Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Stepping outside morality

  • 16-07-2007 10:34pm
    #1
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭


    I am in my late teens and I have recently made some serious decisions regarding my outlook on life. Firstly, I have decided that there is no god, and that religious belief is as dangerous as it is irrational. Secondly I have come to realise that all actions are ulitimately self serving and that there is no such thing as a completely unselfish action.

    With these new ideas still fresh in my mind, I have found another interesting question raising itself more and more often. Most people derive positive feelings when they act in a moral manner, they feel good about themselves. Furthermore, people experience negative emotions when they act in an immoral manner. These people would be highly unlikely to sieze a chance to improve their position in life if it meant they had to act in an immoral manner to do so. This is my question: Is it better to live a moral life in order to avoid the negative emotions associated with immorality, or do the benefits of acting in an immoral manner when it would be advantageous to do so outweigh any possible negatives???


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    A little from column A, a little from Column B.

    I hope your personal issue is now resolved.

    "the human conscience is a little voice that tells you someone might be watching."


  • #3
    Conor108
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,871 ✭✭✭Conor108


    Oh depends on the situation I guess...I mean you don't want to be TOO immoral but you gotta look after number 1:D


  • #4
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    This would probably be better suited to the Atheist forum. It may also give you different insights with other like minded members.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614


  • #5
    Crumble Froo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,196 ✭✭✭Crumble Froo


    maybe a philosophical forum either?


  • #6
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    To say a little from column A, a little from column B is not only a cliche, it is also a cop out. How can that be the answer? It is a case of do I reject or embrace morality, sitting on the fence is not an option for me. The behaviour resulting from one decision would be diametrically opposed to that resulting from the other.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    What is TOO immoral, and why not act this way?


  • #8
    DemocAnarchis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 404 ✭✭DemocAnarchis


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    I have come to realise that all actions are ulitimately self serving and that there is no such thing as a completely unselfish action.

    Hi, welcome to humanity, nice to have you here.


  • #9
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,212 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Surely as an atheist you accept all morality is created by man not God. Why would this revelation change your views on morality? Do you think you should only be good for some afterlife rewards?

    Tbh, immorality might serve you best in isolated incidents but being consistently immoral will only eventually harm you in the long run e.g. isolation, betrayal, jail etc.,


  • #10
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,652 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    What is TOO immoral, and why not act this way?
    If you are acting like a sociopath or psychopath, thats too far. Of course, many middle managers can be easily noted as having these tendencies.

    I suspect if you only get a minor or temporary gain, for a substantial loss to someone else, that is also too far.


  • #11
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    Morality is not created by man in the sense that we decided to invent it, morality is an off shoot of the complex process of evolution, it is something which evolved along with all other aspects of humanity. My decision to become an atheist is absolutely nothing to do with my views on morality, although I can see how you would think that. To answer your question, no, I do not think you should be goof for some afterlife rewards. I am wondering if I should be good becuase I haven't yet deicided it will allow me to have a better life, as it states in the original post


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    are you talking immoral in a bill gates sense or immoral in a ted bundy sense???


  • #13
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Not all morality is found in religious reasons, sure religious reasons are used to back it up but a lot of it is about what is in socities and your own best intrest.

    You can be non christian or not religious at all and still have morals.


  • #14
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    It is known that psychopaths do benefit from their lack of conscience, this is actually something I have been very interested in as I study psych and have often been told that I am a psychopath, although the people who level this accusation at me are not really familiar with the true meaning of the word. So if psychopaths can benefit from a lack of conscience, is it logical to say I too would benefit from acting in a similar manner?


  • #15
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    there are ways to have a great life while upholding strong morals and it is not necessarily any harder than doing it with low morals.........

    unfortunately i have column a and column b syndrome.............i do and think certain things that a lot of people would consider immoral(you know what im talking about) but i would not deliberately screw someone over for my own gain(generally)


  • #16
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    In the Ted Bundy sense and the Bill Gate sense, although I think it is pretty clear that if I were to act in a manner similar to Ted Bundy it would not benefit my life.


