Topic: Goodness and Reward

[EhJayArr]

Alright, this thread gave me another thread idea...

[uolj]

There have been studies on altruism. The fact of the matter is there probably isn't any true altruism in the world. The reward gained could be as simple as not having to feel guilty later. I think there are so many reasons why people do and do not do things and they are almost impossible to quantify.

Guy jumps on grenade! Explain!

It makes him feel good that he's going to sacrifice his life to save others. Seems pretty obvious, no?

No. Works with lions or tigers and bears, and that should be weeded out.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It makes lions, tigers and bears feel good to sacrifice their lives?

[emjayvan]

There have been studies on altruism. The fact of the matter is there probably isn't any true altruism in the world. The reward gained could be as simple as not having to feel guilty later. I think there are so many reasons why people do and do not do things and they are almost impossible to quantify.

Guy jumps on grenade! Explain!

It makes him feel good that he's going to sacrifice his life to save others. Seems pretty obvious, no?

If I'm understanding the argument in this thread, then the problem I'm left with is that altruism has been explained away so well that all we're left with is degrees of selfishness. If offering your life in place of another person's can be described as somehow stimulating the pleasure centre of the brain (however briefly), and thus becomes an example of non-altruistic behaviour, then I'm afraid both selfishness and altruism becomes pretty much meaningless.

Perhaps it might be more productive to look at the matter in terms of choice only. What distinctions can/should we make between a person who performs charitable acts, and one who doesn't? In the kind of society we'd like to live, which behaviour should be encouraged and why?

Then you can side-step what seems to me an ultimately fruitless argument over whether people can ever act altruistically.

[uolj]

If I'm understanding the argument in this thread, then the problem I'm left with is that altruism has been explained away so well that all we're left with is degrees of selfishness. If offering your life in place of another person's can be described as somehow stimulating the pleasure centre of the brain (however briefly), and thus becomes an example of non-altruistic behaviour, then I'm afraid both selfishness and altruism becomes pretty much meaningless.

Perhaps it might be more productive to look at the matter in terms of choice only. What distinctions can/should we make between a person who performs charitable acts, and one who doesn't? In the kind of society we'd like to live, which behaviour should be encouraged and why?

Then you can side-step what seems to me an ultimately fruitless argument over whether people can ever act altruistically.

Pretty much yeah. All three paragraphs.

[seaotter]

There have been studies on altruism. The fact of the matter is there probably isn't any true altruism in the world. The reward gained could be as simple as not having to feel guilty later. I think there are so many reasons why people do and do not do things and they are almost impossible to quantify.

Guy jumps on grenade! Explain!

It makes him feel good that he's going to sacrifice his life to save others. Seems pretty obvious, no?

No. Works with lions or tigers and bears, and that should be weeded out.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It makes lions, tigers and bears feel good to sacrifice their lives?

No a person sacrificing themselves to lions tigers or bears.

[uolj]

Sorry, still not getting it. A person sacrificing themselves to animals is different than jumping on a grenade?

I'm assuming the question is about sacrificing yourself to save others.

[jmars]

Determinism is the most boring and lazy description of reality possible, though I admit it might be accurate.

You are right that the the motives for the deed can be more altruistic than for reasons of personal satisfaction, but the latter has to be at least a part of it, or we wouldn't do it at all.

Insomuch as we are emotionally affected at some level by anything we ever do, I can't disagree.

There have been studies as to why people risk their lives for strangers. We know that risking your life for a loved one is evolutionary and biological and has to do with preserving genes (especially those of our offspring) and sometimes people feel that in the heat of a moment when adrenaline rushes, we can transfer those evolutionary, biological instincts to another person we don't even know. Many times, the person doing the deed is religious and believes in an afterlife (they are less aware of the permanence of death) and they believe they will get rewards in Heaven.

Yeah, I'm seriously not arguing against determinism here. That we have evolved mechanisms that involve "sacrifice for the sake of others" seems likely--I'm just saying that this doesn't jibe with your "all good deeds are inherently selfish" comment... unless you mean it in a purely deterministic way, in which case there's not really a conversation to be had about it. 

I am reminded of a quote by Jack Handey:

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know."

hehehehe +1

I would say there are two forces at work here. One that tells us to behave a certain way in order to receive rewards that are both mentally satisfying and satisfying insomuch as they are aiding us in being members of a society that also rewards such behavior, and another that is biologically driven, which allows us to perpetuate our genes in the evolutionary scheme of things. So there is both a personal-social reward, and a biological-genetic reward for behaving altruistically, which depending on how you define the reward, can benefit us selfishly rather than purely selflessly. Plus, the social reward is a precursor to the biological reward since the ability to work well with others and be a productive member of society, at least in humanoid relationships, aids us in successfully passing down our genes. So ultimately, every action is really apart of a reward system designed to adapt a species through natural selection.

[EhJayArr]

I was responding to your comment about selfishness, which is wholly separate from evolutionarily-selected traits, imo.

[Lancezh]

Biology to the rescue! Don't forget hamilton's rule in all this, it plays a big role and explains to a great degree the "animalistic" behaviour in some cases:

"
Where C is the cost in fitness to the actor, r the genetic relatedness between the actor and the recipient, and B is the fitness benefit to the recipient. Fitness costs and benefits are measured in fecundity. His two 1964 papers entitled The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior are now widely referenced."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton

Hamilton's rule claims basically that the one who acts beneficient "altruistic" towards anything thats having the same genes "family, same race etc." will logically prevail through natural selection more likely than the "other". For me at least it makes sense that those  genes who do act altruistic will prevail and supress those who don't.

For instance to save your own children by sacrificing your own life will most likey be better for your genes than the other way.

[lumberjohn]

So is everyone here ready to agree that Hitler can't be accurately described as a better or worse person than Martin Luther King, except possibly to the extent their respective actions had the ultimate consequences of helping/hurting different quantities of people?

[Shibboleth]

There have been studies on altruism. The fact of the matter is there probably isn't any true altruism in the world. The reward gained could be as simple as not having to feel guilty later. I think there are so many reasons why people do and do not do things and they are almost impossible to quantify.

Guy jumps on grenade! Explain!

It makes him feel good that he's going to sacrifice his life to save others. Seems pretty obvious, no?

Not as obvious as you think.

What if the person had no time to experience the good feeling? As jmars was saying, you could describe this action in deterministic fashion, in that the person was simply "programmed" to perform that action--but even that doesn't involve any benefit, pleasure, or satisfaction to the blowed-up person.

If a person instantly dies of a heroine overdose and didn't have the opportunity to experience the euphoria doesn't mean that the person didn't do it for that reason.

It doesn't have to be a conscious decision and I am a little bit suspect to the idea of consciousness to begin with. The person could be doing it to fulfill a sense of duty, he could be doing it because he doesn't want to experience the pain of losing someone they love, etc.

You can define it as altruism but I think that true altruism where the person gains absolutely nothing in return doesn't exist. There isn't anything that is truly a 100% selfless act. There is always something coming the other direction compelling the human animal to behave the way that they do...

[Shibboleth]

I think the trick is that we dont do things because of the personal reward. We do things because of the expectation of the personal reward.

A person jumps on a grenade because they are "programmed" to do so through many previous cycles of reward (personal satisfaction) for doing altruistic things. Their previous experience leads them at an instinctual level to expect a reward even when logically the action may lead to them missing the reward.

We dont do things because we feel good, we do things because we want to feel good. Trying to achieve that desire is what causes us to act.

I like this response. Far better than what I tried to say.

[Shibboleth]

So is everyone here ready to agree that Hitler can't be accurately described as a better or worse person than Martin Luther King, except possibly to the extent their respective actions had the ultimate consequences of helping/hurting different quantities of people?

You might be responding to something else so sorry if I misunderstood but if you are saying what I think you are saying... Something doesn't have to be altruistic to be good.

[EhJayArr]

So is everyone here ready to agree that Hitler can't be accurately described as a better or worse person than Martin Luther King, except possibly to the extent their respective actions had the ultimate consequences of helping/hurting different quantities of people?

Yes, this seems to be the majority's opinion.

[Shibboleth]

So is everyone here ready to agree that Hitler can't be accurately described as a better or worse person than Martin Luther King, except possibly to the extent their respective actions had the ultimate consequences of helping/hurting different quantities of people?

Yes, this seems to be the majority's opinion.

There are a lot of problems with the Greater-Good Hypothesis and Utilitarianism.