FatHobbit;1308842 wrote:IMHO you can't predict what "humans" would do because they all act indepently. Just because 10 people might choose one path doesn't mean 10 different people wouldn't choose another.

Eh, with a large enough test, you could, or at least the scientific method suggests we can, so long as we have an acceptable sample of the whole.

Ever since that stupid bitch ate the apple that was given to her from the talking snake in the tree, we are all basked in evil. Redemption is never the easiest path. You can be redeemed.


Hope this helps. \isadored

Con_Alma;1308844 wrote:The result, however, could be the incentive for the action and thus we are back to where started, correct? The perceived intrinsic value would invite the individual to try and act.

Would it be plausible, given the nature of humans, for the act to be committed without the result being used as the incentive to act, though?

Con_Alma;1308844 wrote:I think my ultimate answer is that acts would be committed just as much they wouldn't. They would be random in nature. As cruiser pointed out the relative nature of good/bad would be the only thing definitive...if that's even possible. Lol.

So to remove the incentive of altruism would still cause it to be chosen as often as not? Would you, then, suggest that it is chose far most often contemporarily, since the incentives are indeed not removed?

I think part of the contention I have with your idea and the way you are presenting this is because you preface the whole question/scenario with the question, "Are human beings good or bad?"

Basically my point is that I don't think the scenario/hypothetical or the discussion going on in this thread has to do with the question presented. Your asking whether responding to stimuli/incentives makes someone good or bad. I don't think it is indicative of either, rather it is just the way humans work. Yes, some people might have genetic tendencies that when in concert with psychological and environmental facts lead to different decisions or outcomes than they would in a person with different tendencies.

But how someone reacts to incentives doesn't indicate that someone is necessarily bad as the question posits.

Fly4Fun;1308857 wrote:I think part of the contention I have with your idea and the way you are presenting this is because you preface the whole question/scenario with the question, "Are human beings good or bad?"

Basically my point is that I don't think the scenario/hypothetical or the discussion going on in this thread has to do with the question presented. Your asking whether responding to stimuli/incentives makes someone good or bad. I don't think it is indicative of either, rather it is just the way humans work. Yes, some people might have genetic tendencies that when in concert with psychological and environmental facts lead to different decisions or outcomes than they would in a person with different tendencies.

But how someone reacts to incentives doesn't indicate that someone is necessarily bad as the question posits.

Yeah, I considered that once I got into explaining it a bit, which is why I ended up stating the origin of the discussion. "Good" and "bad," theoretically, are at least marginally different from person to person. Altruism is objectively definable, though, which was why I moved more into explaining the question using that as the term.

O-Trap;1308849 wrote:Would it be plausible, given the nature of humans, for the act to be committed without the result being used as the incentive to act, though?...

I think yes, just as much as it not being chosen would.

O-Trap;1308849 wrote:...So to remove the incentive of altruism would still cause it to be chosen as often as not? Would you, then, suggest that it is chose far most often contemporarily, since the incentives are indeed not removed?

I think removing the incentive would probably cause it to be chosen less than it currently is and about the same as choosing the alternative.

I think it is chosen far more often now than if incentives were not in place, yes. I think it would be more random yet even with the alternative from a macro view because there's no reason to choose one over the other. It wouldn't matter to anyone.

Con_Alma;1308864 wrote:I think yes, just as much as it not being chosen would.





I think removing the incentive would probably cause it to be chosen less than it currently is and about the same as choosing the alternative.

I think it is chosen far more often now than if incentives were not in place, yes. I think it would be more random yet even with the alternative from a macro view because there's no reason to choose one over the other. It wouldn't matter to anyone.

Ah, but the alternative of altruistic is selfish, which would indeed indicate some level of benefit to the individual in the alternative.

Does the inherent value of altruism itself counter-balance the value of the average selfish action, such that if one grants valuable results and the other holds value intrinsically, they might be chosen equally, given the hypothetical?

O-Trap;1308867 wrote:Ah, but the alternative of altruistic is selfish, which would indeed indicate some level of benefit to the individual in the alternative.

Does the inherent value of altruism itself counter-balance the value of the average selfish action, such that if one grants valuable results and the other holds value intrinsically, they might be chosen equally, given the hypothetical?

I thought the perceived benefit was not to be present so as not to provide an incentive. Are you suggesting that the benefit of selfishness would still be present?