  • #17
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    It is known that psychopaths do benefit from their lack of conscience, this is actually something I have been very interested in as I study psych and have often been told that I am a psychopath, although the people who level this accusation at me are not really familiar with the true meaning of the word. So if psychopaths can benefit from a lack of conscience, is it logical to say I too would benefit from acting in a similar manner?

    please explain to me how a psycopath can benefit from their lack of consience in the long run?

    also i dont think you get to decide this really as i would reckon its a kind of a nurture issue as in how you are brought up. sure u might say iv decided to be immoral now for my own good but if deep down you know what you are doing is wrong and you dont like it even tho the end result is a slightly better life you will drive yourself mad


  • #18
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,212 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Well the fact that you accept morality as an offshoot of evolution means you should surely accept that in the long run it is benefical to be moral. Well, perhaps its more likely to say benefical to society to a whole than to individuals. That and the fact you probably don't accept having kids as being a success...


  • #19
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    In the Ted Bundy sense and the Bill Gate sense, although I think it is pretty clear that if I were to act in a manner similar to Ted Bundy it would not benefit my life.

    well bill gates im sure starting off made some pretty immoral(maybe unethical is a better word) decisions and it benfitted him in the long run but i think the business world is slightly different. if you want to set up a business and be successful you are going to have a certain cut throat attitude or you wont survive. i dont know if it is immoral as such seen as it is necessary to survive


  • #20
    am i bovvered
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭am i bovvered


    op, from reading your own beliefs.....
    if you derive hapiness from inner peace you should choose A
    if you derive hapiness from a "position" in life you should choose B


  • #21
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    Ohhh, close, close close to the heart of the issue, well done. That is an idea that is very interesting to me. In a society where it is normal to act in a moral manner, it may give you an advantage over a large percentage of that society to ignore morality in situations when it could would be beneficial to do so. (PS I said morality was an evolutionary off shoot rather than a product of evolution, it did not evolve in the same way our fear of death did. I cannot really explain it in sufficent detail to be convincing here due to issues regarding laziness on my part, but if you are familiar with the views of the great Richard Dawkins you will know what I am refering to)


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    How can psychopaths benefit from their lack of conscience? The situation of a psychopath is different than that of a person who doesn't suffer from this disorder, but psychopaths can do well in the business world provided other issues surrounding the disorder dont bring them down first. I have read this in psychological books, I am not just making this up. Try reading Mask of Sanity by Cleckly if you are interested in this idea or the disorder as a whole


  • #23
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    i would just like to point out to whoever moved this to religon and spirituality that this has nothing to do with either religon or spirituality


  • #24
    aidan24326
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    Secondly I have come to realise that all actions are ulitimately self serving and that there is no such thing as a completely unselfish action.

    Not 100% true. Altruism has been observed in many species not just humans, so it clearly goes beyond morals and into selective advantage in an evolutionary sense. Whether that altruism is ultimately self-serving to the individual in some way is another matter, it's not necessarily always. You may be correct in saying that nobody does anything for no gain at all, but why you feel that should make us all abandon morality I'm not sure. We have our moral framework for as sure a reason as we have teeth and ears, that we may not fully understand it doesn't make that any less true.


  • #25
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    op while im sure you are right in saying that it can benefit some people it may not benefit you and I would say that the vast majority of successfull people are not immoral people. one does not automatically lead onto the other and being moral does not put you at any disadvantage in the long run imo


  • #26
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    It is 100% true, altruism has been seen in other species, but it is still a selfish response. It is a complicated matter, but briefly: studies on this idea tend to show us that behaviour which appears to be of an altruistic nature is in fact, not. Treating other members of a population clearly benefits an individual as it this behaviour is reciprocated. This is just one example...


  • #27
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    Being moral may not lead to disadvantaged as such, but it may prevent you from bettering you position in life


  • #28
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,652 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Moved from Personal Issues.


  • #29
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    I think there's too much emphasis put on morals and examining systems from which we devise them - let's be honest here one of the main arguments against an immoral life is that society just won't tolerate it - rape, murder and theft are pretty much out, because the rest of us don't want you to do them to us, and are going to punish you for doing them.

    All this talk about morality is mostly just tedious philosophising, much of what you can and cannot do is laid down in our legislation, and all the deep thinking and pondering won't change any of that.

    Whether you can come to terms with not hating yourself for stealing my car, or whether you'll bitterly regret is for years is of no importance to me - I'm coming after you with a bat to break your legs - I really couldn't care less how you feel.


  • #30
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    Being moral may not lead to disadvantaged as such, but it may prevent you from bettering you position in life

    so may being immoral

    eg; two people going for the job both exactly the same skills..........one attacks the other subtely for no reason to try and gain an advantage.........they are about to be offered the position when the boss realises what has happened and fires the immoral person for being a dickhead

    also regarding the altruistic thing surely weather the benefit to yourself is known or not know at the time surely plays into it.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    Well pH, I think it is pretty clear that coming after me with a bat and breaking my legs is laid down in out legislation, so you have already made a point against your primary one. I realise this is a childis remark to make but I couldn't resist. You are right in that it is illegal to perform many seriously immoral acts, but this doesn't stop people, that is obvious. However there are many actions, lying and using people for two simple examples, which are not illegal at all....


