Rational agent. Self Interest.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Tell me this - would Hobbes consider buying a fancy car (as opposed to a cost-efficient one) or paying a hooker to be self-interested?

Well, since both are acts of lust, a sin, probably not- specially since you will go to hell for it, as Hobbes would say.

Lets say I have a dollar: if I give it to a beggar, then PA would say I amd doping it to feel good about giving to a beggar- a minor warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course, I could have used the dollar to buy a food item I crave, which from experience, since I have done both, would give me longer lasting pleasure than givng to the beggar.

So, was my acdt of "self-interest" also inherently irrational if I gave to the beggar, forsaking an even greater joy?

The fundamental problem with PA and Sky and Imran here is thjat they base tyheir argumene ton the fact that human beings create meaning for everything, even their own actions- every human being must create a reason for their actions, whether its before, during, or after the fact- they create a rationalization for their action-that is simply human. Then then make the leap to saying this assumed reason is always clear and correct and discernable, and they try to reduce what are invariably the mutitude of reasons for most acts into a set of few generalities.

I agree with Kid in that for a term like self-interest to have meaning, it must be tighly defined. PA and Sky and Imran not only argue against altruism but in essecence self-interest by making it a meaningless thing with their overtly broad meaning. After all, they would say a murder of passion was a self-interested act- heck, it achieved a goal and it satiates a need for vengence, so yes, a murder of passion is a self-interested act....And in doing so they would show the bankruptness of their definition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets say I have a dollar: if I give it to a beggar, then PA would say I amd doping it to feel good about giving to a beggar- a minor warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course, I could have used the dollar to buy a food item I crave, which from experience, since I have done both, would give me longer lasting pleasure than givng to the beggar.

Then why don't you buy the food item? (Because you would feel guilty if you did, reducing the pleasure from the food enough that you'd be happier giving the money to the beggar.)

I agree with Kid in that for a term like self-interest to have meaning, it must be tighly defined. PA and Sky and Imran not only argue against altruism but in essecence self-interest by making it a meaningless thing with their overtly broad meaning. After all, they would say a murder of passion was a self-interested act- heck, it achieved a goal and it satiates a need for vengence, so yes, a murder of passion is a self-interested act....And in doing so they would show the bankruptness of their definition.

Uh, no, because any other meaning is essentially arbitrary.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Then why don't you buy the food item? (Because you would feel guilty if you did, reducing the pleasure from the food enough that you'd be happier giving the money to the beggar.)

NO. Seeing beggard daily, I can tell you you are wrong.But to go on a more genral answer-I could pl;ay the game backwards- I could feel sad for having given away the buck and not bought that great icecream, thus lessining the happiness of giving to the beggar. See, the game goes both ways.

Uh, no, because any other meaning is essentially arbitrary.

Your meaning is as arbitrary actually, which means the definition should be based on use. This is true for all words.

[Kuciwalker]

NO. Seeing beggard daily, I can tell you you are wrong.But to go on a more genral answer-I could pl;ay the game backwards- I could feel sad for having given away the buck and not bought that great icecream, thus lessining the happiness of giving to the beggar. See, the game goes both ways.

Why did you do it, then?

Your meaning is as arbitrary actually,

Actually, my meaning is clear-cut. Yours requires some stupid distinction between "material" self-interest and happiness.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why did you do it, then?

Do I actually need a rational reason for the action? Please tell me why first, then we can go on.

Actually, my meaning is clear-cut. Yours requires some stupid distinction between "material" self-interest and happiness.

Since you can;t even define happiness, which supposedly is one of the pillars of your argument, yours is as arbitrary as mine.

[Kuciwalker]

Do I actually need a rational reason for the action? Please tell me why first, then we can go on.

Some thought process led to you doing it.

Since you can;t even define happiness, which supposedly is one of the pillars of your argument, yours is as arbitrary as mine.

Why do you think I can't define happiness?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
An altruistic act would be someone performing a completely selfless act.

But...

i) I doubt any act is completely selfless
ii) and if there was, no-one would do it

THis is just rationality.