If so, if there was a benefit to being selfish and not benefit to being altruistic, then my earlier response would change and it would be that humans would not choose to be altruistic for there would be no benefit in doing so while there would be a benefit in being selfish.

"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

-Agent Smith from The Matrix

dlazz;1308876 wrote:"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

-Agent Smith from The Matrix

Pretty racist.

sleeper;1308879 wrote:Pretty racist.

Only in the SEC...

Con_Alma;1308872 wrote:I thought the perceived benefit was not to be present so as not to provide an incentive. Are you suggesting that the benefit of selfishness would still be present?

If so, if there was a benefit to being selfish and not benefit to being altruistic, then my earlier response would change and it would be that humans would not choose to be altruistic for there would be no benefit in doing so while there would be a benefit in being selfish.

The incentive (and I tried to communicate this in the initial post) to altruism would be removed. I cannot think of an example in which even the resultant benefit of altruism isn't ascribed to it by an outside force. Even the warm fuzzies are the result of societal values ascribed to altruism. As such, it would seem as though any current value of altruism has been placed there, not naturally, but either by societal influences or tangible benefits to the actor. In a sense, I have yet to see how an altruistic action can be committed without a self-serving component, at least on some level.

Self-service is, by definition, beneficial to the actor. In a sense, in order to even be self-serving, the action must have a benefit to the actor.

So the distinction is that while one has self-fulfillment baked right in, it appears as though self-fulfillment is ascribed to the opposite to give it balance that would not necessarily exist apart from societal manipulation.

Ultimately, then, the question is: If those ascriptions were removed, how would human beings, given their dispositions, act?

O-Trap;1308901 wrote:The incentive (and I tried to communicate this in the initial post) to altruism would be removed. I cannot think of an example in which even the resultant benefit of altruism isn't ascribed to it by an outside force. Even the warm fuzzies are the result of societal values ascribed to altruism. As such, it would seem as though any current value of altruism has been placed there, not naturally, but either by societal influences or tangible benefits to the actor. In a sense, I have yet to see how an altruistic action can be committed without a self-serving component, at least on some level.

Self-service is, by definition, beneficial to the actor. In a sense, in order to even be self-serving, the action must have a benefit to the actor.

So the distinction is that while one has self-fulfillment baked right in, it appears as though self-fulfillment is ascribed to the opposite to give it balance that would not necessarily exist apart from societal manipulation.

Ultimately, then, the question is: If those ascriptions were removed, how would human beings, given their dispositions, act?

I think they would act as much in an altruistic manner as they would a selfish manner equally in number of acts for each.

Con_Alma;1308902 wrote:I think they would act as much in an altruistic manner as they would a selfish manner equally in number of acts for each.

So altruism would indeed have intrinsic value, despite no positive repercussion, such that it would still counter-balance selfish action, which has positive repercussions baked right in?

O-Trap;1308906 wrote:So altruism would indeed have intrinsic value, despite no positive repercussion, such that it would still counter-balance selfish action, which has positive repercussions baked right in?

I answered as if there were no positive repercussions "baked right in" to either choice.

If there is a positive repercussion "baked right in" to acting in a selfish manner but not one "baked right in" to acting in an altruistic way, I think humans would act in a selfish manner much more often.

Con_Alma;1308911 wrote:I answered as if there were no positive repercussions "baked right in" to either choice.

If there is a positive repercussion "baked right in" to acting in a selfish manner but not one "baked right in" to acting in an altruistic way, I think humans would act in a selfish manner much more often.

Would you think that, in the latter case (the one I was ultimately getting at), there might exist scenarios in which a person would act altruistically (difference between 'more often' and 'every time')?

O-Trap;1308923 wrote:Would you think that, in the latter case (the one I was ultimately getting at), there might exist scenarios in which a person would act altruistically (difference between 'more often' and 'every time')?

I think they would but not more than acting selfishly. When they act altruistic when there's a clear reason to act selfishly it would be out of indifference or laziness most likely.

When there's reason to act one way and no reason to act another, it would be my guess that people would act in the manner that has a reason to do it...ie, a reason to act selfishly.

Con_Alma;1308925 wrote:I think they would but not more than acting selfishly. When they act altruistic when there's a clear reason to act selfishly it would be out of indifference or laziness most likely.

When there's reason to act one way and no reason to act another, it would be my guess that people would act in the manner that has a reason to do it...ie, a reason to act selfishly.