  • #32
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    pH wrote:
    Whether you can come to terms with not hating yourself for stealing my car, or whether you'll bitterly regret is for years is of no importance to me - I'm coming after you with a bat to break your legs - I really couldn't care less how you feel.

    i think he is talking about much sbtler ways of screwing your over though


  • #33
    aidan24326
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    It is 100% true, altruism has been seen in other species, but it is still a selfish response. It is a complicated matter, but briefly: studies on this idea tend to show us that behaviour which appears to be of an altruistic nature is in fact, not. Treating other members of a population clearly benefits an individual as it this behaviour is reciprocated. This is just one example...

    Yes but is it always to the individual, or didn't Dawkins himself write about altruistic behaviour that appears to be the benefit of the group (i.e the gene pool) rather than necessarily to the individual itself.

    That aside, I agree with you that there is probably no such thing as a completely unselfish act. But surely there's a survival advantage to our morality and it need not have any other reason for being other than that.


  • #34
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    Well pH, I think it is pretty clear that coming after me with a bat and breaking my legs is laid down in out legislation, so you have already made a point against your primary one. I realise this is a childis remark to make but I couldn't resist.
    Well somewhere in all your teenage angst you'll eventually figure out that the world doesn't revolve around you and that what you can and cannot do is constrained mainly by others. Legislation and individual revenge are examples of how other people regulate what you can and cannot do regardless of your own morality,
    You are right in that it is illegal to perform many seriously immoral acts, but this doesn't stop people, that is obvious. However there are many actions, lying and using people for two simple examples, which are not illegal at all....
    Yes but you'll get caught and get a reputation for being a liar, then others will no longer trust you, your actions in dealing with others (positively or negatively from their perspective) have consequences. You seem to want to nit-pick and miss this fundamental point that I'm making, how others react to your actions, the punishments or rewards they give you for those actions is a far greater influence on your behaviour that any set of 'morals' you can invent.


  • #35
    oneeyedsnake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    Listen, you are grasping at straws here in an argument with a teenager, it is obvious that it is possible to live your life in an immoral manner simmilar to that which he outlined, ie lying and using people, without ever being caught. I dont want to raise an old point again, but it is often the case that psychopaths, for whom this behaviour is normal, often go undetected. As far as your nit picking point goes, he is sticking to his original point while you are going off on some irrational self serving tangent. Read his point again and realise the error of your ways


  • #36
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    is it logical to say I too would benefit from acting in a similar manner?

    You have to define "benefit" in the first place

    If you shot me and took my wallet you would certainly benefit financially from having my extra money.

    Are you asking if such an action would be moral or not, since you do benefit from it?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Fallen Seraph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭Fallen Seraph


    Hudson4everSecondly wrote:
    I have come to realise that all actions are ulitimately self serving and that there is no such thing as a completely unselfish action.

    I think it's very worth noting that you've got yourself quite the tautology there. I'm not denying it's true, but it's not a statement from which you can draw any meaningful conclusions. Of course everything can be analysed into being self serving if you make the assumption that good actions bring good feelings.
    Hudson4everSecondly wrote:
    Is it better to live a moral life in order to avoid the negative emotions associated with immorality, or do the benefits of acting in an immoral manner when it would be advantageous to do so outweigh any possible negatives???


    Imo epicurus was basically right in his metaphysics and his basis for ethics; the universe is just atoms and life is inherently meaningless so seeking to live a painless/happy life is what is "morally correct". Accordingly I think that the answer to your question is very obviously no. Why would you behave in a manner that makes you unhappy? What's the point? Greater happiness in the long run? Perhaps there's an argument there, but it depends entirely on a persons disposition and sooo many other variables that it makes it a morally impractical route to take.