Cool, so people never act anything else but purely rational.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Some thought process led to you doing it.

But most that thought have been a choice towards an action for the purpose of achieving some goal? Are all your thoughts only that? Man, what a broing mind.

Why do you think I can't define happiness?

Because you haven't yet. Try.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets say I have a dollar: if I give it to a beggar, then PA would say I amd doping it to feel good about giving to a beggar- a minor warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course, I could have used the dollar to buy a food item I crave, which from experience, since I have done both, would give me longer lasting pleasure than givng to the beggar.

You get diminishing returns from consuming goods. You could say that charity is given when the warm fuzzy feeling of giving either equals or is greater than the next best alternative. This is all theoretical of course. I think the last time I gave a bum some money I thought back on it and figured that I gave him some money because he didn't really look like a bum, and I felt bad for not giving other bums money. Assuming people behave rationally is best as a policy tool, and not always as good for theory.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


Cool, so people never act anything else but purely rational.

Yeah, they don't. Usually I could really care less if what I do is rational. The poorer you are the more concerned about saving extra change and stuff, but most people would rather not bother about it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
They've got either accept that

i) Altruism doesn't exist

or ii) Altruism makes the giver feel some satisfaction too (so it is thus in his self-interest)

The problem with the followers of the "feelgood factor" school of thought is they assume that people carry out altruistic acts after some sort of careful, deliberate cost-benefit analysis.

This of course is pure fantasy.

[Agathon]

No one has as yet provided an explanation for why I can have preferences about things that will occur long after my death, preferences which when satisfied or frustrated cannot make me happy or unhappy because I'll be dead.

[Solly]

I think the last time I gave a bum some money I thought back on it and figured that I gave him some money because he didn't really look like a bum, and I felt bad for not giving other bums money.

Your utility function can change over time, meaning that things you did rationally in the past no longer appear so (perhaps as a result of the past action taking place under uncertainty that is no longer there).

You thought the beggar was genuine, therefore at the time, giving money to him was a rational act. Later on, however, you thought you might have been fooled. It doesn't make your original act any less rational - it was just rational under uncertain conditions.

No one has as yet provided an explanation for why I can have preferences about things that will occur long after my death, preferences which when satisfied or frustrated cannot make me happy or unhappy because I'll be dead.

Current satisfaction that you've laid things out as you want them to be for when you die.

Think about it. How would your current satisfaction level be different if you knew that your family would struggle in poverty for the rest of their lives? Or if you knew they were going to be comfortable and healthy?

Expectations of the future can give us current satisfaction and utility too.

[Agathon]

Current satisfaction that you've laid things out as you want them to be for when you die.

Think about it. How would your current satisfaction level be different if you knew that your family would struggle in poverty for the rest of their lives? Or if you knew they were going to be comfortable and healthy?

Expectations of the future can give us current satisfaction and utility too.

That's a pretty good answer. BTW I agree with your earlier point about there being no essential conflict between our interests and those of others.

However, I'm not satisfied with this one. Why do I have to know that it will be achieved or that it is likely in order for my preference to be satisfied?

Consider the following Men in Black case. Some men in black suits arrive at my door and offer me the following choice.

(1) We will make sure that things turn out as you want after your death, but the catch is that we will erase your memory so that you don't remember this conversation and it will seem that things will not turn out as you wish after your death.

or:

(2) We will make sure that things do not turn out as you wish after your death, but we will make it appear as though they will. Again, you will not remember this conversation.

Which would you choose?

(you can make this case less "sci fi" if you imagine the case as one dealing with lies or false appearances. Would you rather that things appeared as if they weren't going your way at your death when things would in fact turn out as you wanted, or would you rather have it appear that things were going your way, when in fact they won't?

[Az]

And I did. I first asked you to provide an example of a completely selfless act.

I doubt there is an act that would provide no happiness what soever. But that's not the definition of altruism.
It's giving up some of your own happiness to make other people happy. By recieving less happiness that you could've you're, in fact, giving up on it, in order to make other people happier.