We're quite selfish!

[blike]

It could be said that everything we do is to benefit ourselves in some way or another, whether it be emotional, physical, or psychological satisfaction. Try and come up with something that does not benefit us personally..

 

I thought about this for awhile and came up with organ donation. It doesn't directly benefit us, but it could be argued that the only reason we do this is the emotional satisfaction that you have knowing your organs could save lives. What do you guys think..

[Radical Edward]

I can't think of anything. even something that doesn't have an obvious benefit as described will have one of these benefits in a roundabout way, be it perversion, or avoidance of punishment as a result of fear, etc.

[Glider]

Originally posted by blike

It could be said that everything we do is to benefit ourselves in some way or another, whether it be emotional, physical, or psychological satisfaction. Try and come up with something that does not benefit us personally.

 

Tricky one. Are we talking about altruism? If so, I think an awful lot hinges on your definition of 'benefit'. We engage in many behaviours which are of no benefit to ouselves individually (and many which are detrimental), but then these are not altruistic behaviours.

 

So, is your argument that ALL behaviour is ultimately self-serving? In which case, as noted, there are many example of self detrimental/harmful behaviours. Or is it that altruistic behaviours (or behaviours that could be regarded as such by an observer) are not in fact driven by altruism, but by some other, ultimately self-serving motivation? In which case, you may have a point.

[blike]

So, is your argument that ALL behaviour is ultimately self-serving? In which case, as noted, there are many example of self detrimental/harmful behaviours. Or is it that altruistic behaviours (or behaviours that could be regarded as such by an observer) are not in fact driven by altruism, but by some other, ultimately self-serving motivation? In which case, you may have a point.

 

Well, I don't really have an argument, its just a thought. Even so, I'm talking about ALL behaviors.

 

There are some behaviors that may appear detrimental to one's self, but are really fulfilling an underlying need. Often times psychological needs come before physical needs. Self-mutilation and cutters (people who cut themselves intentionally) are fulfilling a psychological need. Suicide is ultimatly detrimental to one's self, but infact it is a selfish act. Smoking is a self-detrimental behavior, but again, it satisfies that physical and psychological need. All addictions fall under this catagory as well.

[Glider]

Very true. But in the case of self-harm, the needs are maladaptive. In the case of addiction, the needs are substance driven (i.e. fulfilling the need to avoid withdrawal). e.g. People who have never used heroin, don't feel the need to do so, and are not stressed by not doing so.

 

It could be argued that as behaviours, the examples of self-harm and addiction are exceptions rather than the rule.

 

So, what about normative behaviours? Are these all inherently selfish? Quite possibly.

 

There are several theories of social behaviours. One is pertinent here. The Social Contract theory, which (broadly) states that all behaviour is ultimately self serving. It suggests that people form 'social contracts' and that pro-social (altruistic) behaviours are simply a way 'buying' the same behaviour from another (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). This is said to have evolved as an adaptive mechanism which provides social animals who engage in it an 'edge' (e.g. I'll keep a look out whilst you eat, if you keep a look out whilst I eat). This increases the probability of survival and thus reinforces the trait.

 

There are alternative theories however. One of which, for example, suggest that true altruistic behaviour is a reality. It suggests that the function of this is again adaptive, in that whilst it may be detrimental to the individual, it increases the chances of survival for 'related genes'. In this case, altruistic behaviours are more likley to be displayed towards those who most closely resemble ourselves (indicating those who are likely to posess familial genetic material). This provides an advantage to a 'gene pool' rather than a small social group, but nonetheless, such an advantage would result in that behavioural trait being reinforced in the population as a whole.

 

There are more, but but these two are pretty much opposites. Take your pick.

[Giles]

Both of the theories Glider suggests, in their behavioural ecology incarnations, appear to be correct for some behaviours. However while the relatedness hypothesis yields quantitative hypotheses which have been tested, the social contract idea is harder to validate (refute for the Popperians).

 

It is incorrect however to view the advantage as being at the level of the gene pool or population; it is in fact at the level of the gene. Group selection may or may not exist but it does not account for this phenomenon properly (i.e. does not predict Hamilton's rule).

 

in humans this subject is skating perilously close to questions of free will.

[Glider]

."The strongest knowledge (that of the total unfreedom of the human will) is nonetheless the poorest in successes, for it always has the strongest opponent: Human vanity."

 

Nietzsche. Human, all too human

 

Whilst I wouldn't go as far as citing the 'total' unfreedom of the human will, I do think that most people would be surprised at the degree to which our emotions and behaviour is not a matter of choice. I do not believe that freedom of will is one half of a dichotomy (i.e. either we have free will or we don't), I believe is is a question of degree.

 

There is a significant body of recent research (stemming from the work of people like Robert Zajonc, who suggested the primacy of affect in 1980), which shows that a significant proportion of human thought and behaviour is driven by factors outside our control. Models of automaticity (see e.g. John Bargh, Tory Higgins, Mark Chen) suggest that the propensity for most of our thoughts and behaviours is driven by social and environmental factors working on a level outside our awareness (i.e. pre-conscious).

 

This is not simply a philosophical question. There is a growing body of empirical evidence in support of this, including neurophysiological data.

[Skye]

Well if you count the psychological benefit it's hard to say any behaviour isn't selfish. Whatever drive that made me make the decision is sated by choosing to do it. I like sugar and it makes me feel good to eat it, so eating lots of sugar is selfish.

 

If you mean in terms of some sort of self serving evolutionary advantage, then I'd say things like eating too much sugar are bad. It would probably lower the number of my particular genes in the gene pool in a million years time.

