So i was talking to my shrink and this question came up

[motherengine]

is there any instance when a human action is not propelled by the desire for positive gain [happiness] or aversion to negative gain [sufferance]? as in, "i saved my kid to stop this horrible feeling in my chest" or "i got out of bed to stimulate my senses".

 

i am typing this for the desire of mental stimulation and due to an aversion to the annoyance of doubt as to what answers may exist in the minds of others.

[Tormod]

I think if you save your kid (or someone) else from an accident you don't act out of feelings in your chest but pure instinct. So that would be one of the instances you ask for.

 

Otherwise it's a good question...need to think...

[motherengine]

I think if you save your kid (or someone) else from an accident you don't act out of feelings in your chest but pure instinct. So that would be one of the instances you ask for.

 

Otherwise it's a good question...need to think...

 

i don't think there is such a thing as an instinct to save someone (even if they share your genetic code). couldn't a reaction in aversion to pain or fear of loss be processed before a rational thought is made? i wonder.

[bartock]

is there any instance when a human action is not propelled by the desire for positive gain [happiness] or aversion to negative gain [sufferance]? as in, "i saved my kid to stop this horrible feeling in my chest" or "i got out of bed to stimulate my senses".

i think in psychology it would go somthing like this

we think a +ve stimulus as somthing that we want ,so we work towards getting it.

a -ve stimulus is not somthing that we want , so we avoid it.

i think that i love my kid so much ,that if somthing happened to him i would have a heart attack .so then somthing bad happening to my kid becomes a -ve stimulus,and i would avoid it.

(of course it is another debate as to why i want the survival of my kid)

 

i am typing this for the desire of mental stimulation and due to an aversion to the annoyance of doubt as to what answers may exist in the minds of others.

here again the -ve stimulus is the thought that you dont know what others are thinking. so to escape this -ve stimulus you started this thread.

and knowing more on this topic is somthing that you want ,so it is a +ve stimulus to you to start this thread.

correct me if i am wrong.

[HydrogenBond]

Chosing the lessor of two evils or the better of two goods, the first neutralizes aversion with acceptanace and second neutralizes desire with doubt.

[sanctus]

Actually, it all gets back to the fact of the in-existence of pure altruism, whatever you do is because you feel good if you do it, otherwise you don't do it. Or a bit preciser, when you do it you don't have to feel good but the result makes you feel good.

[Fishteacher73]

Ayn Rand established Obectivism. Then tennet that no action is in essence altruistic. EVERYTHING can be traced back to selfish motive. You do nice things not because they are nice, but because it makes you feel better.

 

It is a hard philosophy to argue because it can always be linked back to personal survival instincts or personal sartisfaction, irregardless of what one says. The standard reply to denials is that the individual just does not recognize the subconscious selfishness involved in a n act.

 

 

Whether this is true or not is a difficult quandry...I have toyed with the idea for sometime, but still have a tendency to try to find loopholes in it.

[IrishEyes]

I don't believe in altruism.

Humans are basically a selfish sort, and do things for their own gain, regardless of the cotton-candy slant they like to put on things.

You save your kid because you don't want to feel the pain of his/her loss.

You get out of bed because you want coffee.

You start a new thread because you have questions that roll around in your head that need answers.

 

Everything you (or I) do is for selfish reasons. There is no altruism. People basically suck.

[Tormod]

Everything you (or I) do is for selfish reasons. There is no altruism. People basically suck.

 

If the first sentence above is true, then the third makes no sense. If *everyone* acts out of selfish reasons, then that is the norm and I don't see why that would mean everyone sucks. :doh:

[rockytriton]

Of course people only do things because they get some sort of benefit out of it. Even someone who does something for a totally unselfish reason. If I were to save someone that I hate from certain death, I would do it because I feel it needs to be done, so I am doing it for that personal satisfaction. It's like asking "does the world exist because it exists?".

[UncleAl]

is there any instance when a human action is not propelled by the desire for positive gain [happiness] or aversion to negative gain [sufferance]?

Insane asylums are stockpiles of your answer. Nursing homes - progressive conversion of the chronically near-dead into third party cash reimbursements - are a second (from the point of view of the inventory, of course). Sub-Saharan Africa is a remarkable reduction to practice of no positive gain at the cost of escalating negative gain on a tremendously large scale. US Inner Cities (slums in the rest of the world).

[IrishEyes]

If the first sentence above is true, then the third makes no sense. If *everyone* acts out of selfish reasons, then that is the norm and I don't see why that would mean everyone sucks. :Waldo:

I guess it sucks that it's the norm. :hyper:

[motherengine]

"we weep for ourselves". this line from a television show is how i view the process of mourning for the dead. to punish a man who murders another is for the the survivors, not the dead. to celebrate the memory of someone who is gone is to celebrate the part of the living that was effected by the dead. yet none of this is selfishness. the gene is self-oriented in that it is encased in an organic self, but it is not selfish. selfishness is behavior that excludes the concern of others and it cannot be practiced on a mass scale. we are 'slaves' to altruism or we are all dead. this is a basic truth of ecology; having been built together selfishness negates survival. anyway...this is another thread subject altogether.

[motherengine]

Of course people only do things because they get some sort of benefit out of it. Even someone who does something for a totally unselfish reason. If I were to save someone that I hate from certain death, I would do it because I feel it needs to be done, so I am doing it for that personal satisfaction. It's like asking "does the world exist because it exists?".

 

beg to differ here. asking if actions are caused by two known provocations [desire/fear] is questioning whether or not other provocations exist. i didn't ask if people act because they act.