Actions, Rewards, Penalties or Why we do what we do.

Remove all ads!

Are you saying that you believe our actions can be unconsciously made?

Abstaining from incest does not strike me as a law of nature. Nothing is stopping a family from inter-breeding, nor will they all instantly die out: they'll simply live as a mentally deficient culture. This said, the only reason we don't breed with closely related people is because our culture does not want to be mentally deficient. It stemmed from a conscious choice of our ancestors to stop a trend which they saw harmful; even if people today view it as "common sense" or "natural."

I read what you said as; "Anything beneficial to the survival of our species [do you mean as a whole, or individually?] is partly an unconscious, natural, choice." But it is entirely possible that I misunderstood what you meant by 'unconscious choice.'

Perhaps you meant the natural thing to do is survive, and it takes a conscious choice to disregard that desire to live? I think there are plenty of real world examples in which certain cultures have not shown this desire to survive. (Mass suicides, seppuku, etc) Being raised from a young age to believe that death is inconsequential or being convinced at an older age will not create that desire to live. Which is why our culture places such a huge emphasis on living and procreating.

Ancient fertility goddesses were large, big hipped, hourglass-shaped women: most likely because they could bear the largest amount of children with the least amount of complications. The King James Bible translation (if you can call it that) put a huge burden on procreating: most likely because life was a lot less certain during his time. Cultures have consciously done this in order to improve their chance to survive. Since historical cultures have placed such a large emphasis on survival, most likely because they realized they had to, a lot of modern-humans infer it as a natural-instinct, or something that just happens naturally.

I'd say the contrary is true: we want to live and procreate due to years of cultural conditioning.

[Everyone is free to completely disagree with me. ]

 

I have more than once done altruistic things for people I don't want to help and don't even like. Why? Well, I didn't do it to feel good or for any kind of cultural reward. Corruption exists within all of us, but all of us are capable of altruism once in a while. The paramount example of altruism, risking and ultimately sacrificing one's life to save the life of another, is a prime example of this. For the sake of argument, I'll discount the people who are paid to defend others with their lives if necessary, people sacrificing their lives for their loved ones, and people who believe that they face some nebulous reward in the hereafter. What does that leave? Atheists and agnostics who risk their lives to help someone they don't even like with no one around to judge their (in)action. Think it never happens? I don't.

 

Haha! My wish came true.

They can be/are subconsciously motivated; I seem to have misused the words.

Autosomal recessive disorders (results of inbreeding) cause not only intellectual disabilities, but also somatic ones, thusly threatening the community's welfare in a more direct way.

I do believe your interpretation is correct, yes. As previously stated, I should have written 'subconscious motivation', but yes, everything else still stands.

I was talking about the primitive communities. (hence the 'Totem and Taboo' references). Seppku, mass suicides or similar acts are all concepts connected with more advanced, younger cultures.

Aye, but what caused it? Why is it deemed so important to preserve our species?

Gee, thanks.

 

I agree, I don't believe anyone can say that people are either good or evil [by nature], but can be both in varying degrees, depending on how one chooses to develop him or herself. I think it was Montaigne, (I'm not sure) who wrote something like, "Life is neither good nor evil, but either can find a place depending upon the place you make for them."

 

I believe a clarification of Autosomal recessive disorders is incorrect. Whilst some are, that does not mean that all should be viewed in such light.

On topic at large, I believe there can be and are altruistic acts. However the circumstances relating are often so rare, more often spur of the moment before the concsious has a chance to fully engage a situation and action is required.

 

Thanks for pointing that out - I understand you mean not all of them are results of inbreeding? I was not actually trying to generalize them thusly, but should have been more clear about it.

 

I don't know about this. It's certainly not an absolute standard of Christianity. There are some passages that indicate it, but they're sketchy to say the least. I don't know if it's standard Catholic teaching or not.

The problem I see with this is that you'd expect altruism to be more hereditary, as well as more consistent. What exactly qualifies as an 'altruistic' act, and the common ones in a society, and how common it is in a society as a whole, all change drastically from one society to another. I suspect socialization plays a much, much stronger role in this particular aspect than genetics. Genetics may have created the pathways in the brain that allowed altruism to function, but I think that's like comparing the fact that there are roads to the preponderance of sedans on said roads. Then again, I'm not a huge fan of Freud, Bettelheim, or Dawkins.

