34 replies to this topic

[Steve Sensible]

Continuing the discussion started by Arjan in the Vent thread, let's talk happiness.

Can evil people be truly happy? Is there such a thing as a selfless act? Other stuff! 3... 2... 1... DISCUSS!

[Arjan Dirkse]

Ah it has spawned its own thread. I guess I should be happy with that. See I have the happy smiley...

[Steve Sensible]

I don't think that's entirely true or there'd never be any acts of heroism where people have risked their own lives - even sacrificed them - to save others.

They made a (subconscious) calculation in that moment and decided "If I don't do this, I won't be able to live with myself. I will be miserable for the rest of my live. That is the most painful outcome for me, so I choose the heroic sacrifice instead."

You have a very dim view of humanity, David.

[Nicholas Taggart]

[Christian U]

They made a (subconscious) calculation in that moment and decided "If I don't do this, I won't be able to live with myself. I will be miserable for the rest of my live. That is the most painful outcome for me, so I choose the heroic sacrifice instead."

Why wouldn't they be able to live with it? If egotism is our only true motivation, it shouldn't be a problem.

[David Meadows]

You have a very dim view of humanity, David.

I don't judge humanity badly for doing this. We can't help it, it is how we are programmed to operate.

[Christian U]

I don't judge humanity badly for doing this. We can't help it, it is how we are programmed to operate.

We're not just programmed for egotism, really. We're also hardwired for empathy - our mirror neurons work in ways you don't find in other primates. It seems that we alone have the ability to put ourselves into another's place, and to feel what they feel.

[David Meadows]

Why wouldn't they be able to live with it? If egotism is our only true motivation, it shouldn't be a problem.

That's an interesting point and I am struggling to answer it. I'll give it a shot...

Our ego controls us, but we have the capability to recognise that there is something else, some other way of behaving (this awareness is what separates us from animals). We understand altruism, and we realise that it is "better" than selfishness. We understand this, but our ego will pop up again, make that subconscious calculation, and say, "uh-uh, you don't want to be altruistic, that's far too much hard work."

But then, because we understand the comcept of altruism, and that it's a "good" thing, we feel rotten that we haven't been able to do it.

Aha, but our ego knows that we know about altruism, and knows that we will feel bad if we don't do it. so it naturally has to take this into account in it's "greatest pleasure for least pain" calculation. The upshot is that you ego ego lets you act pseudo-altruistically so that you won't feel bad.

I say pseudo-altruistically because it can't be true altruism. You're only doing it so you won't feel bad afterwards, ergo you're doing it for yourself.

True altruism is an act that comes with absolutely no benefit to yourself, not even a warm fuzzy feeling when you think about it. This is impossible for humans to achieve.

We're not just programmed for egotism, really. We're also hardwired for empathy - our mirror neurons work in ways you don't find in other primates. It seems that we alone have the ability to put ourselves into another's place, and to feel what they feel.

Yes, I'm not denying that. We can understand what we should do, and that's why (most of us) will choose to do it. But we choose to do it to make us feel better. Your point does not invalidate my point. There is no true altruism in this world.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Of course the common good has everything to do with affecting yourself -- you are not excluded from the people covered by the common good (by definition).

Yes it is. The ultimate goal in that equationis making you happy. This is egotistical.

If doing good for others is per definition egotistical, then that makes egotism the ultimate good, the ultimate altruism. So egotism becomes its opposite, altruism, rendering the very concept of egotism meaningless. It is simply about the effects that good deeds have - they bring more good into the world, which ultimately benefits every individual. The consequence of that is "happiness", or mental and spiritual wellbeing, or enlightenment.

[Robert B]

Do evil people think of themselves as evil? I doubt even Ronald Reagan did.

[Nicholas Taggart]

Do evil people think of themselves as evil? I doubt even Ronald Reagan did.

Maybe just Baron Zemo and Magneto

[garjones]

Our ego controls us,

I thought it was the id.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Do evil people think of themselves as evil? I doubt even Ronald Reagan did.

Most don't, I think. I don't think people like Reagan or Bush, or even some of the worst dictators like Hitler or Stalin, thought of themselves as evil.

[David Meadows]

I thought it was the id.

I reject Freud as being a quack.

But in his model, I think it's the ego that works to satisfy the drives in the id. Or something.

The terminology isn't important to the point... ego... id... hippobippocampusbus... brain pixie... whatever. There's a part of us that makes us selfish. Ego is a convenient term for it.


Edited for a typo, because I'm suddenly aware of my spelling

Edited by David Meadows, 09 July 2012 - 02:59 PM.

[Jim Ohara]

Our ego controls us, but we have the capability to recognise that there is something else, some other way of behaving (this awareness is what separates us from animals). We understand altruism, and we realise that it is "better" than selfishness. We understand this, but our ego will pop up again, make that subconscious calculation, and say, "uh-uh, you don't want to be altruistic, that's far too much hard work."

I disagree. A parent doesn't take care of their child because they'd feel bad - they do so because they want the child to be happy. You experience happiness when you make others happy. You don't experience 'not regret'.

