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

Remove all ads!

I think expecting people, as a general term, to behave morally is unrealistic. When it comes to individuals you know, however, I think it's reasonable to make a more concrete assessment. I know my brother. I've known him my entire life, in fact, and most of his. I know his character, including how it's changed since he went to college. I feel I can expect a certain amount of moral fiber from him, and it's not a trivial quantity.

I also think there may be a valid distinction between the simple "please"s, "thankyou"s, and holding a door for someone, and the more extreme going out in the middle of the pouring rain to help an elderly stranger unpack their groceries. Bringing a wallet to the lost and found without touching the money is, I would say, a middle ground. It's extreme enough that it is actively foregoing personal benefit, but it's also something that's commonly acclaimed, and thus socially reinforced, if not as much as holding a door open.

As for definitions, I think the important part is that the reward must be expected, and thought about. If you do something just because it's the right thing to do, and only feel good about it in the middle of it or after it, that's altruism. Even if you could have thought about it and reasoned that you'd feel better, but you just never got to that point, no reward was expected. Whatever you consider the 'reward' to be, I believe it has to be an active element in the decision to do the deed to void altruism.

 

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, and apologies if I'm 'talking down' or being preachy. But ...

Sort of playing around with cynicism of this nature is one thing. It can be therapeutic in its way - you get to formally acknowledge that the world is not all it's cracked up to be, show that you're no rube, etc., etc. That's all well and good. But it's a slippery slope, and you should take care to ensure that all you're really doing is playing with the notion. Really embracing it in the existential sense is another matter altogether. Want to be bitter, hopeless, and profoundly unhappy? Take that statement - and everything that goes along with it - to heart.

Everybody gets knocked around in life, but having a friend let you down or not getting your way with something or losing at love or whatever else is not part and parcel with having to regard life as empty and meaningless. When you start down the 'expect to be disappointed so you're not disappointed' road as a rumination on life's unfairness, that's the direction you're headed. Don't go there unless you really want to give up. From what I've read here so far, nobody's got grounds for that.

 

Gear. this is the Alley don't apologize. Different opinions is what makes it worthwhile for me.

Having said that I think you are over reacting to Silvery's and mine point of view. I had an aunt who had a pretty tough life. Her philosophy was "Hope for the best, expect the worst and take what comes." That to me is what "expect to be disappointed that way when you are you won't be.'

True it is a bit of a sound bite and should be used with care. I have a hard time dealing with the rosy hued, sunshine and rainbows type person. Everything is going to be great just you wait and see. or the "Oh, you poor dear your cousin wouldn't take care of you sick dad for one evening so you could get out." type either. I am going to be a bit personal here, most of you know this anyway. I am 70 years old, vision impaired, diabetic. My blood pressure is very good though. No heart trouble. Modern science makes it possible that I just might live to 100. I don't sit around worrying about dying or losing the rest of my vision or whatever but neither do I expect that everything is going to be fine. Some days are good and some are not. That is taking what comes. At my age losing loved ones which includes friends is not unusual. Those who are younger are the hardest to take.

Yes, I expect life and some of the people in it to disappointment, I accept that. When I meet the stranger I call an angel that helps me in one way or another and then disappears I am happy and hope that in some way I can help another. When friends and family do something for me I try to remember not take it for granted but respond with gratitude. I try to tell people that I love them or care about them. I try not to take for granted the good things of life.

Aha, Gear4, think you are preach? Try that on for size.

 

A reward must be consciously thought of? Do you do the 'right thing' simply because? Or do you do it for some underlying reward that you've preconceived? Self-satisfaction, happiness, contentedness.

Even if we assume an altruistic act is defined as not actively thinking about the reward at the origin of an act which benefits the welfare of another person, there are still questions that aren't answered. It seems like there has to be 'some' reward for most altruistic acts.
Would you say that a rough definition of general-altruism is the selfless care for the wellness of others?
Does this not imply that one must think about/care for the state of another person's life? If we are caring for others, we have to at least think "Well this will make [someone] happy" or "[someone] will have a hard time if I don't do this." Therefore we will perceive that our action will have some effect on someone, which may have an effect on ourselves.

If you decline this rough definition, then an altruistic act must have no thought process involved; one must not even think about the consequences of their action, lest they formulate in their minds what they will feel because of that (and perceive a possible 'reward' since it is an undefined term). By this criteria an altruistic act would be an act with no perceived reward which benefits someone else on accident.

I don't believe this to be true; altruistic acts should be acts intentionally benefiting the welfare of another person. Unless you define a reward; almost anything can be included. The emotion of another, the emotion of yourself, etc. It is impossible not to perceive at least 'one' of these things happening if you consciously think about your choice; if you don't consciously think about your choice (even just to say, this is the right thing because I've decided [this]) -- you're simply preforming an accidental act which benefits someone else, and then later realizing that it was something good. Is that what you think, NOG? (Not a rhetorical question; my tone is completely inquisitive.)