I'd also like to point out that, tabboo or not, incest has played some significant roles in human history. The royalties of Europe, anyone?

I also think the interplay between the conscious/subconscious mind and action is vastly oversimplified in modern thought. I was reading a book recently that argued that free will is an illusion simply because we do so many things, 'conscious', 'chosen' things without even really thinking about them. My response to that was: what on earth makes you think free will must be conscious will? Why can't the subconscious mind play just as much a role? Isn't it, after all, an equal and integral part in our mind? It's not like you keep each mind in a separate box, or even like they're next to each other in the same box. It's more like they're two sides of the same coin, or the egg and the flour after they've been baked together into a cake.

I disagree, but I think it's a matter of semantics. I would rather say that all people, by nature, are both good and evil. We are perfection corrupted (a little Christian theology coming through there). We can choose to be more, or even mostly, one or the other (or at least to try to be), but ultimately we carry both with us wherever we go and whatever we do. The most vile person in the world can do a kind turn on a whim and the most gentle person in the world can do a cruel one.

 

That depends, since the concept of evil within Man varies according to church doctrine. But that may be what they teach in your particular church.

I think you are agreeing with me -- People make the choice to be one or the other.

 

I was having this discussion on another site a few days ago myself (err, you're hardly a follower of Irish politics, are you Nakia?). Runescarred has already covered what I was saying though, that altruism (and selfishness) is inbuilt as it's useful from an evolutionary viewpoint. Selfish genes and the human self is a very interesting short article on the subject.

This is a vast oversimplication. In particular it ignores that we are social animals. We will carry out some actions for the sake of our good standing in the "pack" and because being a member of a strong pack is good for our own survival. This logic explains, for example, why men don't go around raping women the whole time despite the fact that that would allow them to spread their genes around.

Incest in European (and Ancient Egypt) would have been about keeping the power and wealth concentrated within the family rather than diluting it. I think such an incentive would have been strong enough to overcome the inbuilt taboo.

I don't understand your point about subconscious thought. To most people free will means that you've thought about it and made a decision knowing the consequences for yourself and others. I'd regard subconscious thought as a reflex action, like jerking my foot up if I step on something.

 

I think the point was that they're not one or the other exclusively. I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but semantically, you're saying one or the other not both.

 

This is what I said:

I was only responding to NOG's last point with the different quote you pasted.

I was at a lecture once where the prof commented that this practice still goes on in very wealthy, powerful, older, American familes, (old money); not within the immediate family but at the second degree, for exactly that reason. I don't know if he was correct or not.

 

My friends at Avenue Q addressed the topic in their Money Song. It helps to know the plot but isn't necessary to get the general point. I've spoilered the lyrics below.

Spoiler

Nicky:
Help the homeless!
Help the homeless!
Ooh! Hey Princeton!

Give me a quarter!
Here in my hat!
Come on, Princeton!
It�s as easy as that!
Helping others brings you
Closer to God.
So give me a quarter...

Princeton:
I don�t have any change.

Nicky:
Hmmm....okay.

Give me a dollar.

Princeton:
That�s not what I meant.

Nicky:
Give me a five.

Princeton:
Are you kidding?

Nicky:
The more you give.
The more you get.
That�s being alive!
All I�m asking you
Is to do what
Jesus Christ would do.
He�d give me a quarter,
Why don�t you?

Princeton:
All right, all right, here you go.

Nicky:
Ahh, thanks!

Princeton:
Take care.
Whoa!

Nicky:
What�s the matter?

Princeton:
I feel generous!
I feel compassionate!

Nicky:
You do?

Princeton:
Yeah! I feel like a new person - a good person!
Helping other people out makes you feel fantastic!

Nicky:
That�s what I�ve been trying to tell you-

Princeton:
All this time I�ve been running around thinking
about me, me, me - and where has it gotten me!
I�m gonna do something for someone else!

Nicky:
Me?

Princeton:
No - Kate! I�m going to raise the money to build that
stupid Monster School she�s always talking about!

Give me your money!

Nicky:
What?

Princeton:
I need it for Kate!

Nicky:
I need it to eat!

Princeton:
Come on, Nicky!

Nicky:
Aww, get lost!