 

My guess is that this is just a situation where my environment differs from that my behaviour evolved in so it doesn't quite match up. My strong desire for sugar was probably matched by low supply of it in the past. Kindness to others might have been matched by them being closer related to me. But suicide is amazingly frequent for any kind of perversion of self serving behaviour.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Skye

My guess is that this is just a situation where my environment differs from that my behaviour evolved in so it doesn't quite match up. My strong desire for sugar was probably matched by low supply of it in the past.

 

Quite right!

 

Kindness to others might have been matched by them being closer related to me. But suicide is amazingly frequent for any kind of perversion of self serving behaviour.

 

 

True. Again I would say that this is a result of our modern environment differing so much from the environment in which we evolved. The increase in suicide rates and exponential increase in incidents of stress related illnesses suggest that we have gone wrong somewhere.

 

Is it possible that out current priorities are skewed? That we measure life 'success' in terms of wealth, and the drive to achieve it? In doing so (listen to the modern use of language) we are dividing our society into 'winners' and 'losers'. Moreover the 'winners' are often poor role models (bratty, egocentric individuals), whereas the 'losers' tend to be those who keep society running (nurses, medics, firefighters, etc.) The pressure to succeed has grown, and is still growing, and the definition of success, seems to me to be spurious.

 

We seem to be caught up in a blindfolded race for progress. We all want to be first, but I'm not sure we know where we're going. 'Progress' suggests motion from a starting point to an objective. But what is our objective?

 

For example, there are 100,000 severely disabled children in the UK. These poor individuals suffer profound physical and mental impairments, and will never know any form of independent life. 20 years ago, with the level of medical technology available at that time, these children would not have survived after birth. The progress we have made in medical technology means that people who would not have survived given their physical and mental impairments, now can survive.

 

The question is; Have we made progress?

 

Don't misunderstand. I'm not for one minute suggesting we eliminate physically and mentally impaired children. I hold three priciples dear: Do no harm; Ease suffering; Preserve life. It's just I think 'life' means more than fulfilling the physiological criteria, and I do believe there are occasions where the latter two principles come into direct conflict. What I am suggesting is that we tend to decide between them without sufficient thought; "Life at any and all costs!". I have said it before. Death is not the enemy. The true enemy is suffering.

 

I think that the best progress we could possibly make, is to reconsider our priorities, and the processes through which we form these priorities. That, I suspect, will be the only way to make a significant impact upon the growing rates of suicide.

[Skye]

Well I personally think that the right to death should logically follow the right to life. It may seem brutal to allow people to kill themselves, but most countries allow you to kill in order preserve your life (in self defence). The problem comes in assisted suicide and making the decision for someone unable to make it themselves. Making a living out of helping people die has dangerous pitfalls, especially if the bills start building up.

[Glider]

Very true. Well said!

 

It may seem brutal to allow people to kill themselves

 

If you got to know them, or talked to somebody who wanted to; somebody in unbearable suffering due to a terminal condition, it might seem more merciful than brutal.

 

You're absolutely right about where the problem lies. In my opinion, the patient should have the right to decide, as long as they have all salient information. But as for those who are not in a position to make the choice, then I don't think the choice should be made for them. But it's very tricky. The US have 'living wills' which can provide instructions to medical staff in the event the individual is not in a position to tell them themselves. Even then, there are so many ethical issues.

 

As for the financially driven 'pitfalls', we are already seeing evidence of this in organ transplant situations. Where prices have been placed on donor organs, there are now 'black markets' dealing in organs. e.g. Some people are selling their own kidneys. Some are even having them stolen. That seems to be what economics does to a good thing. Place a monitary value on something, and the real value of it is removed. e.g. make Ivory worth money and the elephant becomes worthless. Make a kidney worth money, and the human becomes worthless.

 

This is in line with something I said yesterday about us having our priorities skewed.

[Skye]

The increase in suicide rates and exponential increase in incidents of stress related illnesses suggest that we have gone wrong somewhere.

 

Could suicide be part of being smart? If I do something bad I feel bad about it, this presumably makes me learn from my mistake and work harder. A higher sensitivity to negative psychological stimuli could lead to faster learning but at the cost of occasional suicides, which might be worth it at the population level.

 

Modern societies have much more variation between the winners and losers, and can communicate this to everyone. Amplifying the negative stimuli in this way could lead to people overestimating how bad they are. In a closed tribal society I might have been good at science compared to those around me. Unfortunately we have the net now and from reading this forum I know I have far, far to go:rolleyes:

 

But thankfully theres always the off switch...

[Glider]

Originally posted by Skye

Modern societies have much more variation between the winners and losers, and can communicate this to everyone. Amplifying the negative stimuli in this way could lead to people overestimating how bad they are. In a closed tribal society I might have been good at science compared to those around me. Unfortunately we have the net now and from reading this forum I know I have far, far to go

 

You put it in a nutshell. The huge (and increasing) difference between 'winners' and 'losers' is constantly force-fed to us through the media. e.g. That footballers (who play a game for a living) earn something like £80,000 a week, whilst a highly qualified nurse (who keeps people alive for a living) would take over five years to earn as much. No wonder people's self esteem is suffering. No wonder people are questioning their own sense of priorities.

 

As for being good at science, don't get suckered into the same trap of skewed priorities. Being good at science is based mainly upon how you ask questions, and the methods you employ to find answers. I know many individuals who can spout a lot of information, but are poor scientists. My computer holds a lot of information. It doesn't understand any of it though, nor can it generate any new information.