Disproving man's selfish nature?

[Vortuse]

I am a little confused by this blog that seems to disprove that a person's acts are driven from their rational self-interest driven nature. From Blackburn ...

Here it is, but I have copied/pasted the relevant section below:

To see this, imagine someone who truly desires their children to do well in life being presented with a couple of pairwise preference sets: (i) {children do well; you think children do badly} and (ii) {children do badly; you think children do well}. Now if the person really cares about their children, they will opt for (i), and this contradicts the claim that what they are after is their pleasure, for they will certainly not derive pleasure from thinking their children are doing badly. So the egoist conclusion does not follow from the trivial reflection that to desire something happen is to think it pleasant if it does. As Bob today suggested we end our Finals essays: Q. E. D.

Any thoughts on this please ... I am kind of confused now

[Mindy]

I am a little confused by this blog that seems to disprove that a person's acts are driven from their rational self-interest driven nature. From Blackburn ...

Here it is, but I have copied/pasted the relevant section below:

To see this, imagine someone who truly desires their children to do well in life being presented with a couple of pairwise preference sets: (i) {children do well; you think children do badly} and (ii) {children do badly; you think children do well}. Now if the person really cares about their children, they will opt for (i), and this contradicts the claim that what they are after is their pleasure, for they will certainly not derive pleasure from thinking their children are doing badly. So the egoist conclusion does not follow from the trivial reflection that to desire something happen is to think it pleasant if it does. As Bob today suggested we end our Finals essays: Q. E. D.

Any thoughts on this please ... I am kind of confused now

The egoist principle is that a man's actions ought to serve his rational self-interest. Also, pleasure isn't the measure of rational self-interest.

-- Mindy

[Rorschach]

I believe this was an argument against psychological egoism, the belief that everyone, by nature, acts in his own self-interest.

My first thought is that what he's written doesn't actually constitute proof of anything. One cannot derive knowledge about the nature of man through hypothetical scenarios or thought experiments, especially ones like this in which the choices are artificially limited for no reason. Where, for instance, is option (iii) {children do well; you realize children do well}, or (iv) {children do badly; you realize children do badly}?

[Vortuse]

The egoist principle is that a man's actions ought to serve his rational self-interest. Also, pleasure isn't the measure of rational self-interest.

-- Mindy

I am confused. I am sorry but I am kind of new to this, and don't really understand. Perhaps you could explain what you said ...

(1) Is egoism then not applicable to real-life? I mean if it is what he 'ought' to do, it sounds like it doesn't happen in real-life.

(2) Also, doesn't someone do what pleases them or satisfy them (as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights)?

Thanks

[Hairnet]

I am confused. I am sorry but I am kind of new to this, and don't really understand. Perhaps you could explain what you said ...

(1) Is egoism then not applicable to real-life? I mean if it is what he 'ought' to do, it sounds like it doesn't happen in real-life.

(2) Also, doesn't someone do what pleases them or satisfy them (as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights)?

Thanks

1) Psychological Egoism, the theory that people always do what is in their self interest isn't applicable, like other rationalist concepts such as determinism. They have nothing to do with reality and at best serve as an excuse for poor thinking or bad behavior.

Rational Egoism, is applicable to real life. The idea of egoism emphasizes that your life, not life in general, is the standard of value. This helps you avoid the errors of altruism.

2) I can't tell if your question is asking a descriptive or normative question. I will answer both.

a) People do what they do because of a motivation. This does not imply that their actions actually benefit their life. In fact most people adopt habits for various reasons that cause their life to be much harder and less enjoyable. So Psychological Egoism is false because people do not do what is in their best interest automatically.

Can/Should people do what they please as long as they do not violate others rights?

I can't imagine how one would get from hedonism/subjectivism to a concept of rights. So the second clause is out. There aren't any justifications for rights in the context of hedonism/subjectivism.

The purpose of ethics is to ensure survival, and then proceed to help someone build a life. This may sound vague at first, but think about the phrase "heroine destroyed this man's life". We do not mean that this man literally died, not yet at least, we do mean that he lost everything of value to him (career, money, house, family, friends, community in general, hobbies).

Doing as one pleases means that someone does what occurs to them at the moment without sending it through a process of reasoning. They may evaluate means on how to achieve the goal, but they don't think about how the goal, once achieved, will fit in to their life. So a man may want to rape and pillage, but he doesn't consider how raping and pillaging will ultimately affect how he lives and how long he lives. For an example about why someone shouldn't be an exploiter, watch the movies Casino, Good Fellas, or The Godfather trilogy.

So someone needs a way of evaluating what they should do. Most people have some ideas, but it isn't very consistent. A quick glance at how most people who are considered good people have a part of their life that is majorly dysfunctional will demonstrate this.

[Vortuse]

I think I am getting this, but I don't understand what you mean when you say "Psychological Egoism, the theory that people always do what is in their self interest isn't applicable"?