Given our nature, and absent societal pressures or tangible self benefits (theoretically, even laziness might fall here), can you think of a reason to act altruistically?

Interesting question that's kind of tough to answer. Mainly, for me, because it's more dealing with concepts than situations. Like, I'm trying to put a concept like this into an actual situation, so I can determine how I'd act based on more than just the thought I'd be doing the "right" thing for no reward (even the warm, fuzzy feeling) as opposed to the "wrong" thing for a reward and no punishment. Which, in talking concepts, would lead me to ask how a person would know what is right or wrong if there's no reward for doing one thing and no punishment for the other.

Closest examples off the top of my head:

1. Me and weed. Legally, it's not legal. I don't care and do it. If I chose to not do it, I'd be following the law for no reward and definitely no good feelings. By doing it, the chance of me being busted are so low as to not really register and I enjoy myself each time. PROBLEM: There's nothing inherently altruistic or not in simply following a law, automatically making this a very flawed attempt to provide an example.

2. I work for a company and, due to seniority, am in line for a promotion. I'm a competent worker who everyone likes, but nothing special. In the past "x" number of months, a new guy came on board and is a great worker who'd be perfect for the promotion, as his ambition and skill would do more for the company than me and my "keep things as they are" mentality. However, due to the way the company does things, the promotion is mine UNLESS I'd personally say the other guy deserves it instead of me. PROBLEM: The act of defining what the altruistic choice would be. What if I have sick relatives I need to care for? Or I'm married with a child and the extra $$$ from the promotion would really help in providing my family with things like advanced education and a good life? And it doesn't consider that with the promotion, I'd likely be working longer hours and more time away from home, so I'd be sacrificing personal pleasure to provide for others. So, what would be altruistic in this situation: sacrificing money and position at work, so a more qualified person can build the business better than I would OR making more personal sacrifices (free time, being at home as much as I'd like) in order to provide for those I directly care about? Both ways could be argued.

O-Trap;1308929 wrote:Given our nature, and absent societal pressures or tangible self benefits (theoretically, even laziness might fall here), can you think of a reason to act altruistically?

I think I can but that wasn't the question was it?

I thought you were asking what I think people would do as opposed there being reasons to do so.

Con_Alma;1308941 wrote:I think I can but that wasn't the question was it?

I thought you were asking what I think people would do as opposed there being reasons to do so.

It was not the initial question, no. It's an inquiry as a follow up to the response to the initial question. More or less, I'm just asking about the next step in the line of thinking.

Gottcha.

..to benefit others would be THE reason why. No?

I think the original question is "would a human eat a cookie if they they couldn't taste it nor feel hunger." You basically changed the "definition" (maybe not literally, but detached it from all things affecting it) of altruistic, which kind of makes the question meaningless.

Con_Alma;1309036 wrote:Gottcha.

..to benefit others would be THE reason why. No?

I'm just trying to establish whether someone thinks we would be motivated by benefiting others if it, in no way, benefits ourselves.

WebFire;1309047 wrote:I think the original question is "would a human eat a cookie if they they couldn't taste it nor feel hunger." You basically changed the "definition" (maybe not literally, but detached it from all things affecting it) of altruistic, which kind of makes the question meaningless.

No, the use of altruism versus self-service is used because self-service (ie "not eating the cookie," in the example, I suppose) has advantage as an intrinsic element. I'm asking whether humans would perceive an equally intrinsic advantage in altruism IF it was stripped of all advantage ascribed to it by outside forces.

I would suggest that the advantages listed so far (minus "helping others," but I still have questions about that one) are, I would suggest, extrinsic values, and are therefore ascribed to an act of altruism, meaning altruism doesn't necessarily have those values standing on its own.

The cookie example involves a neutral state and a beneficial state, yes, but I would contest the roles be reversed. Self-service would be eating, and enjoying, the cookie. If we strip altruism of its extrinsic rewards, would humans really see it as anything more than not eating the cookie, if not more inconvenient, like carrying the cookie a hundred yards just to set it down?

O-Trap;1309062 wrote:I'm just trying to establish whether someone thinks we would be motivated by benefiting others if it, in no way, benefits ourselves.

...I'm asking whether humans would perceive an equally intrinsic advantage in altruism IF it was stripped of all advantage ascribed to it by outside forces.......

Have you considered that there may indeed be such a motivation but it's simply not equal to those actions which do provide benefits?