Motivations for good works: believers vs. non-believers

[Eric_Hyom]

the principle of reciprocal altruism is a sufficient explanation for exhibiting helpful behavior. Spreading good will benefits everyone.

We often help people in practical ways when we go out with the Street Pastor teams. Sometimes people will offer us a donation as a way of saying thanks. We decline the money, and say it means more to us if you pass a kindness on and help another stranger.

The reciprocal part of altruism does not return to the original giver. We have found this to be a powerful tool to spread a little kindness in our community.

 

[Bradskii]

In that part he was trying to avoid having to take back a claim that non-believers are good and believers are evil, because believers do good out of fear of hell, which is, in his view, selfish.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the following quote represents what you suggested? Notwithstanding that evil was not mentioned or implied. Neither was the fear of hell.

Where on EARTH do people get this from? I mean, seriously, do you only help people because Jesus told you to? If that is so, then you are not the person I would turn to for help.

To continue: In the first instance, there is positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Doing a good deed because you have been told to do it (because Jesus told you or your father told you or your pastor told you) is positive reinforcement. And obviously less than optimum.

And doing something because you fear the consequences in not doing it is negative reinforcement. Fear of hell, fear of being caught, fear of punishment. And again, obviously less than optimum.

The example used was a boy sharing his toys because in the first instance he wanted to cheer his friend up. A good deed being done for no other reason than a desire to help. In the second instance he was afraid of being punished if he did not.

Now I think that any reasonable person would see the first act as being selfless and the second as selfish. At which point you asked why a selfish act is better than a selfless one. Which is like asking why a good act is better than a bad one.

I always like to take a discussion back to the point where there can be a mutual agreement. And then move on to see where the differences manifest themselves. If one has to go back to the point where the difference between being selfish and being selfless has to be explained, then I feel there is no further point in continuing.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The example used was a boy sharing his toys because in the first instance he wanted to cheer his friend up. A good deed being done for no other reason than a desire to help. In the second instance he was afraid of being punished if he did not.

As these young boys grow up, which of them will be drawn towards wanting bigger and better stuff for themselves, and which of them will grow up content and be willing to share?

As we grow up, our thoughts are tested in many ways. But I agree with you that it is better to give freely and willingly whether you have a faith or not.

 

[Vico]

…

The nature of mankind is not so fallen that no morally good acts can occur without grace. Note also from
the Gospel that we are taught to hope for nothing in response to our doing good, but rather to expect heaven.

Luke

32 And if you love them that love you, what thanks are to you? for sinners also love those that love them. 33 And if you do good to them who do good to you, what thanks are to you? for sinners also do this. 34 And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much. 35 But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil. 36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The example used was a boy sharing his toys because in the first instance he wanted to cheer his friend up. A good deed being done for no other reason than a desire to help. In the second instance he was afraid of being punished if he did not.

As these young boys grow up, which of them will be drawn towards wanting bigger and better stuff for themselves, and which of them will grow up content and be willing to share?

As we grow up, our thoughts are tested in many ways. But I agree with you that it is better to give freely and willingly whether you have a faith or not.

I guess it’s down to the parents. Kids these days often get more presents for Christmas and birthdays than they need. It’s not a good way to learn value. Although my daughter has come up with a good solution. She tells our grandson that he’s lucky to get so many but other children aren’t so lucky. So after he’s played with all his, he has to decide which ones he wants to keep and which he can wrap up again and give to those less fortunate.

If you approach it in the right way, there are no tantrums. He actually looks forward to passing them on.

 

[Bradskii]

Larry1700:

…

The nature of mankind is not so fallen that no morally good acts can occur without grace. Note also from
the Gospel that we are taught to hope for nothing in response to our doing good, but rather to expect heaven.

So expect nothing. Except eternal life…

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Larry1700:

…

The nature of mankind is not so fallen that no morally good acts can occur without grace. Note also from
the Gospel that we are taught to hope for nothing in response to our doing good, but rather to expect heaven.