Why isn't it applicable, doesn't that mean we are naturally altruistic (do things for others?).

And thanks for explaining it above

[Amaroq]

I think everyone else has already addressed the fact that the OP's quote tries to disprove psychological egoism, so I don't feel the need to say anything about that.

I feel I must dissect the quoted question itself, however. It doesn't work as an attack on either rational egoism or psychological egoism. When someone asks you to choose between (your children doing well and you thinking they're not), and (your children not doing well and you thinking they are), you would hopefully choose the first one. At the moment you consider that question, you selfishly desire your children to do well, so you'll choose for them to do well while thinking that they're not. The question is dishonest because it drops context. But you are in a context at the moment you answer it, and part of that context is a selfish desire for your children to do well. (Assuming for the sake of discussion that you do selfishly desire your children to do well.)

Edited July 31, 2010 by Amaroq

[Marc K.]

Why isn't it applicable, doesn't that mean we are naturally altruistic (do things for others?).

Altruism and egoism are both choices. We are not robots or animals, we don't act automatically, we must choose our actions, that is what is given by our nature.

[Grames]

I am a little confused by this blog that seems to disprove that a person's acts are driven from their rational self-interest driven nature. From Blackburn ...

Here it is, but I have copied/pasted the relevant section below:

To see this, imagine someone who truly desires their children to do well in life being presented with a couple of pairwise preference sets: (i) {children do well; you think children do badly} and (ii) {children do badly; you think children do well}. Now if the person really cares about their children, they will opt for (i), and this contradicts the claim that what they are after is their pleasure, for they will certainly not derive pleasure from thinking their children are doing badly. So the egoist conclusion does not follow from the trivial reflection that to desire something happen is to think it pleasant if it does. As Bob today suggested we end our Finals essays: Q. E. D.

Any thoughts on this please ... I am kind of confused now

This is stupid because if the person being tested presumably picks (i) to obtain the result that the children do well then he both knows the children do well and knows the opposite at the same time.

[Vortuse]

This is stupid because if the person being tested presumably picks (i) to obtain the result that the children do well then he both knows the children do well and knows the opposite at the same time.

Isn't it just the case that they are mistaken?

[Grames]

Isn't it just the case that they are mistaken?

How did that happen? By selecting as a set {children do well; you think children do badly} that means choosing to be mistaken, knowing one is mistaken, willfully remaining in the state of being mistaken, all of which entail knowing that the opposite must be true. The problem invokes a meta-perspective on the self which chooses and then re-enters the self and forgets what it chose. Besides the magic mechanism making the experiment impossible, the forgetfulness breaks the link between motive and action rendering any conclusion about what the person "really wanted" a non sequitor. It is stupid.

[brian0918]

Grames pointed out the flaw in the argument. The situations are not possible. One cannot knowingly choose i or ii, because knowing that that result occurs involves knowing the opposite of what you know.

Now, situations i and ii are certainly possible, but knowingly choosing i or ii is not possible.

It's crazy that this crap passes for academic philosophy.

Edited July 31, 2010 by brian0918

[whYNOT]

I am a little confused by this blog that seems to disprove that a person's acts are driven from their rational self-interest driven nature. From Blackburn ...

Here it is, but I have copied/pasted the relevant section below:

To see this, imagine someone who truly desires their children to do well in life being presented with a couple of pairwise preference sets: (i) {children do well; you think children do badly} and (ii) {children do badly; you think children do well}. Now if the person really cares about their children, they will opt for (i), and this contradicts the claim that what they are after is their pleasure, for they will certainly not derive pleasure from thinking their children are doing badly. So the egoist conclusion does not follow from the trivial reflection that to desire something happen is to think it pleasant if it does. As Bob today suggested we end our Finals essays: Q. E. D.

Any thoughts on this please ... I am kind of confused now

The rational egoist has rational values; his children doing well is a long -term selfish value ; a whim or desire that this is happening constitutes evasion and denial - it would only satisfy a hedonist, not an egoist to whom reality is sacrosanct.

[mynameisyang]

whyNOT explained this fully, I will say that his children's performance is a greater value and his momentary pleasure is a lesser value. He straggle for the greater value, because he is rational and selfish. The momentary pleasure will not last long and it cannot change the fact that one have failed to achieve the great. Even the momentary pleasure is impossible without some children grownup to become the pillars of our modern world. Being selfish is not easy, and "each to his own hierarchy of values".

[Alexandros]

I wouldn't bother contemplating scenarios that can only be imagined. And I also wouldn't pay any attention to a person who can only make his point by making use of such scenarios. This is the go-to tactic for any person who wants to make any point that they know can't hold its water in the face of reality.

In this case, the author is using an impossible scenario to avoid the fallacy of false dichotomy. If you came to some satisfactory conclusion based on his scenario, you would quickly realize that you wasted your time once you tried to apply it to the real-world and found that at least two other outcomes are possible.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Alexandros