X-Message-Number: 17061
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:51:12 -0700
From: Lee Corbin <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #17044 - #17054

A number of people on this list apparently believe that it's
a tautology that people are driven only by self-interest,
i.e., that it's true practically by definition.  Well, at
least some of the following people appear to:

Robert:
>It is exactly, scientifically, objectively correct to say that
>every  motivated act is done in order to feel good (or avoid
>feeling worse). This is... [sometimes difficult, complicated]

Kenita:
>I look at my generous acts as benefiting my self-image if nothing else.
>I help the faceless stranger because I like to think of myself as the
>sort of person who helps others. 

Scott:
>> "Also very feeble is the reason, "Well, I did it in 
>> order to feel good."  Well, duh!  EVERYTHING that
>> people do could be written off with such reasoning, "
>
>Exactly!! By George, I think he's got it.   J

So I have another question for those who deny that true
altruism ever exists.  Would it be possible, oh, say given
millions of years, to breed true altruism into people?
Say, for example, that at the end of this process, some
human being would *instinctively* and un-selfconsciously
help someone else, even say, if his self image was harmed?
(That's not impossible!  The hardened tough Viking who
unaccountably refused to run his sword through English
babies and twirl them around in the air was thought a
sissy by his companions, and may have even felt so himself
says I).  If so, how can you be so sure that such a mutation
has not already taken place?

Maybe I myself am such a freak already!  Because in the
parking lot scenario, so far as I can tell, I just feel
sorry for that person, and sincerely want to help.  My
self-image is already  pretty well established, and I
think that it's not a factor (duh, gee, of course I don't
*know* for sure).  Now when I'm in a hurry, I'm placing a
value on getting where I want to quickly---in those cases,
I don't help that person and selfishly say to myself,

"Oh well, someone else can just let them out.  I'm busy.",
or "that's too bad."   My self-image isn't fazed a whit.
Now *that's* what we should call selfish, or self-interested
---not the case that I do help let the person go in front
of me.

Scott goes on

>It boils down to behaving in a manner which is congruent
>with and which reinforces one's (perhaps idealized) self-
>image. In other words, I like to think of myself as a
>kind, generous, and thoughtful person.

Well, now you know better!  By your own reasoning, you are
nothing of the sort.  Your kindness is entirely self-interested.
Your generosity arises not at all from concern for others---not
a whit---but only from a need to make yourself feel good.  Your
so-called thoughtfulness is really a mask to advance your own
interests.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you're right,
then you have been feeding yourself a pack of lies: (all this
about *being* a "kind, generous, and thoughtful person").

Of course, I'm being sarcastic (as you know, I really believe
that the scientific evidence will show that you are actually
kind, actually thoughtful, and actually generous, and really
do have *some* concern for others, and that this concern cannot
entirely be reduced to any form of self-interest or selfishness).
But it was necessary to make the point that you---and Kennita and
Robert---hopefully won't start internalizing what you think is
true:  because if you do, your self image may take a hit.

Say, I'm not around very small children much.  Can someone who
is  venture an answer to this question (it relates to the selective
breeding of altruism):  sometimes small children (who are normally
rather selfish) spontaneously give something to someone, or give

their mother or father some item.  Is it clear that they're
acting self-interestedly, or do you think best to describe some
of these acts as unrelated to the child's self image or desire to
please, and therefore perhaps genuinely thoughtful?

Scott:
>I'm enjoying the debate, though.

Yeah, me too :-)    
Lee

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17061