Human Behavior

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: warrior

I would even take it a step further. Any action an individual takes is selfish. Periodquote>

Your in a train there's one seat left and there's only one other person standing than you, an old woman, your both standing next to this chair, either one of your could sit down on it. The old woman doesn't because she doesn't want to take the last seat with someone else standing, but you don't know that.

Do you:

A) Take the seat.

B) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat.

C) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat, she takes too long so you just sit down.quote>

B. My desire to satisfy my sense of courtesy/morality outweights my desire to be comfortable sitting here. 

But it's still my desire to satisfy my sense of courtesy/morality. I don't give up the seat to provide the old lady relief, I do it because I would feel guilty if I didn't. I have a personal (selfish) interest in avoiding guilt.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: warrior

I would even take it a step further. Any action an individual takes is selfish. Periodquote>

Your in a train there's one seat left and there's only one other person standing than you, an old woman, your both standing next to this chair, either one of your could sit down on it. The old woman doesn't because she doesn't want to take the last seat with someone else standing, but you don't know that.

Do you:

A) Take the seat.

B) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat.

C) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat, she takes too long so you just sit down.quote>

B. My desire to satisfy my sense of courtesy/morality outweights my desire to be comfortable sitting here. 

But it's still my desire to satisfy my sense of courtesy/morality. I don't give up the seat to provide the old lady relief, I do it because I would feel guilty if I didn't. I have a personal (selfish) interest in avoiding guilt.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I am reading a book how many people (are made to) feel guilty (by society) for their virtues.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I am reading a book how many people (are made to) feel guilty (by society) for their virtues.

[astronelson 339]

The question of whether or not altruism exists is certainly a difficult one. I personally think it does exist. Why is an entirely different matter.

The main argument against the existence of altruism seems to be that most people feel good about helping others, which makes it a selfish act. I dispute this. Going by wikipedia's table of interactions, an action that benefits yourself along with others is a cooperative one, not a selfish one. A selfish act does not take the effects on other people into account.

There seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes selfishness. I take it to be acting towards your own interests without regard for the interests of others. Others may take it to be acting towards your own interests regardless of your position on the interests of others.

Giving alms selflessly has been given a selfish root. Consider the following, then: occasionally I donate money (to cancer research, the homeless, etc.). Doing so may give me a slight feeling of happiness. So, according to some, this act is selfish. On other occasions, I do not donate money. Since I have not donated, I have kept the money. This act is also apparently selfish.

However, most times, whether I donate or not, I don't actually get any feelings about the matter. I honestly don't care. The charity itself will still draw in money whether I donate or not, so I don't have any negative feelings, however, the small amount I give doesn't usually mean much to me, so I don't have any positive feelings about it. Giving money to the homeless has a similar logic behind it (not that I consciously think about this while I'm doing it - I pretty much decide whether or not to donate money completely on autopilot).

If it was a large proportion of my income (in excess of about $20 - I'm a university student and rely on my parents for money) that would be a different matter, however, at that point self-preservation starts to kick in so I can be excused for feeling uneasy about donating.

Referring back to the table I mentioned before, I don't care what the outcome is for me, and I don't generally care what the outcome is for the other person, but I generally have a preference for a good outcome on their side. So I'm mostly indifferent, but have altruistic (on the table, UnSelfish) tendencies.

Also, if you've ever seen me play any game where alliances feature, you will notice I never break them, even if I would profit from doing so. While minor, I thought it may be an interesting and slightly relevant point.

[astronelson 339]

The question of whether or not altruism exists is certainly a difficult one. I personally think it does exist. Why is an entirely different matter.

The main argument against the existence of altruism seems to be that most people feel good about helping others, which makes it a selfish act. I dispute this. Going by wikipedia's table of interactions, an action that benefits yourself along with others is a cooperative one, not a selfish one. A selfish act does not take the effects on other people into account.

There seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes selfishness. I take it to be acting towards your own interests without regard for the interests of others. Others may take it to be acting towards your own interests regardless of your position on the interests of others.

Giving alms selflessly has been given a selfish root. Consider the following, then: occasionally I donate money (to cancer research, the homeless, etc.). Doing so may give me a slight feeling of happiness. So, according to some, this act is selfish. On other occasions, I do not donate money. Since I have not donated, I have kept the money. This act is also apparently selfish.

However, most times, whether I donate or not, I don't actually get any feelings about the matter. I honestly don't care. The charity itself will still draw in money whether I donate or not, so I don't have any negative feelings, however, the small amount I give doesn't usually mean much to me, so I don't have any positive feelings about it. Giving money to the homeless has a similar logic behind it (not that I consciously think about this while I'm doing it - I pretty much decide whether or not to donate money completely on autopilot).

If it was a large proportion of my income (in excess of about $20 - I'm a university student and rely on my parents for money) that would be a different matter, however, at that point self-preservation starts to kick in so I can be excused for feeling uneasy about donating.

Referring back to the table I mentioned before, I don't care what the outcome is for me, and I don't generally care what the outcome is for the other person, but I generally have a preference for a good outcome on their side. So I'm mostly indifferent, but have altruistic (on the table, UnSelfish) tendencies.

Also, if you've ever seen me play any game where alliances feature, you will notice I never break them, even if I would profit from doing so. While minor, I thought it may be an interesting and slightly relevant point.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A beneficial parasite by any other name would be called a symbiote.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A beneficial parasite by any other name would be called a symbiote.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Actually, a parasite is a detrimental symbiote and a beneficial symbiote is a mutualistic organism.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Actually, a parasite is a detrimental symbiote and a beneficial symbiote is a mutualistic organism.

