sleeper;1308736 wrote:The individual will always choose the easiest path. If the easiest path happens to be an altruistic action, then he will chose that. 99 times out of 100, the altruistic act is the harder path and therefore would be chosen less. The other 1 time out of 100 that the altruistic act occurs, the human would simply being doing the altruistic act out a perceived future benefit(fame, fortune, women, etc).

sleeper;1308751 wrote:I didn't read in depth the OP. Also I would like to change (fame, fortune, women) to just (women).

O-Trap;1308716 wrote:I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine regarding how well you can trust a stranger to do the right thing without any form of compensation. In essence, if you were to put a person in a world where showing altruism yielded no intrinsic or extrinsic beneficial compensation (not even so much as a warm, fuzzy feeling about doing the "right" thing), but acting selfishly would result in some shred of self-satisfying consequence (but no negative repercussions), which would a human most likely make?

What do you think?

Fly4Fun;1308761 wrote:You intentionally pose a situation that encourages only one answer. It's hardly indicative of anything. If social science has shown one thing it is that humans respond to stimuli/incentives. Yes, people are born with a certain genetic code that might affect how they act in situations such as having a genetic predisposition towards psychopathy that is brought in conjunction with psychological and environmental factors. Thus I think it would be safe to assume that people are also born with a genetic predisposition that combined with psychological and environmental factors are more likely to act altruistically.

But to set up your situation or "world" in such a way that incentivises rewards for a specific behavior, that's the behavior you are most likely to get. Humans react to stimuli consciously and subconsciously all the time.

O-Trap;1308767 wrote:The ultimate question was whether or not altruism was, itself, valuable apart from the results of it.

O-Trap;1308767 wrote:The ultimate question was whether or not altruism was, itself, valuable apart from the results of it.

Con_Alma;1308777 wrote:???

That's a different question than would humans act altruistically without influential presence.

Hmmm, it's also one that is much more difficult to answer.

O-Trap;1308782 wrote:It's not really different. If altruism is able to, itself, have value, then it is possibly of greater value than at least the smallest of self-fulfillments, indicating that despite no actual beneficial repercussion, it still warrants action.

Con_Alma;1308790 wrote:I see it as different. Accepting all that you have said is true the ability to act in a certain manner without influence or even the desire to act isn't the same thing as warranting certain action.

O-Trap;1308808 wrote:It's entirely possible that I'm not explaining the quandry well.

Perhaps I should simplify the origin of the discussion:

Would altruistic actions be committed without any self-serving benefit, down to a warm-fuzzy feeling about doing the "right" thing?

O-Trap;1308799 wrote:Could you elaborate on the difference?

For what it's worth, if altruism has intrinsic value itself, then there still is influence, if not desire (which I haven't considered enough).

Con_Alma;1308819 wrote:Isn't the warm fuzzy feeling a self-benefit that could be desirous?

Even so, I think the answer is the acts would be committed just as much they wouldn't. They would be random in nature.

Con_Alma;1308820 wrote:The ability to act altruistically versus the choice to would be the difference. If we can't then even if we choose to the action wouldn't occur.

cruiser_96;1308837 wrote:I've heard it stated "Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do." Sometimes the correct thing is not always the easiest. It might not be the most self-serving either.

Also, this presupposes absolute right exists. Same with (as the thread title suggests: Good/Bad) There is neither is there is no absolute. Only relativism.

O-Trap;1308831 wrote:I was saying that even the warm, fuzzy feeling would be absent, since the feeling is a result of the action, and is not the action itself. The quandary is into whether or not there would be perceivable intrinsic value in altruism such that, at some level, people would choose it as being more valuable than some level of selfish fulfillment resultant from the alternative action.