Princeton:
It�ll make you feel great!

Nicky:
So would a burger!

Princeton:
When her dream comes true,
It�ll all be partly
Thanks to you
So give me your money!

Nicky:
I�d like to, but I can�t.

Princeton:
Give me your money!

Nicky:
I�d like to, but I need it!

Princeton:
Give me your money!

Nicky:
I�d like to, but I�m homeless!
I can�t! I need it! I�m homeless!
I can�t! I need it! I�m homeless!
I can�t! I need it! I�m homeless!
Okay, here you go.

Princeton:
Thank you!

Nicky:
Suddenly,
I am feeling
Closer to God.
It�s time to stop begging
It�s time to start giving!
What can I give to Rod?

Something he�ll like so much he�ll take me back.
Ooh, I know! I�ll find him a boyfriend!

Princeton:
That�s the spirit!

Both:
When you help others,
You can�t help helping yourself!
When you help others,
You can�t help helping yourself!

Gary Coleman:
Hey boys, what�s the hat for?

Nicky:
Ooh, we�re collecting money!

Princeton:
It�s for Kate! We�re raising money to help build her dream school!

Give us your money!

Nicky:
You�ll be glad that you did!

Gary Coleman:
That�s just what my parents told me
When I was a kid.

****.

Nicky:
But giving feels so great...

Gary Coleman:
And I bet it wouldn�t hurt
Your chances with Kate.

Princeton:
Well, that too.

Gary Coleman:
I�ll give you a dollar.

Princeton:
You�re a gentleman
And a scholar.

Christmas Eve:
We so happy! We just exchange all your wedding gifts for cash!

Brian:
Honey, don�t tell THEM that!

Christmas Eve:
We get about 2,000 bucks!

Brian:
Uh, yeah, so - thanks, everybody!

Christmas Eve:
We rich!

Princeton:
Give us your money!

Nicky:
Give us your money!

Gary Coleman:
Give us your goddamn money!

Princeton:
Give us the dough!

Nicky/Gary Coleman
Give us the dough!

Princeton/Nicky/Gary Coleman
We�re raising money
For a Monster School
But we�ve got a ways to go.

Princeton:
Sounds like you�ve
Got money to burn

Nicky:
And it�s not like money
That you had to earn.

Princeton/Nicky/Gary Coleman:
So give us your money -

Christmas Eve:
A monster school?

Brian:
Sounds like a good cause.

Christmas Eve:
Give me your wallet.

Princeton:
Oh my gosh! I don�t know how to thank you guys.
I mean, Kate will be so grateful!
That kind of money is such a great start...

Gary Coleman:
Yeah, $15.

Princeton:
$15?

Christmas Eve:
Every little bit help.

Nicky:
Looks like we�re gonna have to ask MORE people!


All:
Hey!
Give us your money!
All that you�ve got!
Just fork it on over...

Gary Coleman:
Or some puppets
Will get shot!

Princeton:
Hey!

All:
It�s time to pass the hat

Gary Coleman:
And there�s nothing you can do �bout that

All:
So give us your money!
Give us your money!
Give us your money!
When you help others,
You can�t help helping yourself!
When you help others,
You can�t help helping yourself!
Every time you
Do good deeds
You�re also serving
Your own needs.
When you help others,
You can�t help helping yourself!
When you give
To a worthy cause
You�ll feel as jolly
As Santa Clause.
When you help others,
You can�t
Help
Helping yourself!

 

First of all, I would like to say that I am glad you replied to this post; given how different our opinions on the matter and ways of thinking seem, the discussion should definitely prove interesting.

I never suggested that culture does not play it's part... quite the opposite. Culture, with socialization as one of it's results, defines an altruistic act. However, I believe the desire to commit such an act is purely natural. To sum it up and make a few things clear: primo - (as I stated in the reply to Rakhir's inquiry) I was referring to the most primitive tribal organizations, the quasi-state societies (ergo, without more advanced cultural constructions you seem to refer to), secundo - (as I stated in my first post) 'It is culture that had created more advanced and spiritual motivations for the said law, but it's origin stays the same.' Thusly, I am not denying socialization it's role.

Trust me - no one could possibly expect you to be.