[GMT 389]

speaking of moral motivation for a certain behavior:

back in school, in religious education (which, thanks for being protestant turned out to be more on the ethical side of life than the catholic counterpart which was actually working with the bible like it was a school book) we were shown a nice model linking a certain behavior of a person/group to a certain level of moral motivation or the own position towards moral standards and/or laws.

I can't name details yet as I gotta dig a little deeper in the closet to find it again, but I will asap. might be an interesting addition to the discussion

EDIT: doesn't the term symbiosis automatically exclude parasites? afaik, a symbiosis makes the respective organisms dependant on each other (symbiotes; e.g. ants that "feed" a certain fungus and in return feed themselves from it) while a parasite only depends on his host but not vice versa.

[GMT 389]

speaking of moral motivation for a certain behavior:

back in school, in religious education (which, thanks for being protestant turned out to be more on the ethical side of life than the catholic counterpart which was actually working with the bible like it was a school book) we were shown a nice model linking a certain behavior of a person/group to a certain level of moral motivation or the own position towards moral standards and/or laws.

I can't name details yet as I gotta dig a little deeper in the closet to find it again, but I will asap. might be an interesting addition to the discussion

EDIT: doesn't the term symbiosis automatically exclude parasites? afaik, a symbiosis makes the respective organisms dependant on each other (symbiotes; e.g. ants that "feed" a certain fungus and in return feed themselves from it) while a parasite only depends on his host but not vice versa.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Symbiotes are mutually beneficial organisms, while parasites can be said to disimprove the host, often to death.

In humans there are some organisms that can be both.  e-coli is a good example.  In its proper environment it helps with the metabolism of foodstuffs.  In the wrong place is it a deadly parasite that poisons the host.  However, let's get back on topic.

Can altruism be a natural outcome or is it a result of nurture?  I believe it can only be a learned behavior as human beings are no different from any animal except in the capacity to perform abstract reasoning such as this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Symbiotes are mutually beneficial organisms, while parasites can be said to disimprove the host, often to death.

In humans there are some organisms that can be both.  e-coli is a good example.  In its proper environment it helps with the metabolism of foodstuffs.  In the wrong place is it a deadly parasite that poisons the host.  However, let's get back on topic.

Can altruism be a natural outcome or is it a result of nurture?  I believe it can only be a learned behavior as human beings are no different from any animal except in the capacity to perform abstract reasoning such as this.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Humans are a bit different for various reasons, alluded to earlier.  The original subject was selfishness and altruism.  They operate at a much higher level.

Barbarossa

quote>

And this militates against the current supreme court decision that corporations are persons.  Currently, the symbiotic agreements over the production of petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico seems to be breaking down as some of the partners become disimproved.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Humans are a bit different for various reasons, alluded to earlier.  The original subject was selfishness and altruism.  They operate at a much higher level.

Barbarossa

quote>

And this militates against the current supreme court decision that corporations are persons.  Currently, the symbiotic agreements over the production of petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico seems to be breaking down as some of the partners become disimproved.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Too bad its just ballistic.  If you went hyperbolic, you would achieve an escape orbit.

Anyway, where were we on whether altruism is a product of nature or nurture?  I think I stated it must be nurture because it requires higher reasoning powers, and must be a learned behaviour.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Too bad its just ballistic.  If you went hyperbolic, you would achieve an escape orbit.

Anyway, where were we on whether altruism is a product of nature or nurture?  I think I stated it must be nurture because it requires higher reasoning powers, and must be a learned behaviour.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Too bad its just ballistic.  If you went hyperbolic, you would achieve an escape orbit.

Anyway, where were we on whether altruism is a product of nature or nurture?  I think I stated it must be nurture because it requires higher reasoning powers, and must be a learned behaviour.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Most human nature is actually nurture. Nature usually only deals with self preservation (including by proxy, as in family).

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Most human nature is actually nurture. Nature usually only deals with self preservation (including by proxy, as in family).

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Most human nature is actually nurture. Nature usually only deals with self preservation (including by proxy, as in family).

[Meg 368]

Nature vs Nuture.  I believe it is not an either/or question.  Most things are a combination of both.

In simple traits, such as height, nature (specifically genetics) gives us a range where we can land, an upper limit and a lower limit.  Nuture (specifcially nutrition) determines where in that range we land.   A poorly nourished child is not going to reach his full growth potential regardless of what genes have been handed to him.

Can such reasoning be applied to traits such as altruism?  To a point.   All babies are not born the same.   There is a personality that is already baked in at birth.    How does it get that way?   There are a lot of theories.   But we know that babies who have been subjected to pre-natal alcohol or cocaine have problems, not all of them physical.

[Meg 368]

Nature vs Nuture.  I believe it is not an either/or question.  Most things are a combination of both.

In simple traits, such as height, nature (specifically genetics) gives us a range where we can land, an upper limit and a lower limit.  Nuture (specifcially nutrition) determines where in that range we land.   A poorly nourished child is not going to reach his full growth potential regardless of what genes have been handed to him.

Can such reasoning be applied to traits such as altruism?  To a point.   All babies are not born the same.   There is a personality that is already baked in at birth.    How does it get that way?   There are a lot of theories.   But we know that babies who have been subjected to pre-natal alcohol or cocaine have problems, not all of them physical.