  • #38
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    (PS I said morality was an evolutionary off shoot rather than a product of evolution, it did not evolve in the same way our fear of death did. I cannot really explain it in sufficent detail to be convincing here due to issues regarding laziness on my part, but if you are familiar with the views of the great Richard Dawkins you will know what I am refering to)

    Strange thing to say. According to Dawkins morality is as much of a hardwired evolutionary trait as our fear of the dark or our craving for food. In the vast vast majority of cases, a being with no sense of morality will suffer for it. I'd really like if you could explain convincingly why morality is merely an "off shoot" rather than a direct result of evolution. The reason your brain makes you feel negative emotions is because its training you to not behave in a fashion detrimental to your survival. You feel pain when you touch fire, hunger when you don't eat, and guilt when you needlessly risk your social standing.

    So yes, in theory you could benefit temporally from acting like an immoral son of a bitch, but you would have to be very very smart and careful to not have it end up biting you in the ass. You'd be amazed how much even a single little incident can change the opinion of dozens of people. I'd say you would almost certainly be worse off for it.

    Aside from all that, surely you feel like being moral? You would get a horrible wriggly feeling inside if you did something bad to some innocent person to forward your own goals?


  • #39
    Attractive Nun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭Attractive Nun


    Zillah wrote:
    Aside from all that, surely you feel like being moral? You would get a horrible wriggly feeling inside if you did something bad to some innocent person to forward your own goals?

    You would, but the point is that the case may be that one could gain more than one loses by acting immorally. To take a random/stupid example, what if you found yourself in the position of competing with a friend for a promotion at work? Let's say you have a piece of damaging (though not strictly relevant to the job at hand) information in relation to that friend, information that - if leaked to the boss - would preclude him from the promotion, and effectively land you with the promotion. By most people's standards, it would immoral to reveal the information, and you would certainly make some losses as a result of disclosing it - the risk of being found out and losing social prestige, the risk to the friendship, a guilt-free conscience. But compare that to the material and prestige gains of the promotion. It would have to be balanced with the liklihood of you getting the job without betraying your friend, but it is certainly very possible that you might make a rational value judgement that the gains outweigh the losses.

    Taking for granted that we, and the universe, are nothing more than collections of atoms and that life is ultimately pointless, why not betray your friend?


  • #40
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Attractive Nun wrote:
    Taking for granted that we, and the universe, are nothing more than collections of atoms and that life is ultimately pointless, why not betray your friend?
    Because it's more probable that you would make a rational value judgement that the gains DO NOT outweigh the potential losses.

    Humans are also social creatures, with a need for each other's company. It would become apparent quickly that a complete lack of morals is likely to be a barrier to companionship.


  • #41
    oneeyedsnake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    It is important to remember that the issue being discussed here isn't really acting immorally in all situations, I think it is already obvious enough that this would not be beneficial. The rejection of morally mentioned is a condional rejection, ie one would only act immorally if it could be of some benefit. This is of course a complete rejection of morality, as any moral action performed in this situatiuon would not be a genuine one, but instead it is just a way of acting which at that moment in time is more advantageous than acting immoraly. Acting immorally in all situations could not improve your life.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Attractive Nun wrote:
    Taking for granted that we, and the universe, are nothing more than collections of atoms and that life is ultimately pointless, why not betray your friend?

    Because we're not just talking about a lifetime full of seflessnesss with a single incident of immorality. To elucidate my point, the boss is likely to go "Hmm, I have a choice between two men, one of whom is normal and has qualities X, Y and Z, and we have this second man, who I have heard bad stories about and lots of people think he's untrustworthy and selfish..."

    People are not judged morally based on averages (Well he's moral most of the time). People are expected to be moral all the time, so even a single incident could ruin your promotion possibilities. Hell, maybe the boss would still prefer the guy with the embarassing secret over the sneaky son of a bitch that will backstab his friend for a leg up.


  • #43
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    pH wrote:
    ,
    Yes but you'll get caught and get a reputation for being a liar, then others will no longer trust you, your actions in dealing with others (positively or negatively from their perspective) have consequences. You seem to want to nit-pick and miss this fundamental point that I'm making, how others react to your actions, the punishments or rewards they give you for those actions is a far greater influence on your behaviour that any set of 'morals' you can invent.

    Why are you so certain that it is impossible live an immoral life and not get caught? How often do the lies you tell in your day to day life actually get exposed? I cant answer for you but based on my own experiences I am pretty sure that a certain level of immorality could quite easily slip under the radar. Also, I do understand your point, but I don't agree with it. If it was as simple as you think it is all debate on the subject of morality would have died out a long time ago.Punishment comes after the deed is done, so if somebody decides to do something which ultimately results in punishment, they made that decision themselves, it was based on their own beliefs.


