I, Robot

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

People chose to do things that are not in their self-interest (perceived and real) all the time.

If you CHOOSE to see the movie, you are doing it because it is in your self-interest to. You want to for some reason. To argue otherwise is to be totally idiotic.

All you are doing is declaring that what ever one choses to do is self-interest. People chose to ignore their needs and do something they want to do all the time. This frequently is not in their self-interest. Very often, this ends up hurting people. People frequently chose to do things that bring them harm. This is the opposite of self-interest.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Happiness is an emotion, it has no utility beyond rewarding you for actions.

Happiness is utility.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

People chose to do things that are not in their self-interest (perceived and real) all the time.

If you CHOOSE to see the movie, you are doing it because it is in your self-interest to. You want to for some reason. To argue otherwise is to be totally idiotic.

All you are doing is declaring that what ever one choses to do is self-interest. People chose to ignore their needs and do something they want to do all the time. This frequently is not in their self-interest. Very often, this ends up hurting people. People frequently chose to do things that bring them harm. This is the opposite of self-interest.

They think it's in their self-interest, so the action is in their perceived self-interest.

[Kuciwalker]

utility

\U*til"i*ty\, n. [OE. utilite, F. utilit['e], L. utilitas, fr. utilis useful. See Utile.] 1. The quality or state of being useful; usefulness; production of good; profitableness to some valuable end; as, the utility of manure upon land; the utility of the sciences; the utility of medicines.

The utility of the enterprises was, however, so great and obvious that all opposition proved useless. --Macaulay.

2. (Polit. Econ.) Adaptation to satisfy the desires or wants; intrinsic value. See Note under Value, 2.

Value in use is utility, and nothing else, and in political economy should be called by that name and no other. --F. A. Walker.

3. Happiness; the greatest good, or happiness, of the greatest number, -- the foundation of utilitarianism. --J. S. Mill.

[chequita guevara]

#2 doesn't mean happiness.

#3 is Mill's definition.

If you're going for a Millsian definition, you should state that from the begining. I'd stop arguing with you because I haven't read Mills yet.

[Kuciwalker]

#2 doesn't mean happiness.

Desires or wants doesn't mean happiness? Maybe it doesn't mean happiness in the sense of contentedness, but it means happiness in the sense of perceived self-interest.

#3 is Mill's definition.

If you're going for a Millsian definition, you should state that from the begining. I'd stop arguing with you because I haven't read Mills yet.

We're debating philosophy, and I use the term utility. What else would I mean?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Happiness is an emotion, it has no utility beyond rewarding you for actions.

Happiness is utility.

It is an emotion. An emotion, as I said, which has utility in rewarding you for your actions. It is not utility incarnate, however, because as you said previously (duh included) only something that is useful can have utility. For happiness to be utility incarnate, it would also have to have endless usefulless. But it's usefullness is rather limited... almost to the point of nonexistance, actually.

With the way you're going on you might aswell start worshiping the damn word.



But even if we where to go by what you are saying agree that 'only things which make you happy are usefull', that doesn't change the fact that doing things which aren't in your own self interest can make you happy.

Does that mean that anything that results in happiness is in your own self interest? Well, if you're stuck in a feedback loop, sure. But if you can seperate cause from effect, no.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Without reading this entire thread. How in bloody hell did a bad movie about a great book evolve into yet another philosophical discussion?

[Kuciwalker]

It is an emotion. An emotion, as I said, which has utility in rewarding you for your actions. It is not utility incarnate, however, because as you said previously (duh included) only something that is useful can have utility.

Utility = happiness. Happiness = utility. Something is "useful" if it makes you happy.

I have to go to bed now, so I won't be on for about an hour.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Happiness is an emotion, it has no utility beyond rewarding you for actions.

Happiness is utility.

Making choices that give short-term happiness, but in the long run are detrimental and will cause widespread unhappiness, are not utile. Utility is not short-sighted, it's a far-sighted approach.

So a decision that makes one happy now but will ultimately lead to greater hardship is not in one's self-interest.

And the Millsian definition only applies to the happiness of everyone, not an individual. Something is utile if it generates the most happiness for the most people. Some individual doing something because it makes him fill happy isn't necessarily utile, as he could be doing something that hurts a lot of others.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They think it's in their self-interest, so the action is in their perceived self-interest.

They may not believe its in their self-interest. People frequently do stuff they know is going to cause them trouble. They do it because it's fun or because they have difficulty with impulse control or any other number of reasons.

Furthermore, perceived self-interest isn't the same thing as self-interest. Perceived self-interest can result in something that is self-damaging. It is only very-rarely that something that is self-damaging is in your self-interest.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

It is an emotion. An emotion, as I said, which has utility in rewarding you for your actions. It is not utility incarnate, however, because as you said previously (duh included) only something that is useful can have utility.

Utility = happiness. Happiness = utility. Something is "useful" if it makes you happy.

That's pretty dodgy math.

When utility equals usefullness, for happiness to equal supreme utility it would also have to equal supreme usefullness. What is the usefullness of happiness? Very little, it is simply an emotion - a reward for your actions.


Of course, none of this changes the fact that happiness can be derived through things which are not in your own self interest. Is doing selfless acts for happiness which is derived through selflessness somehow selfish?

I have to go to bed now, so I won't be on for about an hour.

You only sleep for an hour? That might explain these delusions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They may not believe its in their self-interest. People frequently do stuff they know is going to cause them trouble. They do it because it's fun or because they have difficulty with impulse control or any other number of reasons.

Exactly. They derive more happiness from immediate pleasure than the knowledge of future pleasure.

Furthermore, perceived self-interest isn't the same thing as self-interest. Perceived self-interest can result in something that is self-damaging. It is only very-rarely that something that is self-damaging is in your self-interest.

Yes, but my point is NOT that everyone actually does what would maximize their happiness, but rather what they THINK will maximize their happiness (this should be obvious). And since I forget the original debate (probably something to do with altruism or whatever), this is all that's really important

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, but my point is NOT that everyone actually does what would maximize their happiness, but rather what they THINK will maximize their happiness (this should be obvious).

And my point is you're wrong, that people do things in full knowledge that they are diminishing their maximal happiness for immediate gratification.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
That's pretty dodgy math.

When utility equals usefullness, for happiness to equal supreme utility it would also have to equal supreme usefullness. What is the usefullness of happiness? Very little, it is simply an emotion - a reward for your actions.

Utility and usefulness, unless you specifically say towards some specific end (like, say, killing people; a weapon has a high "usefulness" there), is happiness. I challenge you to find any other meaningful (ie non-arbitrary) definition of the term.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that happiness can be derived through things which are not in your own self interest.

No it can't! It's in your self-interest to be happier! Nothing more!

Is doing selfless acts for happiness which is derived through selflessness somehow selfish?

You're the only one talking about selfishness. Self-interest != selfishness. Selfishness is benefitting your self-interest at the expense or in spite of someone else's self-interest. Since self-interests can coincide, and some people derive happiness from the happiness of others, selfishness clearly does not make up the whole of self-interested behavior.

You only sleep for an hour?

No, but I have to wait for my parents to fall asleep to get back on the computer