-Addendum for clarification-
using good in the predefined sense; not the individual sense Doing the morally good thing makes you happy; doing the morally good thing for another person is perceived to make them happy (at least in the long run). All of these emotions come along with thinking "This is the morally good thing to do." Regardless of thinking "I'm getting a reward" when you think "I'm doing the morally good thing" it equates to "I'm doing the thing that will make me happy and content." This also generally comes along with thinking that you will make someone else happy by sharing your moral goodness with them. Are these not rewards? If you don't think about what is the morally good thing, at least on some level, you are purely by coincidence helping someone and then later realizing it was good. Hopefully that cleared up a little of what I was trying to say.

 

To violate altruism, I think yes, it must.

Here you get into a slippery and grey fog of psychology. Do I hold the door open for the people behind me only because I was raised to? Do I do it for some internal reward or to avoid a similar punishment? It doesn't give me a thrill of feeling better, nor does not doing it make me feel worse. It is simply the way I work. If it is that way because that's how I was raised, does that make me less of a good man, or more of one? More to the point, can it not be so simply because I've chosen to be what I consider good? I see in a lot of psychology papers that the idea of 'choice' and 'free will' have all but been abandoned. Everything is seen through the dichotomy of nature vs nurture. If something is not one, it must be the other. That is the assumption, and from there all reasoning proceeds. But what if that assumption is faulty? Some psychologists have spent their careers trying to pin down or disprove the concept of 'free will', and thus far all have failed in both pursuits. It amounts to something like (and perhaps by no coincidence) the soul. Now, though, I fear I'm rambling. My point is that, to truely answer that question, you must first assume the answer you will give.

"Has to be"? Why? Or do you mean "is"?

No, because I don't consider it altruism if I wish someone well, even if I'm not thinking of myself at all in the process. Simple care (I take the word to be akin to 'concern', but you may correct me) is insufficient, in my mind. I believe concrete actions are needed based on that care.

The first step of that logic, I agree with. The second, I don't. In fact, many acts of what I would call altruism are distinctly unlikely to ever have any material impact on the giver. How will it help someone in Washington State to give $50 to a fundraiser for Haiti? Is that person extremely likely to ever visit Haiti, or to have someone from Haiti come there?

Havign disagreed with the final step of your logic in the last section, I obviously come to a different conclusion here. One may act without much thought at all, true, in a spur-of-the-moment thing, or one may act with no thought to themselves, as when giving money to help some distant cause, or one may even act with a conscious and forethought lack of expectation of any reward or payback, something like, "I know this person will never thank me for this, but..."

Again, since I came to a different conclusion from your line of logic, I think my answer is plainly 'no'.

I disagree with the assumption that 'morally good' must equate 'I'll feel good about it'. I have found that, quite often, it's the reverse. What I morally know to be right and what I expect will bring me the most satisfaction, even in that inner realm of feel-good-ness, are often at odds.

 

Hm, that is intriguing NOG.

By preconceived notions I mean an idea that one has formulated in their mind by free will, but does not think about every time they do it. Such as holding the door open for another; I've decided that it is a nice thing to do and so I do it without specifically thinking about my logic every time. Take 9*9=? as an example. Most people instantly think "81" without thinking about the actual process of achieving that answer. Just because we don't think about the logical reasoning for why we preform "morally good" acts every time we do them, does not mean we haven't done/aren't basing our actions on that logical reasoning.

It seems there is; yes.

I do not mean that you have to know or meet the person. Donating to a fundraiser for Haiti is going to help make people happy; why would you do it if you didn't think it was going to help someone? You're helping to remove someone from a bad situation. It's a bigger version of my earlier garbage can example. If the person had come home and their garbage can was half way down the street, they wouldn't be happy about it. (Obviously it's not on the same level as Haiti.) But, if people got giddy and threw parties when their trash cans blew down the street, you probably wouldn't stop it or return it to their house; it wouldn't strike you as the morally right thing to do if it brought upon them pain.
At least not in this case; I'm not talking about cases where causing someone pain is perceived to be in their best interest.

The simple thought that your action will help someone can be classified as a reward, yes? Unless you are actually saying a reward does not including helping someone. [In which case you are defining reward by applying certain filters to it.]

Aha. I view this differently than you. The things which I find to be morally just and good bring me the greatest feel-good-ness, regardless of the suffering I endure because of it. If I did not do that which I thought was morally right, I might feel superficial pleasure, but I would lose respect for myself, which would lead to me being much less content and happy.

 

Yes, I see what you mean now. I still don't completely agree. More below.

