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

Remove all ads!

We care why we do things because, if we want to change someone's behavior, it's good to know the motive. Unfortunately, I think psychology has discarded the idea of free will as myth without seriously considring it. That's really hurting our ability to influence motives, as people tend to assume a reward is there somewhere.

 

You're probably right. I'm just having a down day and being silly

 

And yet, there is such a thing as over-analysis.

 

Yes, there is such a thing as over-analysis. Here is where I get contradictory with myself.

I think Silvery is correct when she says that why do an action is not important. Why did the man in the grocery store take time to help when I was going into diabetic shock? Why certainly wasn't important to me and I doubt he stopped to analysis his action. He simply did it.

On the other hand I agree with NOG that we do need to analysis why we do things. This helps us in dealing with others. It helps us understand ourselves. It does give us free will because if we deem it necessary we can work on changing ourselves, our motives and what we do.

 

Just a note for anyone interested: I don't analyze every action I preform in a real world setting; like I mentioned earlier, I did not preform an in-depth analysis of why I helped stabilize the woman. Surely I made some split second assumptions: she was old, could have been hurt very badly from a fall and wasn't likely to balance out on her own. That certainly made me action more swift, compared to, say, if my 16 year old sister were to wobble and lose her balance. Surely I would put my hands out just in case, but it's pretty likely that she'll catch herself and not fall. If she did fall, it's not likely that she'll break any bones. All those things trigger off in our minds when we preform an action, but that isn't critical thinking about motivation or the 'why.'

When I'm talking about the reason for something, I 'do' want to think critically about it, with the main goals of conceptual clarification and eliminating or recognizing hidden assumptions.


NOG, I use reward in a very very broad way. Basically as almost any motivational factor. I do believe that we have free will in every scenario I can think of. However, I don't assume so without thinking about it, nor do I think I'm infallible. When would you say we do not take actions based on our free will?

In the words of an immortal philosopher: "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that's clear: I will choose freewill."
Then again, this man also said, "Catch the witness, catch the wit. Catch the spirit, catch the spit."

 

... ??? I love the first. Not sure I get the meaning of the second.

The problem, of course, is attributing motives to free will. The instant you do so, you lesson the 'free will' element of it. In a sense, it's something like the uncertainty principle. The more certain you are about why you're doing something, the less certain you are about your own free will. On the other hand, the more certain you are about your own free will, the less certain you can be about any motives. At the same time, neither one can completely 'dispell the cloud' of the other. There's always some lingering nag of it, something that will make you pause and question your certainty.

Of course, for the purposes of changing behavior, motive analysis is useful regardless. It's just a question of how reliable it will be, which life tells us is 'so-so'.

For the purposes of altruism, I count any non-self-serving act for which you don't consider rewards to be altruism. When you help the old lady because she needs it, and for no other conscious purpose than that, or even because it's the 'right thing to do', it's altruism. When you do it because you'll get recognition, because you'll impress that hot girl with how caring you are, or whatever, it's not. It may still be a good thing to do, but it's not altruism.

 

The second doesn't make much sense, which was the point.

I love this type of argument; it's so very intriguing and makes one think.

However, I think the question of free will can be answered with another, rather simplistic, question. If you wanted to, could you do nothing? Even if you are absolutely certain that doing something is the right thing and you think doing nothing is the greatest evil: could you still do nothing? For me the answer is yes. I always have the choice to act or not to act.

(Obviously sometimes not acting is in your view the greater good, in which case you can simply reverse the question.)

Conclusion, even if I am certain something is absolutely in the best interest of everyone involved, I can always choose not to do that thing.

 

Normally we do not stop to think about what we do. I think analyzing our motives is more to decide if we need to change something in the way we behave.

I am interested in the following question and hope some of you will help me with it.

Do we have the right to expect other people to behave in a manner we believe is correct?

Example. A couple care for a disabled father of one of the. They not only bear the burden of the care giving but they also bear the financial burden. There are other family members who could help. Son and daughter of the man. Brothers and sister of the man. The couple tries to get them to help but is always given excuses as to why they can't help.

The above is actually in some form or other rather common. The couple becomes frustrated and angry over the constant refusal to help. Is this a realistic attitude on their part?

 

Yes. And you also have the right to be severely disappointed when they don't.

Seriously, your expectations are your own matter, and if they're inaccurate, then they're your problem. What you don't have is the right to insist that they behave according to what you think is good. You only have the right to insist that they behave according to what the courts think is legal.

 

Well, we have the right to expect anything, and the less experienced/more naive of us will surely expect people to behave thusly... what we should not do, however, is giving them grief if the said expectations have not been met. Self-righteousness should be avoided at all costs, methinks.

 

Depends on who it is If a friend of mine is making or going to make a stupid choice I'm going to give them grief. A stranger is a different matter with a more strict requirement. I hold my friends to higher standards.

I do expect people to act with some form of goodness, even strangers. If a man is dragging a woman screaming help into a car, I'll stop him. I expect him to behave in a morally good manner that I see fit, and I have no qualms saying it straight. (This ties in slightly with NOG, but I'm not the police; I don't try to go around enforcing every law)

 

I seem to have interpreted the question differently. The exemplum you chose is an extreme one, as the wrongfulness of this hypothetical man's actions (I wonder when will someone comment on your feminist rhetorics and on the fact that you chose a male villain, but that aside... ) is not a matter of personal beliefs only; it also goes against both social and written laws - ergo, the act of enforcing them could not be described as self-righteousness.

 

I agree with Runescarred

Altruism can definitely be inherited through genes. You only have to look at an ant colony to see that altruism can evolve for the benefit of genes that you are not going to pass on directly. All worker ants work tirelessly for the benefit of the queen's eggs, not their own, as the workers are sterile.