So expect nothing. Except eternal life…

The eternal [hevenly] life is a function of grace received and our cooperation with it. … And a large family with persecutions in this life, per the Gospel of Mark.

Mark 10

28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. 29 Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. 31 But many that are first, shall be last: and the last, first.

 

[STT]

I’d suggest that tribalism is genetic.

You need good for a secured tribe too.

Biology doesn’t know what “good” is.

True.

 

[MPat]

Doubtful……

You already accept that it is possible that 40% of population have something suspiciously like Original Sin. Think how many people you know would belong to this group - and I suspect that 40% will tend to increase with time.

Which part of “what goes around, comes around” needs to be explained to you.

So… You have no actual “metaethical” system to be uncovered?

That’s a pity…

And all your talk about accounting gave some hope that you will have something to add and subtract…

Psychologists know that positive reinforcement is superior.

First, “psychologists know” is not very impressive. The results of psychologists are not as repeatable, as one would hope (Open Science Collaboration "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science ", “Science”, 2015 , 349(6251), DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716)…

Second, I have claimed that Psychology is protoscience at best and pseudoscience at worst, not that it is a drunken talk in a pub. They have journals, you know. If you want to claim psychologists “know” something, provide a bibliographical record.

Third, your statement sounds suspiciously “non-sciency”. “Superior”? Superior for what? Superior in what way?

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the following quote represents what you suggested? Notwithstanding that evil was not mentioned or implied. Neither was the fear of hell.

“If that is so, then you are not the person I would turn to for help.” pretty obviously indicates a claim that there is something very wrong with this “you”. Given the context “evil” is the only available option.

But OK, you corrected yourself now, and that’s good. Not as good as being precise right away or correcting yourself at the first opportunity, but still good.

At which point you asked why a selfish act is better than a selfless one. Which is like asking why a good act is better than a bad one.

No. “Better” is defined as “more good, less bad”. It is not defined as “more selfless, less selfish”.

So, if it a claim is made that “a selfish act is better than a selfless one” (or, presumably, vice versa ), it does make some sense to ask why it is so, what other propositions is it derived from.

Also, I claim that categories “selfish” and “selfless” are mostly useless, unless much more work is done with them. For example, if “selfish” action is one that benefits (or is seen to benefit) one who performs it in some way, then all actions are “selfish”. You are free to clarify that definition.

 

[Bradskii]

Also, I claim that categories “selfish” and “selfless” are mostly useless, unless much more work is done with them. For example, if “selfish” action is one that benefits (or is seen to benefit) one who performs it in some way, then all actions are “selfish”. You are free to clarify that definition.

First up, I didn’t correct myself. I corrected you.

And secondly, how on earth are the terms selfish and selfless useless? They specifically describe personal attributes that relate to ones attitude to other people. Does one act purely for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of others. Surely, this is about as basic as you can get.

And ‘all actions are “selfish”’? How on earth can you make such a statement? From the child giving away her toys to the man running into the burning building to the soldier sacrificing his life for his comrades…exactly how many examples do you need of people being selfless?

We deride selfish behaviour and we honour that which is selfless. Or at least, the rest of us do. If you consider all acts to be selfish then I’m not sure we can include you.

 

[MPat]

And secondly, how on earth are the terms selfish and selfless useless? They specifically describe personal attributes that relate to ones attitude to other people. Does one act purely for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of others. Surely, this is about as basic as you can get.

No, it is not as basic as you can get. And merely looking at the things you wrote is sufficient to see it. “Benefit” is obviously more basic than “selfish” and “selfless”.

As I see, you already chose a definition where an act is selfish or selfless if one does “act purely for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of others”, instead of the one I gave ("[a] ‘selfish’ action is one that benefits (or is seen to benefit) one who performs it in some way").

Good. That is an improvement, and some of the “work” I talked about.

And yet, it is not sufficient.

Let’s take an example. Presumably you ate today, this week, this month, this year. Was that a “selfish” action? Let’s check by the definition… It does look like you ate for your own benefit, and not for the benefit of others - or are you willing to claim otherwise?