Again, you're assuming a step that I don't: that making others feel better always makes you feel better. This is a pretty safe bet if you're there when they feel better. It's sketchy if you know them and at some point see them feeling better. It get's really iffy once you realize you'll never see or hear any evidence that they feel better. People's emotions just aren't that good at extrapolation.

Why not? It's an extreme case, but sometimes makign someone feel bad is for their own good. Sometimes it makes the 'giver' feel bad as well. Like a mother disciplining the child she loves. Parents always say, 'This is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you'. Of course, as children, we don't understand that, but as adults we can. It's true. Does that count as altruism? You're doing something for someone else's good, though perhaps the long-term benefits of it to your relationship with them count as a reward. I don't know.

No, I don't think that helping someone else is in itself a reward to you. There's no necessary impact to you that could be called a reward.

 

Would you say then, NOG (and/or Drew), that in your opinion rewards which negate altruism need to be given to you by someone else? (Or perceiving that someone else will give you a reward, not necessarily always receiving one.)

Such that being happy or content with yourself because you returned your neighbor's trash can to his house does not remove the tag of altruistic and returning it to their house only because someone else is watching you do it removes the tag of altruistic.

In the first case the "consequence" of your action is being happy at helping someone, regardless of if anyone ever knows you did it. In the second case the perceived "consequence" of your action is approval from the onlooker.
Or would you say that thinking "Making this person happy will make me happy" before the act removes it from altruism?

I realize I'm repeating myself a bit, but bear with me, I'm getting into new stuff here: in trying to understand what you're saying, an altruistic act must have some thought process involved, but not so much that it overflows into everything could result from your action? It must have some sort of spontaneity so that one simply does not 'think' of a reward, regardless of if they will receive one.

I think what you're saying NOG is that the happiness wouldn't come until after an altruistic act. Such as, seeing a love one's face when you give them a birthday cake. Your original intent could have been simply to make them happy, but as a result of that you yourself became happy. Since you were not thinking about yourself at all until after said act, it is altruistic? (Obviously this is not a perfect example, but lets put aside the small details of the act itself and look at the underlying meaning.)


This is where I believe we differ in opinion. I believe that even if people do not think "Doing the right thing makes me happy," doing the right thing generally makes people happy in the long run and people know this. To take your parent example; yes it may hurt a parent to discipline their child, but would you be happier if you never disciplined your daughter and let her do whatever she wanted or would you be happier if you disciplined her and taught her to behave like a respectable person? I personally think most parents would be happier if they raised their children to be happy respectable people than if they spared them the pain of discipline.

People may not acknowledge this on an every day level, but following our own personal codes of justice makes us happy. I think that in the end every type of intentional selfless act comes down to adhering to a moral base. This moral base is what makes us respect ourselves. Respecting ourselves makes us happy. I personally do not think achieving happiness through an action removes it from altruism

I don't think "This makes me happy" every time I hold a door open for someone behind me, but if I unthinkingly drop a door in someone's face, I generally feel bad and say to myself: "Doh, I should have held that." I don't torture myself about it or throw parties when I do hold the door open, but at the core, those morality questions (normally more complex than holding open a door) come down to what gives us self-respect. What puts us in a state of happiness.

 

No, because one can always do something for oneself that also helps someone else. That's not altruism. Making the enemy of my enemy my friend, so that I help them defeat my enemy, is not altruism, even though the reward is not given to me by someone else.

Hmm, I may have misinterpreted the previous bit, but I think I'll keep it. So, purely internal rewards that are generated externally (i.e. someone notices you, so you feel good) are 'given to you by someone else'? I'm really not sure if I completely disagree, or love the subtlty of the distinction. Still, I would say even doing it simply because you know, on a conscious level, that it will make you feel better, puts altruism on shaky ground.

As a very small example of altruism, yes, I think that's a perfect example. Mind you, it's not the only case. There are also cases when you do something for someone who hates you, simply because you know they need it and it's the right thing to do. It may even feel bad at the time, because you'd prefer to see them suffer. This would be another example.

The problem with the parenting analogy is that it comes part and parcel with a whole slew of other consequences, many almost immediate. Good parenting doesn't just reflect 20 years down the line. It also reflects tomorrow, or this afternoon. Well-behaved children make a parent look like a good parent. Everyone knows this, on an intimate level. Loving your children and wanting what's best for them may be a much stronger motive, but every parent also knows that good parenting will make them look like a good parent to their neighbors and friends.

Beyond that, I disagree that doing the right thing will frequently make you feel better. Like I said, it can often feel worse. That may just be what we consider 'good' and 'right', though.

 

Well, yes of course! Feeling "Happiness" in this regard, because the world being a better place for others would seem the correct reponse. IF it made one sad to do the "right thing," then that would be a scary situation. I think you are getting "tangled up" in your own logic.

 

Well, that is my major disagreement with NOG, Chandos.

NOG, I'm not simply talking about immediate consequences, but perceived long-run consequences. I think our disagreement is at the core of our individual belief systems, however. So we can leave it at that and hopefully come away understanding what we believe a little better.

 

I agree that percieved long-term consequences count, but the longer-term your looking at, the less likely they are to be percieved without significant thought. Counter that with socially established consequences, i.e. things that 'everyone knows' will happen. For example, though good parenting making successful young adults who are prepared to take care of their aging parents is very long-term when the kids are 2, it's also pretty well established. As a result of that, most everyone is aware of it. On the flip side, being nice to Cindy at work may result in her becoming your friend, then you finding out she's a wizz at taxes, and you then getting better tax returns 5 years down the road (or any similar skill). Longer term, less likely to be concidered, and not a societal norm by any means. Thus, less likely to be percieved as a reward.

 

I think that sometimes people talking about this topic get a little too entangled in their own heads. In so doing, they insult (or at least disregard) the nobility of the human spirit.

Sure, selfishness is a major factor in human relations, but many people make sacrifices for the benefit of their loved ones that are not, the final balance, helpful to them personally. To twist things around and say that they really are acting out of self interest is a little too cynical and jaded even for me.

People can debate the philosophy of this sort of thing until the cows come home, citing Kierkgaard, Malthus, Hegl, Sir Thomas Moore, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Pliny the Elder, Socrates, Oprah, and their cousin Reginald, but to quote from my favorite pervert, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!

 

Just to make it clear my original stance was (and still is) that I don't think helping loved ones is a selfish action, even if it makes you happy. [It doesn't have to be selfish, simply because it makes you happy.]

NOG and I are mostly arguing semantics, as we generally come to simlar conclusions despite our thought process taking different paths.

I agree with you completely. The reward I'm talking about is a self-given reward. If Cindy is a nice lady who is in the dumps and has had bad friends in the past, your primary motivation for befriending her may be for her best interest. However, by befriending her and making her happy, you also perceive that you will become happy by result. I don't think this is a selfish action.

Perhaps I am simply weird in my thinking! Because I do think, "yes, ultimately holding this door open for a person instead of dropping it into their face will make me happier!" I do not think so every time I preform a 'morally good' action. For example, the other day an older lady whom I know was about to fall over, I instantly reached out and helped her gain her balance. I did not have time to contemplate, but I know at the core that 'happiness' is one of my motivations: to be content with myself and proud of who I am. If it made me happy to watch old ladies fall onto the floor then I wouldn't have caught her; but that isn't what I've chosen to be 'morally good.' ~.^

Edit- Re-reading my post I realize that I ultimately relate moral goodness to personal happiness. Just for clarification.

 

I couldn't help but notice.

That's BS. So you are saying you would have just let her fall otherwise? I hope not....

 

Yes I am saying that if I did not think stabilizing her were the right thing to do, I would have let her fall. If I did not think it were morally good to stop an elderly person from potentially being injured, why would I do it?

However, If I thought it were morally good to stop an elderly person from being injured, why wouldn't doing so make me happy and therefore content/proud?

Once again, I equate moral goodness with overall happiness and soundness of mind.


On another note, I absolutely believe helping her gain her balance was the right thing to do.

 

My point was you are a morally good person. Let's just suppose it was the reverse, you caught her because it was the right thing to do, but letting her fall would have been amusing to you, and you needed some "good entertainment" for the day? Other than the fact that the rest of us would worry about you, sometimes people do the right thing even though they couldn't care less about being happy or proud of it, as you suggest. In fact, I would wager that some people would be "proud" that they did the right thng, even though it was against their basic nature to do it.

Motivations are sometimes secondary, and not what really "moves" us in every instance. Unless you are willing to go as far as to say "any" action requires "reward motivation" of some kind.

 

What if Cindy is an isolated, unpopular outcast? What if you know you won't become any more popular for doing so?

 

Becoming more popular has no effect on my perception of happiness, so I cannot tell you how it would change my feelings. The simple act of making Cindy happy, even if she is an unpopular outcast, would make me happy. (assuming she isn't a child murderer in her spare time)


Chandos, I would say those people who are proud of not doing the right thing don't find it morally good to do the right thing. Their perception of moral goodness may not be the same as yours or mine. But, I would say that every action requires some motivation, unless it is uncontrollable, such as a twitch or seizure.

 

Know what? Who knows why we ever do anything? Who cares? It's enough that we do these things. Whatever you do, if it's good or bad, easy or hard or selfish or selfless, it's enough that you do it. There may be a plan at work, there may be nothing. Whatever is going to happen tomorrow will happen and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. You might as well live for the moment, forget about thinking 'what if...' and live everyday like it's your last one because tomorrow it might be