tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post3743527211381704222..comments2023-10-31T06:24:52.424-07:00Comments on New Leaves: The Good HedonistMike Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11349289865571299017noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-15762201126150558672007-09-06T18:56:00.000-07:002007-09-06T18:56:00.000-07:00clareb - I'm glad you agree.scarlet - thanks for ...clareb - I'm glad you agree.<BR/><BR/>scarlet - thanks for the meaty comment.<BR/><BR/>I agree that in real life most acts are a mixture of virtue-based motivations (ie. motivations that stem from the mere fact of doing good) and the rest. And it is an interesting question what, overall, is the ratio between the two.<BR/><BR/>(Though I would say that this doesn't settle the question of whether or not those virtue-based motivations are selfish or not).<BR/><BR/><I>"Often charity--particularly charity of an impersonal kind--is indeed very much like tossing money, or work, or energy, into an ocean: you never get to see what good you did."</I><BR/><BR/>That's interesting. I'ld never thought of relationship-cravers as being more selfish than charity-givers. I guess this is because a) this is a relative judgement (it does not mean that rel-cravers are selfish <I>per se</I> and b) rel-cravers tend to give a lot back to the person they focus their craving on.<BR/><BR/><I>"the very idea of someone deriving pleasure from doing good (even if she does not derive pleasure from *personal* caring for others) does not, in a way, strike me as very selfish at all."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. I'ld still say though that there is (at least conceivably) a higher level of selfishness than merely taking pleasure in good acts. Note that the moral hedonist doesn't actually <I>care</I> about other people (as in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the post).<BR/><BR/>cheers for the comment.Mike Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349289865571299017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-76793701346378974402007-09-06T01:55:00.000-07:002007-09-06T01:55:00.000-07:00Yes, the word 'selfish' perhaps has a reputation ...Yes, the word 'selfish' perhaps has a reputation it doesn't fully deserve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-56501398245978612522007-09-05T23:02:00.000-07:002007-09-05T23:02:00.000-07:00Even given the dilettantism with which I have appr...Even given the dilettantism with which I have approached the study of psychology I have become aware that many psychologists argue that selfishness does indeed underlie all human action, including apparently charitable or selfless acts. <BR/><BR/>I think this is needlessly and incorrectly reductive, and still another example of the deplorable instinct to artificially divide and place in hierarchical positions what is in fact a complex and gestalt whole, so I propose this: what if it's both? What if everyone who does charitable work does so BOTH because it gives them pleasure and because they know it to be beneficial or right?<BR/><BR/>People seem to gravitate toward ideas that occur in two basic categories, selfishness and selflessness. These concepts often seem at odds with each other: to help someone else is usually to give up an opportunity to help yourself, and the person able to so radically ignore her own survival instinct is rare (and usually insane). <BR/><BR/>But there occur times when some balance is reached between the two. Almost all human-human interaction qualifies as these times. <BR/><BR/>Maybe you've got some spare time and money and figure distributing sandwiches is at least as entertaining as a movie and does more good besides. That's both selfish (you're amused by what you're doing, and that provides some of the motivation for doing it) and selfless (you recognize it is beneficial, and THAT provides some of the motivation for doing it). <BR/><BR/>But maybe your conscience is struck so forcefully with the onus to help someone that it would make you feel far worse to not help them than to do so. Isn't that the same thing, though in a different proportion? You're acting both selfishly (in order to preserve your emotional health) and selflessly (you have a conscience and it works) at once. <BR/><BR/>Thus I must disagree with the idea that a selfish motive underlying a good deed corrupts the good deed. I think it's pretty awesome that humans might be ABLE to get pleasure from helping each other, actually, that giving can benefit the giver as well as the recipient; the very idea of someone deriving pleasure from doing good (even if she does not derive pleasure from *personal* caring for others) does not, in a way, strike me as very selfish at all. <BR/><BR/>Quite the opposite, in fact: I think there is in general a much greater emotional reward for helping people whose lives are closely tied to yours and in which you can see the results of your good works. Often charity--particularly charity of an impersonal kind--is indeed very much like tossing money, or work, or energy, into an ocean: you never get to see what good you did. I find the moral hedonist in some ways far LESS selfish, and far more morally upright, than the helper who craves interpersonal connection.