neither automatic nor conscious.

I similarly disagree with your depiction of guilt, and the relief of guilt through positive deeds, to be separate from altruism. In large part we may do kind things for others with no gain to ourselves because it relieves anxiety and unhappiness, but if we truly didn't care about others we wouldn't feel anxiety over their plight in the first place. If I save a child because I don't want to see her brains dashed out in the street, you can call that "self interest", but it does not harm me in any material way to watch---or help me in any material way to intervene---so the situation is only created in the first place because I am able to feel empathy for other beings.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Given that altruism is almost instinctive (and some research has shown a positive inherited trait) it will, generally speaking, feel good, because we're wired that way. If you can't separate altruism from the positive feelings it causes, is it worth worrying about?

[Hydesland]

I similarly disagree with your depiction of guilt, and the relief of guilt through positive deeds, to be separate from altruism.

I don't see why they should be separate either, but some act as if any act that is self interested cannot be truly altruistic, and more importantly others will claim that - if I were to say that all conscious actions are fundamentally self interested ones - I'm simply ignoring altruism, implying that altruism is not like this.

In large part we may do kind things for others with no gain to ourselves because it relieves anxiety and unhappiness

That is a gain, remember all cost is opportunity cost.

[Chrobalta]

Something always motivates us to act or provokes a reaction. If it is premeditated than it has in someway been rationalized to be done for some reason or another.

[Jello Biafra]

I like the arguments presented already - that altruism relieves guilt only because we feel compassion for others - and have to ask that if we can tautologically define all human action as self-interested action, does that tell us anything?

If someone doesn't have empathy or compassion for anyone, and doesn't care about their fate, why would he/she care about ethics or morality?

They probably wouldn't, since the argument that if they don't care about other people, then nobody should care about them wouldn't work.

[New La Habana]

Altruism is ego and selfishness that has been repackaged; great doses of naivety or denial are required to be blind to that....

[Person012345]

What if you choose not to do something that would probably bring you greater pleasure in the interest of other people's happiness?

Or indeed, more on topic, choose to act in a way that decreases your overall happiness in the interest of someone else.

[Ashmoria]

Why does an act have to be pre-meditated in order for it to be altruistic? If I see a kid about to run in front of a car and I pull them back, you can call it 'instinct', but it's still altruistic. Altruism IS one of our instincts.

Are you sure that wasn't conscious? That you didn't think about it even for a second? I mean, would you simply be unable to control yourself? If that is the case, then talk of altruism is not really relevant because your action is already determined.

it doesnt matter.

it doesnt negate the idea of altruism.

i helped an old lady find her husband's hospital room the other day even though i was on my way out. i did it because could tell she really needed the help and it wasnt going to take that much time even though i was eager to get going.

does my weighing that out in my mind before i decided to do it negate my small act of kindness? i dont think so. i never would have thought of her again so "guilt" doesnt come into it. ive lived long enough that adding another tiny tic onto my "see i AM a good person" list isnt all that important to me.

i did it because thats what people do and i like living in a place where someone takes a small step out of their way to help someone else even if its me who has to do it.

i think that wanting to deny the idea of altruism is YOUR way of justifying your own lack of helping other people out.

[Person012345]

More importantly, what is the relevance of objective ethics, if such were to exist? If there was some method to demonstrate that some action is objectively moral, why would that in itself be relevant to whether the individual should perform the act - the fact that some descriptive word can be applied to it?

This is why I say that morals cannot possibly be objective. The word morals to me mean what individuals feel is right and wrong. If someone told me that they had found the universal morality was unfettered selfishness, I'd tell them to fuck off, I'l stick with what I feel. I honestly don't understand what definition people are using when they say that morals are objective. If god himself came down and told me to go forth and rape, I wouldn't do it because it's still immoral to me.

[Ryadn]

Altruism is ego and selfishness that has been repackaged; great doses of naivety or denial are required to be blind to that....

Or some education. But hey, if it makes you feel bad-ass, g'on with your bad self.

[Hydesland]

I like the arguments presented already - that altruism relieves guilt only because we feel compassion for others - and have to ask that if we can tautologically define all human action as self-interested action, does that tell us anything?

Some people point to altruism as an example of people not assessing their individual utility when making a decision (a criticism of the concept of utility in economics), whereas that would seem not to be a valid example.

if they don't care about other people, then nobody should care about them wouldn't work.

It doesn't work anyway.

[Hydesland]

does my weighing that out in my mind before i decided to do it negate my small act of kindness? i dont think so.

I'm not saying it does that.

i never would have thought of her again so "guilt" doesnt come into it.

How do you know? You wouldn't have felt guilty even for a split second after the event? Implausible.

i did it because thats what people do and i like living in a place where someone takes a small step out of their way to help someone else even if its me who has to do it.

That's just simply not an explanation.

i think that wanting to deny the idea of altruism is YOUR way of justifying your own lack of helping other people out.

Now you're being silly.

[Vetalia]

I don't know, a lot of my decisions are motivated by the desire not to be an asshole. If that's premeditation, so be it.

[Jello Biafra]

I like the arguments presented already - that altruism relieves guilt only because we feel compassion for others - and have to ask that if we can tautologically define all human action as self-interested action, does that tell us anything?

Some people point to altruism as an example of people not assessing their individual utility when making a decision (a criticism of the concept of utility in economics), whereas that would seem not to be a valid example.

Perhaps.
Are you one of those people who believes that self-interest is always rational?

if they don't care about other people, then nobody should care about them wouldn't work.

It doesn't work anyway.

I dunno, I don't know of anyone who wouldn't be put off by the possibility of being raped to death.

[Hydesland]

Are you one of those people who believes that self-interest is always rational?

Rational has different meanings depending on the context.

I dunno, I don't know of anyone who wouldn't be put off by the possibility of being raped to death.

I'm not sure what your point here is. My point was that the statement: "if they don't care about other people, then nobody should care about them" is an is/ought fallacy.

[Jello Biafra]

Are you one of those people who believes that self-interest is always rational?

Rational has different meanings depending on the context.

What meaning does it have in that context?

I dunno, I don't know of anyone who wouldn't be put off by the possibility of being raped to death.

I'm not sure what your point here is. My point was that the statement: "if they don't care about other people, then nobody should care about them" is an is/ought fallacy.

True. I thought you were saying that "they don't care about other people, so causing bad things to happen to those people is okay, provided they're open to bad things happening to them".

[Hydesland]

What meaning does it have in that context?

Well you used the word first, so I guess you should tell me more precisely what you mean? Although I guess there is no need, if every action is self interested, then that would mean every action is rational if I said yes to your initial question, but if every action is rational then the rational modifier has no meaning - therefore not every self interested action is rational.

[Jello Biafra]

What meaning does it have in that context?

Well you used the word first, so I guess you should tell me more precisely what you mean? Although I guess there is no need, if every action is self interested, then that would mean every action is rational if I said yes to your initial question, but if every action is rational then the rational modifier has no meaning - therefore not every self interested action is rational.

Correct. Or, the alternative - that not every action is self-interested and not every action is rational.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Is there really such a thing as a pre-meditated act that wasn't fundamentally self interested?

Dunno mate.

^This, plain and simple.

I guess we want to think there was no pre-meditation when we perform several acts, like Ryadn pointed out: kid is about to be run by the a car and she can save him by pulling him away, altruism. Perhaps it is a mix of both instinct and thinking. But honestly, I do not know.