So, did you perform a “selfish” and thus evil action by eating? Are you supposed to stop eating?

Hopefully, you will agree that no, eating is not an evil action.

But then, if it is so easy to find an action that is “selfish” and yet not evil, then you will have to modify the definition of “selfish” once more, or to decide that some “selfish” actions are not evil - and thus, category “selfish” is mostly useless, as it does not seem to have many other uses.

 

[STT]

Selfish or selfless. The reality is indifferent.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Since the terms positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement are being bandied about, please let me try to clear something up. In psychology, the term “negative reinforcement” does NOT mean punishment. Negative reinforcement means the REMOVAL of an aversive (negative) stimulus. So if you do something and pain is removed or avoided by means of your behavior, that is what is called negative reinforcement. For example, learning to stop at a red light and avoid getting a ticket is learning by negative reinforcement. This differs from positive reinforcement because you are not receiving anything explicitly positive. However, since you are not receiving punishment, you will repeat the behavior so that you continue to avoid punishment. Punishment also consists of positive punishment and negative punishment. Positive punishment means receiving an aversive stimulus (and this is NOT negative reinforcement), whereas negative punishment means that something positive is taken away, removed. In both cases of punishment, you do NOT repeat the behavior. I hope this explanation clears up some of the misunderstanding about the meaning of these terms.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And secondly, how on earth are the terms selfish and selfless useless? They specifically describe personal attributes that relate to ones attitude to other people. Does one act purely for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of others. Surely, this is about as basic as you can get.

No, it is not as basic as you can get. And merely looking at the things you wrote is sufficient to see it. “Benefit” is obviously more basic than “selfish” and “selfless”.

As I see, you already chose a definition where an act is selfish or selfless if one does “act purely for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of others”, instead of the one I gave ("[a] ‘selfish’ action is one that benefits (or is seen to benefit) one who performs it in some way").

Good. That is an improvement, and some of the “work” I talked about.

And yet, it is not sufficient.

Let’s take an example. Presumably you ate today, this week, this month, this year. Was that a “selfish” action? Let’s check by the definition… It does look like you ate for your own benefit, and not for the benefit of others - or are you willing to claim otherwise?

So, did you perform a “selfish” and thus evil action by eating? Are you supposed to stop eating?

Hopefully, you will agree that no, eating is not an evil action.

But then, if it is so easy to find an action that is “selfish” and yet not evil, then you will have to modify the definition of “selfish” once more, or to decide that some “selfish” actions are not evil - and thus, category “selfish” is mostly useless, as it does not seem to have many other uses.

Good grief. I think it would be plainly obvious to anyone, without needing to have it explained or further qualified, that selfish behaviour is generally that which primarily benefits the individual with no thought given to others.

If you are suggesting that eating (or perhaps even breathing in and out) could be described as selfish acts, then I think that you are arguing for the sake of it. Heaven knows that you are not making any worthwhile contributions to the discussion. But there’s always hope…

 

[Elf01]

Good grief. I think it would be plainly obvious to anyone, without needing to have it explained or further qualified, that selfish behaviour is generally that which primarily benefits the individual with no thought given to others .

If you are suggesting that eating (or perhaps even breathing in and out) could be described as selfish acts, then I think that you are arguing for the sake of it. Heaven knows that you are not making any worthwhile contributions to the discussion. But there’s always hope…

If morality is evolved (correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that that is your belief) then selfish or selfless does not make a difference. We’re just doing what we have evolved to do.

 

[MPat]

Not everything is linear and commensurable. And, of course not only psychologists are aware that positive reinforcement is better than negative reinforcement. Every sane layman knows it, too.

Your opinion is noted and discarded.

So, since no bibliographical record has been provided, and no response to the one I provided was given, I guess you want to claim that Psychology actually is “a drunken talk in a pub” where citing sources is optional…?

An interesting opinion, I have to say.

Good grief. I think it would be plainly obvious to anyone, without needing to have it explained or further qualified, that selfish behaviour is generally that which primarily benefits the individual with no thought given to others .