<BR/><BR/>Also: thanks for the heads-up about chilblains fatalities. I'll be on the lookout for that from now on.The Scarlet Pervygirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09543732518350148151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-70893968850021960702007-09-05T08:08:00.000-07:002007-09-05T08:08:00.000-07:00ClareB - it's good to see another B on the web - p...ClareB - it's good to see another B on the web - perhaps we're related. <BR/>The beauty of blogging is that you can write enormous irrelevant comments without seriously damaging a discussion (unlike in real-life discussion). Not to say that your comment is long or irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>Some bright people think that all good people are necessarily the "good hedonists" I have described. Other bright people think otherwise. I wanted to avoid that dispute in the post, not because it is uninteresting but because I don't want the hassle of thinking about it. <BR/><BR/>To clutch at straws for a moment, perhaps the idea in this post could contribute to the egoism/altruism debate by suggesting that the debate is not as important as we are inclined to think ie. it's really not that bad if all good people are actually moral hedonists.Mike Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349289865571299017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-13009419232504485552007-09-05T00:44:00.000-07:002007-09-05T00:44:00.000-07:00I have, as time goes on, become more certain that ...I have, as time goes on, become more certain that it is rarely possible, at least with me, to do a good/helpful deed without it having some selfish motive at its core. Whether it be a future benefit or simply a boost of pride. Can the good feeling produced from doing good be considered in itself a selfish motive? Perhaps, but then that would render all good deeds as somehow corrupt and the world would seem a very miserable place. And I can say with confidence that the world is not nearly so bad as that.<BR/>I think true charity emerges out of the very human desire to see other people thrive. At least when all other selfish obstacles are either ignored or overcome. More often it is the latter, but occasionally it is the former. Perhaps in that case it is somthing 'intrinsically human'? But that question needs more thought than I can manage right now, since my dinner is nearly served. I am more concerned for my empty stomach than considering these deep matters.<BR/>See, there is the selfish motivation for the good deed of cutting this comment off before it gets borishly and unhelpfully long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-73906662572491058512007-09-04T11:04:00.000-07:002007-09-04T11:04:00.000-07:00I'm less worried than you about the good hedonist'...I'm less worried than you about the good hedonist's lack of concern for ultimate consequences. Presumably the hedonist's sense of "giving charitably" comes from his knowledge that the benefactor will actually benefit from the act. Otherwise the good hedonist would take pleasure in throwing money into the sea - which seems odd. Consequences matter for the moral hedonist. So, for a sufficiently forward-thinking moral hedonist, why shouldn't long-term consequences matter?<BR/><BR/>True, "hedonist" usually suggests "lack of interest in long-term pleasures." But surely the forward-thinking hedonist benefits <I>immediately</I> from his knowledge of all the good things that come from his act. He is not forced to <I>delay</I> his pleasures. <BR/><BR/>On beggary. Good point. Having spoken to a few beggars, though, beggary seems to be a last resort, at least in some cases. Being denied jobs repeatedly, getting insufficient help from community and government groups, too poor to travel somewhere else - vicious circumstances seem to leave some people with no choice but to beg. Certainly there are a lot of lazy, good-for-nothing beggars out there (and perhaps it is naive of me to take the word of my beggar-friends). But it seems fair to occasionally give them the benefit of the doubt.Mike Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349289865571299017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-11587040009208018602007-09-01T17:26:00.000-07:002007-09-01T17:26:00.000-07:00That raises one worry, though: the psychologically...That raises one worry, though: the psychologically realistic "good hedonist" probably just gets pleasure from performing acts that are <I>prima facie</I> good, e.g. giving charitably, without too much concern for the <I>ultimate</I> consequences.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948952231230143709.post-2592361146895131272007-09-01T17:22:00.000-07:002007-09-01T17:22:00.000-07:00Well, I wouldn't condone rewarding people for spen...Well, I wouldn't condone rewarding people for spending their time begging. (Bad incentives.) But if you derive a selfish pleasure from creating new jobs, or giving <I>developmental</I> aid, then that's wonderful. (But then, I always did have consequentialist intuitions - more so than "society", no doubt.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.com