Well, I was not denying that role, either. I agree with Deise - the taboo breaking was done mostly for economical reasons (ergo, as a means to secure a safe existence for the particular group, ergo, as a means of survival, ergo - nature 'wins' again).

Besides, the standards rulers were held to are entirely, entirely different than the laws rest of the world followed. Pharaoh was considered to be the earthly incarnation of Horus. Monarchs in Europe were thought to be chosen to their thrones by various deities (Heimdall, Zeus, Svanthevit to name a few) in the pre-Christian era, and to be chosen by the Christian God in the later times (especially when the said rulers were atointed and crowned by the pope). There are infinitely more examples of the 'sacred king' phenomenon in various cultures; the ethical standards vary, depending on one's position within the society.

Again, that was not what I meant. I was not valuating, and was not trying to compare the two. Actually, I think we might be agreeing on that one: my suggestion was that the motivation is subconscious, the act is influenced by it - these things need not be separate, however, they do come from different places.

 

It's an informed philosophical expansion of the teaching that we were made perfect in the Garden of Eden, but then fell. Thus, we are perfection corruped, as is all of nature.

Again, I think it's just a matter of semantics (and possibly philosophy). Effectively, yes, we agree.

Here's the sticky thing, though. In other animals, insticts aren't overcome by anything except other instincts. In humanity, the common person uses the term much differently. We often refer to instinct as a motive, rather than a behavior. Animal psychologists don't do this. Technically, human beings have almost no instincts (I think there are six of them or something). What we do have is a complex mesh of socialized learning, genetic predispositions, and quite possibly this undefined, unknown, uncertain element called 'free will'. Genetics certainly plays a role, but to attribute this to that and that alone is folly.

You seem to be suggesting that socialized learning isn't natural. Yes, I get what you're saying. I again refer to my analogy of roads, and I think we may agree. Genetics allows for the pathways that altruism takes, though other things follow the same paths (in fact, I'd argue all risk/benefit analysis may take that same path). Socialization puts the specifics on the path, and whether those be an altruistic urge to give money, to welcome a traveler into your home, to keep your region of the city clean and shiny, or to invest in your neighbors new business, it is a combination of the two forces that allows it to happen. I think our biggest disagreement is that you seem to think that, without any socialization, some primitive form of altruism would show up regardless. I'm not at all certain of this.

Ah, but here we're getting into entirely social factors. Whatever the people may have believed Pharaoh was, and whatever he himself may have believed he was, he was human. The genetic influences would have been the same.

I was merely commenting on your distinction between the two to begin with. You repeat here the idea that one part comes from one, and the other comes from the other. I just want to make sure that you realize the whole conscious/subconscious divide is one of entirely human construct. It's a way of imagining the human mind and it's functions, but it's not even the only one. Think of that divide like the border between the US and Canada. And here, I think we're talking about wolves, not people. They don't strictly belong to either one or the other, and trying to attribute them to one or the other is strictly an imaginary organizational activity. I'm not saying it's incorrect, just not absolute.

 

Well, it is not 'natural' in the culture sciences/studies meaning of the term, and I chose to use it exclusively in that context - mostly for reasons of clarity.

The concept of taboo is an entirely social factor (in this particular case derived from nature, but social/cultural nonetheless).

My way of thinking about the issue is quite similar: I imagine the dimensions of the mind as separate parts of one organ system. And obviously, I do not think this is the one and only way to look at it; 'tis merely an option I chose. Besides, it seems that - at this point -there is no 'absolute' and scientifically proven way to look at the issue... therefore, no interpretation of it is actually 'correct' or 'incorrect'.

 

Interesting concepts and idea. I am going to do a summary of what I am gleaning from these posts. After all I did start this topic in order to get educated and intelligent comments.

The definition of altruistic is important. To me it is an act to another person that is done without thought of reward. Aha, right there I redefine my initial post. "without thought of reward." So there can be altruistic acts according to my definition.

I do not see natural or socially motivated acts as altruistic. Nature programs each species to seek its own preservation. Socially motivated acts are built into us by our society. Please and thank become automatic for some of us. I do think that an altruistic act would be the overriding of our natural instincts or socially motivated acts.

So my view point has been modified but how much? I still think that expecting other people to act in a manner which we consider morally correct is unrealistic.

I agree with Silvery that one should expect to be disappointed therefore when we are disappointed we aren't disappointed.