If you are suggesting that eating (or perhaps even breathing in and out) could be described as selfish acts, then I think that you are arguing for the sake of it.

Well, do you really want to say that you think about others while breathing out?

I guess you need to clarify the definition still more…

Heaven knows that you are not making any worthwhile contributions to the discussion. But there’s always hope…

Well, it kinda depends on what is the goal of the discussion, doesn’t it?

The obvious service “philosophy” subforum can provide is helping others to clarify their ideas, to express them precisely, to see how they fit together, what follows from what, what alternatives are there… Yet I see that you really really really do not want that, since you resist every try to do so.

Now, if instead you want to get applause for pompously presented badly thought out proclamations, sorry, I don’t think we do that.

In such case our job is to make sure their flaws are exposed (for the sake of the one who presented them and for the sake of the readers). Yes, the “customer” rarely likes this service. That, after all, was why people wanted Socrates killed.

 

[QwertyGirl]

You already accept that it is possible that 40% of population have something suspiciously like Original Sin. Think how many people you know would belong to this group - and I suspect that 40% will tend to increase with time

Mental Illness is not a result of “origianl sin”. It is biology.

 

[MPat]

Mental Illness is not a result of “origianl sin”. It is biology.

That’s why I wrote “You already accept that it is possible that 40% of population have something suspiciously like Original Sin.” and not “You already accept that it is possible that 40% of population have Original Sin.”.

Yes, I know that now you do not believe Original Sin exists. Yes, I strongly suspect that you won’t start believing it exists tomorrow. Or this month. Or even this year.

But I see that it is likely that you will start suspecting that eventually. After seeing that your acquaintances do evil things (which you explain by “mental illness”). After seeing that you do evil things yourself.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I am 56 years old. I’ve lived enough to see mental illness in others. It is a health issue, not a morality issue, for the individual who suffers with it. I have never equated it to original sin because I don’t believe in the concept of original sin. . Everyone makes mistakes or poor choices once in a while. I make ammends, assuming I have hurt someone, and then I learn from the situation that I move forward. That is one way I learn. If there is a God, it is the way he made us to be. We are perfect in our imperfection. There is a difference between being mentally ill, and being fallible. There is nothing evil about being fallible.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Good grief. I think it would be plainly obvious to anyone, without needing to have it explained or further qualified, that selfish behaviour is generally that which primarily benefits the individual with no thought given to others .

If you are suggesting that eating (or perhaps even breathing in and out) could be described as selfish acts, then I think that you are arguing for the sake of it. Heaven knows that you are not making any worthwhile contributions to the discussion. But there’s always hope…

If morality is evolved (correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that that is your belief) then selfish or selfless does not make a difference. We’re just doing what we have evolved to do.

I’m not sure why you’d think that beng selfish or being selfless does not make a difference. By the very definition of the words themselves they are bound to make a difference. The fact that both are evolved characteristics does not change that.

Be aware that the characteristics themselves are not an either/or option. It is not that some people are selfish and the rest selfless. We all are a mixture of the two and we live our lives being pulled in opposite directions at all times.

Being selfish is probably the primary characteristic. It’s what prompts self preservation. There is a line of thought that says that virtually everything that we do is selfish in order to propogate our genetic information. Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene was probably the apotheosis of that line of thinking. But there was a problem in explaining selfless behaviour. How could an organism make sacrifices, even the ultimate sacrifice, ‘for the greater good’ if it did not directly benefir the organism.

Enter kin selection. Which proposed that in any given group, sacrificing onself for the benefit of a close relation (and there would be many close relationships in any given small group) would still enable one’s genetic information to be passed on. A sibling would carry the same information, a child would carry half your genetic information etc. And the evidence at the time (The Selfish Gene was written in 1976) backed that theory.

However, further information gathered over the last 40 years clouded that view and has since shown it to be incorrect. Many people who supported it were starting with the theory and then looking for evidence to support it. Which is not ideal from a scientific basis. Dawkins himself was adamant that evolution did not work at the group level. It is now accepted that he was wrong.

(cont’d)