The motive of our actions

[Luisrah]

Taking into account philosophical actions (those that we make consciously and intencionally), I've been thinking that all of them are driven by our ego.

For example, if I eat a cookie, I'm doing it because it feels good and is tasty, so I feel better when eating it.

But that is simple. How about giving money to a beggar?
If I'm going down the street, and I see a beggar I think: Should I or shoudln't I give him money?

If I don't give him money, it's easy to see why the ego is the motive of the action, I want to use that money to buy something for me.
But the tricky part is if I do give him money. If I do that, one can say that the only motive for it is altruism. But if we take a closer look, maybe we can see that the most profound reason I gave the money was because it makes me feel better.

When the question is in your mind, there are pros and cons.
If I keep the money, I can buy a chocolate later, and I'd love that, but if I do that then it will keep tormenting my mind. If I give the money, I won't buy the chocolate, but I'll feel great because I did something good.

So when I give the money to the beggar, I do it because it makes me feel better. Because in that exact time, I think that it will make me feel better to give it to him, because otherwise I'd have remorse (or however you say it) and by doing it I feel like a better person.

I hope you get the idea. Although I developed this idea largely on my own, I have a feeling I saw someone talking about it in a philosophy book. Does anyone know which and who?

Thoughts also?

[Amphictyonis]

Taking into account philosophical actions (those that we make consciously and intencionally), I've been thinking that all of them are driven by our ego.


CLICK BELOW

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html


Z-eU5xZW7cU

I think we are indeed motivated by our ego is many cases because thats what's been used as the foundation of capitalism but we're also motivated by altruism in many circumstances, the question is, which one do you think should be the dominant motivator within society? Both should and do exist, it's not like we should try to abolish selfish motivations or create a society solely based on altruism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

L:


Taking into account philosophical actions (those that we make consciously and intencionally), I've been thinking that all of them are driven by our ego.

For example, if I eat a cookie, I'm doing it because it feels good and is tasty, so I feel better when eating it.

But that is simple. How about giving money to a beggar?
If I'm going down the street, and I see a beggar I think: Should I or shoudln't I give him money?

If I don't give him money, it's easy to see why the ego is the motive of the action, I want to use that money to buy something for me.
But the tricky part is if I do give him money. If I do that, one can say that the only motive for it is altruism. But if we take a closer look, maybe we can see that the most profound reason I gave the money was because it makes me feel better.

When the question is in your mind, there are pros and cons.
If I keep the money, I can buy a chocolate later, and I'd love that, but if I do that then it will keep tormenting my mind. If I give the money, I won't buy the chocolate, but I'll feel great because I did something good.

So when I give the money to the beggar, I do it because it makes me feel better. Because in that exact time, I think that it will make me feel better to give it to him, because otherwise I'd have remorse (or however you say it) and by doing it I feel like a better person.

I hope you get the idea. Although I developed this idea largely on my own, I have a feeling I saw someone talking about it in a philosophy book. Does anyone know which and who?

Thoughts also?

I do not see why these are philosophical questions.

If they have answers, then they are surely matters for scientists/psychologists to decide.

A philosophical question would be something like: What is a motive? And we can asnwer that by looking at how we ordinarily use words connected with this aspect of our psychological lives

[PhoenixAsh]

The philosophical question is if altruism isn't just another form of egoism.
The debate is if motives cater to the ego...and as such if altruism is truely altruism.


Psychology can help but never truely answer this question because motives can not yet be abjectively measured.

The kids in the vids are helpful. Yet why they are helpful is not established. for all we know they could be thinking: "hey you dumb ahole...look at me...I am two and I can function better than you!" or perhaps they think it is a game...getting gratification from participating...or because the funny noise is comming from the box. Or because of attention.

[JazzRemington]

The philosophical question is if altruism isn't just another form of egoism.
The debate is if motives cater to the ego...and as such if altruism is truely altruism.

Altruistic and selfishness refers to outwardly behavior and usage of the words basically relies on the existence of a distinction between the two kinds of behavior. If we cannot meaningfully speak of people being "altruistic," then we cannot meaningfully speak of them being "selfish." Period.

[ZeroNowhere]

If one acts according to ethics and is pleased after this, one did not act according to pleasure, because then one would not be acting ethically. If one gives money to a beggar because otherwise one would feel guilty, one is not acting ethically (as Plato pointed out quite a while ago, in fact); conversely, if one would only feel guilty because it was a wrong and unethical action, then pleasure is not the governing principle here, but rather more of an epiphenomenon. If one is pleased by achieving one's aims, nonetheless this does not determine what these aims are. The tyrannical man cannot appreciate the same types of pleasure as the philosophical man, and this is because the tyrannical man does, in fact, have simple pleasure as the end of all of his actions, and hence cannot derive the pleasure which results from achieving one's higher aims rather than simple pleasure-seeking. If one's motive behind doing something is to find out the truth about something, and one becomes happy due to fulfilling one's motive, then one's motive was not pleasure, but truth.


I do not see why these are philosophical questions.

If they have answers, then they are surely matters for scientists/psychologists to decide.

A philosophical question would be something like: What is a motive? And we can asnwer that by looking at how we ordinarily use words connected with this aspect of our psychological livesI don't think that this is necessarily accurate. I think that we do generally have a particular use for phrases such as 'acting egoistically', which we differentiate from acting according to other motives, and have far before people started looking around for stuff in the brain. Psychological egoists are essentially claiming that there is something wrong about how we apply this language, and that all actions which bring pleasure are on principle 'egoistic', which is a linguistic contention. How is a psychologist to study whether an action is egoistic or not if they don't agree on how the phrase is to be used, that is, what kinds of actions it may be used to designate? As for neurology, a certain brain state could only be correlated with altruistic action (or conversely egoistic action) if it we were to, for example, examine both actions with egoistic and non-egoistic motives and find that a certain action in the brain was common to all egoistic actions and not present in any non-egoistic actions, but, well, it's not clear how we would do that when a psychological egoist won't allow for any actions to be designated as having non-egoistic motives.

Unless we defined 'egoistic' and 'non-egoistic' in terms of brain states, but in doing so one gives up any right to contradict the psychological egoists, because one is now simply talking about when certain patterns occur in the brain, which is not what the psychological egoist is talking about. Psychological egoists are somewhat akin to solipsists and such, in that they wish to take a word or phrase, like 'knowledge' (or 'he knows...', 'he does not know...', etc) or non-existence ('unicorns do not exist'), and essentially generalize it ('nothing exists', 'nobody knows anything') until it becomes essentially useless, and doesn't really have any substantive content (it does not tell us anything about the world to say that somebody does not know something in the sceptic's sense, because the negation has not been given any sense).


If we cannot meaningfully speak of people being "altruistic," then we cannot meaningfully speak of them being "selfish." Period.I only just noticed this post, but it's basically what I just said, except less convoluted.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, I do not disagree with much of what you posted, but I was replying to the OP's question. There is no way that philosophy can untangle the 'real' motives for his individual behaviour. If there are any, then that will be up to his psychologist/therapist to help him uncover.

The very best philosophy can do is help us clear up confusions we fall into in general when we speak about motives.

[ZeroNowhere]

He does use the plural, though, so he's presumably not simply telling us that he's an amoral hedonist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, he is specifically talking about himself, as far as I can see.

[JazzRemington]

The very best philosophy can do is help us clear up confusions we fall into in general when we speak about motives.

I've always been curious: how is this different from critical thinking? Or is it the same thing but with a different name, if you will?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Well, critical thinking more often than not tends to depend on a theoretical view of language and/or thought, as far as I can see. It also tends not to concentrate on ordinary language.

[Luisrah]

No, he is specifically talking about himself, as far as I can see.

Sorry for the misunderstanding/ment, however you write it.

I did in fact talk about people in general, not me in particular. I wanted to discuss this with anyone that was insterested, and get more information.

My idea is that people aren't amoral. I was thinking people can have morals, but what drives them is the ego. Having morals here would simply be a ''matter of taste''. For example, if I kill a beggar because I think he's bad for society, that can be imoral, although I will kill him because at that time, I will feel good because I think it will help society, and I am glad to know/think that. It can be called heroism to save someone from a building on fire, and I do think it is, but what drives the person at the time is the fact that he will feel better knowing that he saved someone, knowing that that person is safe. It makes him feel good to know the person is safe, and he knows he'd have a lot of weight in his conscience if he didn't save the person, so he saved him because he would feel better because of it. However, what we should appreciate from a moral view is the fact that saving someone makes him feel better, and that's commendable.

I hope I'm making myself clear.

I saw ZeroNowhere talk about Hedonism. I've heard that a lot, can you recommend something (book or site) on that?

[ZeroNowhere]

I was thinking people can have morals, but what drives them is the ego.That's not morality, though, it's Sophism.


No, he is specifically talking about himself, as far as I can see."Taking into account philosophical actions (those that we make consciously and intencionally), I've been thinking that all of them are driven by our ego."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

L:


My idea is that people aren't amoral. I was thinking people can have morals, but what drives them is the ego. Having morals here would simply be a ''matter of taste''. For example, if I kill a beggar because I think he's bad for society, that can be imoral, although I will kill him because at that time, I will feel good because I think it will help society, and I am glad to know/think that. It can be called heroism to save someone from a building on fire, and I do think it is, but what drives the person at the time is the fact that he will feel better knowing that he saved someone, knowing that that person is safe. It makes him feel good to know the person is safe, and he knows he'd have a lot of weight in his conscience if he didn't save the person, so he saved him because he would feel better because of it. However, what we should appreciate from a moral view is the fact that saving someone makes him feel better, and that's commendable.

Well, you don't know this a priori.

And, as Samuel Butler noted, there is a world of difference between doing something out of self-regard and doing it out of regard for oneself. [The French have two expressions for this too: 'amour propre' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amour-propre) and 'amour de soi'. Rousseau makes a big deal of this distinction, and rightly so.]

'Self-regard' is tantamount to what you might call egotism, or selfishness. 'Regard for oneself' is the equivalent of personal integrity, self-worth, etc.

So, someone might do something out of the second motive that does not make them feel good, but that is not possible with the first.

But, anyway, and more importantly, whatever is done out of the second motive is not aimed at making the individual concerned feel good, but at other objectives, whether or not it makes them feel good.

Acts of courage, self-sacrifice, bravery and honour are of the second type, and are often done before one can think how one will feel, and sometimes in defiance of how one will feel at the time, or later.

That is why we hold such acts in high esteem.

We do not hold acts done for the first reason in such high regard, should we find out what the motives in fact turned out to be.

Much of right-wing theory (that we are all selfish, etc.) depends on running these two ideas together.

[And that comment also applies to right-wing biology with its talk of 'selfish genes'.]

[Luisrah]

Well, putting it that way does make it more complicated. I'm not sure I completely understand what you said, mainly because English isn't my native language.

The actions you seem to be talking about may be a bit extreme. What I'm trying to say is that many times someone does something heroic without even thinking, and does it almost as an instinct/reflex.
So saving a person from a building in flames isn't such a good example, because in the middle of the adrenaline, you won't probably think what to do. I'm not saying that it is our genes that will determine our reaction (although it may have influence, even if very little compared to our education) but more like conditioned reflex.

If someone has been taught to help others since little, than it would be no surprise that in the middle of a building in flames he'd save the person. But he'd do it practically by instinct.

Unless I'm a bit rusty, philosophical actions happen when you think about what you do, consider the options, etc right? I was specifically talking of those.

If you could recommend a book on the matter, on those for and against what we are discussing, I'd be very thankful.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I don't really know of a book that discusses this. Ethics is not one of my preferred subjects.

A book that does discuss this distinction, and from which I gained some insight, is, oddly enough, the following:

D Stove, Darwinain Fairytales (Encounter Books, 2005), chapter 6.

I have a pdf copy of this book, and can upload it to a certain site, if you wish.

[Luisrah]

Well, I don't really know of a book that discusses this. Ethics is not one of my preferred subjects.

A book that does discuss this distinction, and from which I gained some insight, is, oddly enough, the following:

D Stove, Darwinain Fairytales (Encounter Books, 2005), chapter 6.

I have a pdf copy of this book, and can upload it to a certain site, if you wish.

Thanks. No need, thanks anyway.