  • #44
    Myksyk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,550 ✭✭✭Myksyk


    Interesting discussion.
    Secondly I have come to realise that all actions are ulitimately self serving and that there is no such thing as a completely unselfish action.

    I think it's probably easy enough to demonstrate that this is a false statement. You may be mistakingly confusing Dawkins' idea of altruism based on selfish-gene-ness with altruism due to psychosocial factors. Just because the development of altruism in a 'survival of the fittest' context can be explained by ultimate benefit to the individual does not mean that all altruism is so constructed. Evolutionary explanations for specific current behaviours can be very suspect. As Steve Pinker says evolution can compel him all it likes to procreate but he (based on his very current and individually developed proclivities) can tell his genes to go jump in the lake. My point being that millions of years of evolution of one drive (e.g. the compulsion to procreate) can be trumped by merely a few years of socialising (e.g. his specific socially-derived desire not to have kids). While the development of altruism may have been BASED in the intrinsic benefit to the individual and his kin in the distant past for long-term evolutionary reasons, social factors and beliefs are much more important to its occurrence now. In this context, you may get truely altruistic behaviours.


  • #45
    Attractive Nun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭Attractive Nun


    Zillah wrote:
    Because we're not just talking about a lifetime full of seflessnesss with a single incident of immorality. To elucidate my point, the boss is likely to go "Hmm, I have a choice between two men, one of whom is normal and has qualities X, Y and Z, and we have this second man, who I have heard bad stories about and lots of people think he's untrustworthy and selfish..."

    People are not judged morally based on averages (Well he's moral most of the time). People are expected to be moral all the time, so even a single incident could ruin your promotion possibilities. Hell, maybe the boss would still prefer the guy with the embarassing secret over the sneaky son of a bitch that will backstab his friend for a leg up.

    Granted, but surely you concede that there are certain situations where one can act immorally and never get caught, never lose anything but your guilt-free conscience? Sure, by your logic, it would seemingly never be beneficial to act immorally. But everyone has done immoral things, if we take a standard, secular and western definition of morality - is that because everyone is stupid? Or is it because we realise, at the end of the day, that it benefits us more than it hurts us?


  • #46
    Hudson4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Hudson4ever


    When I made this statement I was refering to the idea that seemingly altruistic actions are actually motivated by a selfish desire to experience the positive emotions associated with this. Take for example a person who devotes their life to charity work. People who do this often speak of the great sense of fulfillment they gain from their work. I believe that it is a desire to experience these sort of positive feelings, rather than a sense of altruism, which is the real motivation behind their actions.


  • #47
    Myksyk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,550 ✭✭✭Myksyk


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    I believe that it is a desire to experience these sort of positive feelings, rather than a sense of altruism, which is the real motivation behind their actions.

    Holy crap Hudson ... this is deeply cynical stuff!! I'm sure we are motivated to some extent by the affirmation (emotional or otherwise) which we may derive from altruistic behaviour ... but hey, sometimes it's simply cos we care for or love people. Is that strange to you? I'm sure some atheists or agnostics have given their lives for others ... do you think the REAL motivation here is a desire to experience positive emotions?


  • #48
    Fallen Seraph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭Fallen Seraph


    Hudson4ever wrote:
    I believe that it is a desire to experience these sort of positive feelings, rather than a sense of altruism, which is the real motivation behind their actions.

    Speaking from personal experience this is only true if you analse it to be so; which is, in my opinion, a rather dubious truth. Have you ever had any altruistic urges? I know I have, and the thoughts that usually go through my mind are "That person appears to be in a bad situation, I can empathise with them and would dislike to be in their position; I should help them".

    Yes, this can be analysed into doing it for gratification but I think it's pretty meaningless to do so. I would go so far as to suggest that the motivation for altruism is even more "base" than self gratification; it comes from simple evolutionary urges to prolong the species.


  • #49
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fallen Seraph wrote:
    I would go so far as to suggest that the motivation for altruism is even more "base" than self gratification; it comes from simple evolutionary urges to prolong the species.

    Serious question. What about going out of your way to help an injured dog? Would you do it?


  • #50
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote:
    Serious question. What about going out of your way to help an injured dog? Would you do it?
    Defintely. I don't differentiate between dogs and humans on most levels actually.


  • #51
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    I am beginning to find it difficult to even kill flies that are bothering me. I generally don't differentiate between dogs and humans too. But of the situation arose whereby I had to choose between an animal and a human, I would choose the human every time. I always feel a deep sense of regret when I see an animal that has been killed on the road.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement