really your doing this?
There was an OP, a question asked, and I answered it - there is no why, there is only what I have done.
Now my turn to ask a crap load of questions to you - that neither you nor I will care about:
what’s your fav color?
do you like ice cream cones?
if a train was named Roger would it make good soup?
what is the Norse god that Friday is named after?
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight
Hm…I actually consider an act of altriusm to be something that someone do for another because they truly believe that he/she is truly needs it - without expecting something in return. I suppose you can consider “feeling better about yourself” a return, but I don’t think that has to be the case. Some people will do things for others because they believe it’s the right thing to do.
The point Autolykos is making is that every action one takes, whatever the purpose of the action is- is for the benefit of the individual that undertook this action.
I mean you could say that if you can’t stand to see someone suffer and give them $100- you gave them $100 because you couldn’t stand to see it.
But, I think talking about psychic benefits such as “feeling better about yourself” confuses because that all depends on the individual as to what kind of pleasure it gives them, if any at all. The only thing we can say is that the action an individual undertook was his preference at that time if we’re going to talk generally.
Perhaps the concept of altruism can be considered to share another’s pain as if it were your own- which is why an altruistic person would seek to end it. No need to throw away such a nice word!
Do you enjoy doing things that you honestly and earnestly believe are wrong? Doesn’t it hurt when you do that?
Why do you think great evil always needs apologists? I’m not saying you don’t get sociopaths with no conscience - they are distressingly common - but the vast majority of institutionalised evil, such as the state, must come to fruition through the labours of people who have deceived themselves to believe that what they are doing is, in fact, good.
Do you think it’s likely that someone will behave consistently ethically if they don’t have a conscience? Do you think they will regard ethics as meaningful or helpful? Do you think they will regard their actions, or those of others, as being either good or bad?
But what is the conscience? Isn’t it that part of the personality that inflicts internal punishment if its mandates are not heeded, or if it is ignored? Does it not cause suffering when it is disregarded? Does God not punish the wicked, however you look at it?
Without guilt, there is no likelihood of consistent ethical behaviour. With guilt, ‘altruism’ becomes a performative contradiction in terms.
I think it was Molyneux who called humans ‘ethical animals’. One doesn’t really choose to be good. One is good by nature. However, one has tremendous capacity for self-deception… One is not honest by nature.
That’s right.
My question was rather rhetorical. I consider it good internet-forum decorum to read an entire thread before posting in it. But in fairness, I don’t own or manage this forum.
Sorry, but why ask me a “crap load” of questions when I’ve only asked you one?
Blue.
Yes. I like waffle cones the most.
Mu.
Freya.
I’m Batman.
If people only act for selfish reasons then there should be no difference between Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer? Mother Theresa felt better lessening the suffering of others while Jeffrey Dahmer felt better causing others to suffer. Both were acting in order to feel better.
How about the effect of selfish actions on others If someone gave me money, should I feel less pleased because he/she gave me the money for selfish reasons? And should I feel less pain if someone beat me up and then told me it wasn’t personal, he just likes to beat people up?
However you decide to feel is your business. No one can tell you how you’re supposed to feel. But do actions that are preferred over other actions necessarily mean that they make you “feel better”? One can certainly detach emotions from action. I can receive money or give money and feel neither happiness nor sadness, I can love without expecting anything in return, I can act against my principles and feel no “mental suffering” whatsoever, go into depression, or feel elated. I can decide to feel pleasure, hatred, or nothingness from receiving money or receiving violence. Its completely up to you.
Trying to figure out what feelings are underlying actions as a way to explain them seems pointless- one can’t know what feeling the actor who’s undertaking any action is having without them telling you(and even then how can it possibly be verified?).
All we can say about someone who takes a certain action is that they preferred to take that action over something else. Whether it brought them misery, joy, or absolutely nothing and just a deeply ingrained habit can’t really be verified, only trusted in good faith when they tell you that’s why they undertook the action.
Mises and Rothbard both say man acts to relieve a feeling of uneasiness ie to feel better.
“The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man” HA p18
'Where man does not see any casual relation, he cannot act." HA p22
Hmm so a physical sensation of pleasure(feeling better) happens each time someone takes action?
On the other point, Jeffrey dahmer and Mother Teresa certainly have differences- one was selfish with other voluntary selfish actors- the other wasn’t.
Consider the purpose of ethics, and the place of economy. Economics concerns mutually beneficial transactions. Yes, both Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer were acting egoistically, but one was acting in terms of mutually beneficial transactions and one was not, hence their actions are ethically distinguishable. One’s selfishness was good and one’s selfishness was bad. (Relatively speaking. Not everyone has the same respect for Mother Theresa, but let’s not go down that rabbit hole…)
No, we can’t tell each other or ourselves how we should feel, because the emotions and psychology and cultura; programming and whatever else that informs action is not action. In either situation, you are simply feeling things as a result of what someone else did to you, so there shouldn’t logically be a normative aspect to what you can possibly feel.
Nevertheless, whatever it was that you did as a result of your feelings, even if it was complete inaction, you must have thought that it was the right thing to do at the time, under the circumstances as they were imperfectly known to you… If you have a conscience, you must think it was the right thing to do, or else you must regret what you did. Regret is defined as a form of suffering.
Obviously an ethical argument doesn’t work against someone who doesn’t have a conscience. That does not concern me, personally. The state rules by consent.
When you act you are seeking a better situation than the one in which you are. For example you decide to watch a movie because you are bored. Entertained is a state you prefer over being bored. Or you jump from a plane because you like the rush, rush is a better feeling than no rush. But your parachute does not open and you die. Dead you are worst off than not having a rush.
So when you act you are seeking a preferable state than the one in which you are but it does not necessarily mean that you will succeed. You may actually end up being worst off than you were before you acted.
Also I am not sure I understood what you said concerning Mother Theres vs Jeffrey Dahmer. Could you please elaborate?
Thank you
So would that mean that for Man, his constant and normal state is suffering which can only be alleviated via action?
Are involuntary actions such as blinking or digestion of food in the stomach considered the same as conscious action? I’d say they would have to be.
When it comes to Teresa and Dahmer- I think James said it better than me. One is involved in a mutually beneficial action, whereas Jeffrey Dahmer was certainly no Dr. Kevorkian.
The libertarian position, as I have come to know it, is less interested in the motivations of people in their actions and more interested that these actions are voluntary and based upon subjective value.
Voluntary altruism is compatible with libertarianism, whereas involuntary altruism is not. A term such as “voluntary altruism” may be an oxymoron depending on what you declare the term “altruism” to mean.
Overall, I believe altruism is a pretty useless term and ideology. It also tends to lead to the path of involuntary servitude. The ultimate altruistic person is the slave. I believe Rand was most upset with the pressure on the individual to devalue his or her own self for the benefit of others and the idealism associated with this way of thinking. AE points to success of an economic system where individuals can act out of their own self interest and everyone benefits. Central planners with the best altruistic ideology cannot say the same. There track record tends to be the direct opposite.
Dunno about libertarianism, but I am aware of some recent findings that altruistic tendencies seem to be related to political ideology. Specifically, people who are ideologically conservative tend to give more freely of their time and resources, not just money, but also volunteerism, blood donations, etc. The findings I recall also claimed that this was true even though conservatives on average made less money than their liberal counterparts… in other words, for instance, even though the conservatives earned less money, they both gave more of their earnings in absolute dollars, and more as a percentage of their earnings, although I suppose that would logically follow if the first conditions are also true.
Perhaps the word suffering is a bit loaded and sounds too strong but its seems appropriate- if you must take action to improve your state then the original state must’ve been unpleasant, at least, compared to the new state you want to achieve. The state you’re in before you take action is dissatisfaction with something, right? This leads me to think that a state of dissatissfaction is the constant factor- and action corrects it until the original state inevitably returns(in different degrees).
Do all voluntary actions require thinking? A habit doesn’t require any thinking, for example:
I hold a door open for a lady-Maybe one person would think “I’m going to hold the door open for her” or “Should I open the door?” - but I just happen to do it in the moment instantaneously as an ingrained response in muscle memory, where no mental stream of thought appeared for the situation preceding the action or even after it. In that case- it surely still is action- but thinking wasn’t the pre-requisite, perhaps it was for others but its not universal. If no thought occured for the action to happen, how could it require thought?
If what I described is not considered an involuntary action, could you explain why since you mentioned that thinking makes the difference between a voluntary and involuntary action? If it is involuntary- wouldn’t it be an example of someone who took an action, but not in an attempt to feel better?