I'm not saying that humans are like ants, but id such an extreme form of altruism can evolve in ants then it must be possible for the human form to have evolved for similar reasons.

 

Even in a country where it is legal to subjugate, say, one's wife, I would still stop her husband from beating her. I did choose a gender orientation; most laws still in tact today are about women being property to men. I would certainly still stop a woman from beating a man. (I also don't care if someone calls me a feminist! It's quite silly that we almost always have to use gender neutral terms now or be politically incorrect.)

In either case, I still expect those people to adhere to my basic concept of moral goodness. Not taking into consideration the law of the land.

Edit- Upon closer inspection I may be using a "expect" differently. "People will conform to my concept of basic moral goodness if I'm there." (Obviously, if I can stop it, there are some things I can't prevent or stop) opposed to "It is likely that on their own people will adhere to my concept of basic moral goodness."
I don't expect everyone to think like me, though I do "expect other people to behave in a manner believe is correct" while I am around.

 

Never expected you to actually care, this particular term/brand gets tossed around like candy these days, causing a certain inflation . While in general I absolutely loathe the atrocious newspeak that is the consequence of political correctness, I do believe the use of gender neutral terms is a positive phenomenon... as long as it does not turn into an attempt at indoctrination, but that - yet again! - is another story.

Not a fan of the 'Consonus esto lupis, si lupus esse cupis' attitude, then? For the record, I, too, find such conformity severely lacking.

It looks like my practicality (and/or Western-centrism) got the better of me yet again; I interpreted Nakia's question as relating to daily, ordinary life, and it is highly unlikely that even an avid traveler would very often find him/herself in a country where females are considered property.

On a separate note, your reaction would still not be a display of self - righteousness. The said concept of moral goodness is still heavily influenced by years of cultural conditioning, ergo, not entirely 'yours'; I believe it would be the Western way of looking at certain issues and not your personal views you would be defending, knowingly or not. Would you consider the theoretical event wrong if you were born in a society where such acts of violence are considered absolutely normal? (yes, I stole it from Rorty )

 

I have intervened with men abusing their wives and parents being too violent with their children. But I do not even pretend it was an altruistic act -- even though it put me as risk it was a selfish act and pretty much all about me.

 

That brings up an interesting question ... are there limits on altruism? What if the guy doing the abusing was a seven foot giant and there was absolute certainty that for you to attempt to intervene would mean that would be hurt very badly? Do you get an altruism pass in that instance?

I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't reliably march to their deaths for less than first degree relatives, despite whatever they might tell themselves. Does that mean they're selfish?

 

Feminist rhetoric is more apt to say, "Hey you male chauvinist., how dare you hold that door open for that old lady. Let it slam in her face." Hokay a bit extreme.

Men are generally stronger than women. So in the past men have been taught to protect women, to take care of them. Since a woman carries a child for nine months and is thereby physically limited I think nature may have built in a sense of protection to men, not all men but man. At least to care for members of their family and clan.

Human beings are animals and a study of animals does show that herd or pack animals protect the herd or pack and especially the young. Natural instinct. Preservation of the group, of the genes.

On my more personal example does my brother or neighbor have the right to expect me to drop my plans for the day in order to help him? I think it depends on the circumstances. If it is an emergency, something that must be attended to immediately, yes I think he does. If it is merely a, "I'd like to go down to the pub and have a drink" type of request, no I don't think he does. The choice is mine, I have tickets to a play why should I disappoint myself and my friends for a trivial request?. I am just sitting around watching TV why not do it? Why not take time to visit with a disabled friend or relative even if not asked to do so?

Why not stop and help an old lady down an escalator? I have been trained EMS and one day I passed a parked car with the motor running. I noticed that the man at the wheel at fallen asleep with the windows closed. I stopped and knocked on the windows and he woke and opened the window a check. I told him I was concerned and he should at least keep the window open a crack. by the way, I didn't analyze the action but simply did it because I knew it was dangerous for the person.

Would I expect someone else to do the same for me. No but would certainly appreciate it if they did.

 

Hahahaha! Touche.

This is an approach to this issue I share. Of course, the human urge to preserve the genes has a more complex motivational system than that of our less-gifted cousins, but the general mechanism stays the same, methinks.

 

Gender neutral terms are only useful if the party you're talking to is very sensitive to the topic. Saying "he or she," "his or hers," etc. is simply redundant. There's no reason a metaphorical person can't be female or male. At least that's how I view it. If I find that referencing a metaphorical man annoys someone greatly, I refrain, but simply out of decorum. [This is of course not including times when you reference man and women specifically.]


I can't tell you, Rune, whether or not my motives are culturally based or innate. Surely they are influenced by my culture, there is no way for me to tell you that I would asbolutely still protest abuse if I was raised in a culture where abuse was natural.

However, I can compare. When I was growing up, my birth-father's friends were rampant racists. To the point of saying "We should throw all the n------ into gas chambers." I didn't have any adults telling me this was wrong or bad, but I was still appalled and didn't enjoy being in their company one bit. Literature or video games may have contributed to this feeling (multitudes of races and the whole 'protecting people' hero theme). I don't know the answer exactly, but I know that I have chosen what I've chosen based on 'me.'
I had ready influences from both sides of many debates; sometimes overwhelming on one side, I still chose independent of what other people told me. As I've mentioned before, I don't care if my whole family/friend base/society thinks I'm weak or pathetic: I'll still choose what I think is right.


@T2, I was merely talking about whether or not I expected someone to act according to my morals while in my presence. I don't know if you were directing your comment on me, but just for clarity's sake.