 

We can expect others to act in a self-prioritising manner from the expectations that are implied by society.

For one, a person is more likely to put their possessions before their personal safety.

Then probably personal safety or the safety of their partners and/or blood relatives.

From that point on a combination of socially encouraged actions and personal will in some order.

It used to be commonplace for neighbours to know one another closely, as technology has become more and more discrete and farther reaching though it has become farther from the norm.

 

To throw my non-scientific feelings on altruism into the thread, I'll say I disagree with Silvery/Nakia to an extent.

I'm an optimist. I don't expect to be disappointed; the lack of action on my behalf does not disappoint me. Therefore, even when people do completely selfish things or things that inconvenience my life, I find no reason to be disappointed. My actions are the only ones I control, so why fret when something I can't control happens? However, moving from that, I oft preform actions on the behalf of others with no expectation of reward.

I think quite a few people preform these rewardless acts without really thinking about it, which may be what Rune is implying by unconscious altruism.

e.g. finding a wallet in a hotel lobby and returning it to the front desk without taking anything. Noticing a neighbor's trash can rolling down the street during heavy winds and returning it to their porch.

This stems from choices people make. I would not define it as unconscious altruism. [Though, Runescarred, I don't know if this is exactly what you meant, and I apologize for failing to glean your exact meaning.] We do not have innate instincts to tell us that fire is hot and we should not touch it. After we touch a flaming object once and it burns us, we learn not to touch fire. This prompts a jerk-reaction every time we're about to touch fire or fire is about to touch us. Not something we're born knowing, something we learn and apply to life by choice.

The same is true about perceived moral goodness. We are not born with an innate moral compass, we pick and choose that which we believe to be good and worthy of action. It can be influenced by any number of things, but not by instinct. Our perception of moral goodness is learned and chosen. When we do not specifically think about doing something, it does not mean our conscious mind is not involved. (This is mostly reiteration.)

People choose the course of action which benefits another person and not themselves. Even when punishment is not perceived to be forthcoming, i.e. no one will ever know if you snag the cash from the wallet. Or in cases where there is no punishment, i.e. letting the trash can continue rolling down the road.

Why is this?

Some would say a general love for people, the Greek philia if you would, opposed to agape or eros. Some would say to improve how someone perceives you; this could be peers, superiors or complete strangers. Many would give you a different reason.
I do these things not because I love every human simply for their virtue of being human, nor because I want alter how people perceive me, but because it makes me happy and content. To some, that may remove the tag of altruistic from these actions.

I agree that if we are going to analyze something, we must first define it. However, within this definition we truly need to define reward if we're going to answer your question.

The word altruistic can be taken to the extreme lack of any perceived 'reward'; to take an action and perceive not getting anything at all. Not a corporeal item, not an emotion, not a breath of air. But, under this definition, if the perceived reward is worthwhile, i.e. the happiness of someone else or myself, I would gladly choose the non-altruistic path over the altruistic.

 

I would argue that altruism can still exist regardless of how you choose to define "reward". Have you ever done right by someone else knowing that your efforts will not be rewarded, will not be appreciated, and that you'll even be punished for them? I have. I'm inclined to doubt that I'm unique or special in this world and believe that most of us can recall similar actions from our pasts. Even monsters like Charles Manson have probably done a few altruistic things in their lifetimes.

 

I would agree, I mentioned such earlier in the thread. (With the theoretical teenage girl.)

But, to truly define what an altruistic act is we can't just give an example, we must find a definition. Without having a clear definition of what rewards defy Nakia's criteria of an altruistic act we can't say altruistic act is this, we can simply say this is an altruistic act. If you know what I mean: we can say this extreme is altruistic and this extreme is not, but we will be left with a gray area in-between.

For example, is preforming an altruistic act a reward in and of itself for virtue being selfless? That by very definition would make preforming an altruistic act impossible. Obviously I don't think this is what anyone would define as a reward, but hopefully you can see where I'm going.
Is instilling pleasure in someone else a reward?
If yes, then your altruistic act must make the person feel pain or at least not make them feel pleasure.
If no, then is any emotion a reward? Is feeling pleasure yourself a reward? Are some emotions rewards and other emotions not?
Is instilling pleasure in someone else, thereby making yourself feel pleasure, a reward?