I think is backed up by animals. Your dog doesn't love you because he'll feel angst if he doesn't lick your face when he sees you. Dogs experience absolute joy when they see that you're happy to see them. The positive energy magnifies in the reciprocation.

There may be occasions when you do something because you'll feel bad about yourself if you don't do them, but I think they're quite rare. To give a recent example when we had the Miqque fund I don't think people gave because they'd feel bad that they didn't give, they just gave to make his world a slightly better place and that was enough.

[David Meadows]

I disagree. A parent doesn't take care of their child because they'd feel bad - they do so because they want the child to be happy. You experience happiness when you make others happy. You don't experience 'not regret'.

I respect your right to disagree, but that's not actually disagreeing "You experience happiness when you make others happy." That's the same as what I'm saying. You're doing it because ultimately you are the one who will feel happy.

I think is backed up by animals. Your dog doesn't love you because he'll feel angst if he doesn't lick your face when he sees you. Dogs experience absolute joy when they see that you're happy to see them. The positive energy magnifies in the reciprocation.

Your dog is probably happy because he knows you feed him. (But I don't think you can project human feelings on to animals. Or if you do, I don't know how to egage in that particular discussion.)

There may be occasions when you do something because you'll feel bad about yourself if you don't do them, but I think they're quite rare. To give a recent example when we had the Miqque fund I don't think people gave because they'd feel bad that they didn't give, they just gave to make his world a slightly better place and that was enough.

And they honestly didn't feel good about themselves afterwards? Not one tiny bit of satisfaction? Honestly? Really, honestly?

I always feel good when I give something to somebody deserving. It makes me happy.

I have a feeling I am not explaining it very well

[Arjan Dirkse]

I respect your right to disagree, but that's not actually disagreeing "You experience happiness when you make others happy." That's the same as what I'm saying. You're doing it because ultimately you are the one who will feel happy.

That distinction is odd. Yes, it does make me happy to do something good for somebody else, but how can you say that my happiness is therefore the only purpose in that act? It is both. Someone else's happiness makes me happy. It is important to me that those others are happy, not just me. It is just human nature that seeing that other person happy also reflects back on me.

[Jim Ohara]

Your dog is probably happy because he knows you feed him. (But I don't think you can project human feelings on to animals. Or if you do, I don't know how to egage in that particular discussion.)

I'm not projecting human feelings onto animals. I'm projecting animal feelings onto humans. We're evolved from animals, we know animals communicate, have personalities and experience emotions, so why wouldn't be just like them?

I have a feeling I am not explaining it very well

I thought you were saying you only did good things because you'd feel regret if you didn't. Now I think you're saying that you only do good things because it makes you feel good. I don't think it's either, I think people do good things because we're evolved to do good things. Instead of looking at animals I could look at little kids (1-3) - they innately do good things (well, most of them) like hug relatives, share toys, play with others, make friends, care for pets or teddys - long before they're experiencing complex feelings like angst or satisfaction.

[David Meadows]

I thought you were saying you only did good things because you'd feel regret if you didn't. Now I think you're saying that you only do good things because it makes you feel good.

But it's the same thing. Feeling bad and feeling good are different ends of the same spectrum. I do something because I'll feel bad (regretful) if I don't... I'll do something because I'll feel good if I do... it's the same thing, the ultimate state is that you feel better than you otherwise would have.

I don't think it's either, I think people do good things because we're evolved to do good things. Instead of looking at animals I could look at little kids (1-3) - they innately do good things (well, most of them) like hug relatives, share toys, play with others, make friends, care for pets or teddys - long before they're experiencing complex feelings like angst or satisfaction.

You don't think little kids experience satisfaction? I don't see that as being a very complex feeling.

That distinction is odd. Yes, it does make me happy to do something good for somebody else, but how can you say that my happiness is therefore the only purpose in that act? It is both. Someone else's happiness makes me happy. It is important to me that those others are happy, not just me. It is just human nature that seeing that other person happy also reflects back on me.

I'm not arguing with the second part of your statement: "seeing that other person happy also reflects back on me". Agreed.

I'm arguing that that is the only reason you want to make other people happy. If you could feel the same level of happiness without making any effort, then why the heck would you exert yourself? You wouldn't, that would be crazy!

We're hard-wired to feel pleasure. It's lucky that for many of us pleasure results from making people happy, so we can appear "altruistic". For many more people, pleasure comes from other things, thus we call them mean, or hard-hearted, or even evil. But really they are just doing exactly what the rest of us are doing -- finding the thing that makes them most happy.

Therefore I believe that "evil" people are just as happy as good ones.

[Jim Ohara]

You don't think little kids experience satisfaction? I don't see that as being a very complex feeling.

Not that satisfaction at seeing another person be happy. I think that kicks in after 3-4 or so when kids become more aware that other people have emotions like them. Mind you, this is recalling kids from when I was still living back home - someone like Gar, Will, Chiristian or Robert would be more of an authority on the subject raising kids of their own right now.