Rational agent. Self Interest.

[Solly]

"People can have and act in accordance with preferences for which there is no prospect of them ever yielding any personal utility.

--"If this can help even a little those who have met with unhappiness and disaster, I would be very happy," the writer said in the letter dated on Thursday.--

[Az]

Imran: I never claimed that it didn't make him/her happy. However, I think that on the long run he would've been happier if he had the money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Azazel

Utility is not simply happiness. Didn't you just get a degree in economics?

It is in the ethical sense. I don't know what you econ jocks mean, in your lingo.

Utility is a term that really only fits in a economics context. It comes from the word utilize. Sometimes people do use the work inappropriately though, when they should use the word happiness.

[Agathon]

--"If this can help even a little those who have met with unhappiness and disaster, I would be very happy," the writer said in the letter dated on Thursday.--

How can he be, if he never knows about it?

What if he hopes that our descendants will enjoy peace and prosperity? How can that possibly make him happy, he'll be dead.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How can he be, if he never knows about it?

So you are not happy when you give to charity, knowing that someone is benefiting, even if you don't know who or how?

[Kidlicious]

You righties have to hear it from Adam Smith when you are as confused as you are now.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Benevolence and self-interest are mutually exclusive, although you can benefit someone by acting in your own self-interest. In order to increase your utility you have to utilize an economic good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Benevolence and self-interest are mutually exclusive

No, they aren't. When you give, you feel good about yourself.

[Agathon]

So you are not happy when you give to charity, knowing that someone is benefiting, even if you don't know who or how?

That's a different case.

What about preferences about the fortune of our descendants? Most people have those, how do they relate to my personal happiness? I can never see them satisfied because I'll be dead. My own happiness simply cannot be a motivation for such preferences.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Benevolence and self-interest are mutually exclusive

No, they aren't. When you give, you feel good about yourself.

Look at the quote Imran. Smith was the first to popularize the term. He intended it to be exclusive from benevolence, and in fact, still to this day, when properly used, it is.

[General Ludd]

I explained this in the last thread, but everyone stoped replying.

The action is the cause, and happiness is the effect. You do no help someone because you are happy, you become happy that you have helped someone.

Altruism is about actions. You judge the cause, not the effect. If the action is selfless, than the effect (happiness) inherits that value, and is a selfless happiness.

To say that giving a beggar food is a selfish act because you don't like to see people starving is absurd.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He intended it to be exclusive from benevolence

Economic interest, perhaps. But he said nothing about personal self-interest in terms of happiness. It was later economists who emphasised happiness and utility.

you become happy that you have helped someone.

That's right.

Altruism is about actions. You judge the cause, not the effect.

Because you say so? Atruism is also about the effect.

To say that giving a beggar food is a selfish act because you don't like to see people starving is absurd.

Yes, because it is self-interested, not selfish . You replace that wording and the statement is absolutely true. It makes you feel better to give, which is why you do it.

[Last Conformist]

Anyone still not convinced that I'm right?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He intended it to be exclusive from benevolence

Economic interest, perhaps. But he said nothing about personal self-interest in terms of happiness. It was later economists who emphasised happiness and utility.

Happiness and utility are not mutually exclusive. You have to realize that economics was not seperated from philosophy until sometime after JS Mill. Smith was a philosopher. He wrote "Theory of Moral Sentiments," in which he described this kind of happiness (or rather satisfaction from defense from guilt) as different from self-interest, but still in line with rational behavior. It wasn't until the 19th century that econmists started calling benevolent behavour irrational for their own objectives.

I don't believe that Mill (Utilitarian) ever used the term utiliy in exchange with happiness, however, even if he did this definition is exclusive to this type of philosophy and not a generally accepted use of the word.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Altruism is about actions. You judge the cause, not the effect.

Because you say so? Atruism is also about the effect.

Altruism is about doing something not out of self-interst but to benefit someone else, implying an action. But even if you do not want to seperate the action from the resulting happiness, it is still the cause that gives it meaning. Again, if the act is selfess the happiness inherits that selflessness because it is a result of the (selfless) action and is derived for selfless reasons.


Look at it this way, the act of being happy at other people's benefit is altruistic.

Yes, because it is self-interested, not selfish . You replace that wording and the statement is absolutely true. It makes you feel better to give, which is why you do it.

Selfish and self-interest mean the same thing.

To say that giving a beggar food is in your self-interest because you don't like to see people starving is absurd

How is not wanting to see people starve in your self interst?

At which point, you say: "because it makes you happy!" and happily slip back into your feedback loop and refuse to acknwoledge the difference between cause and effect.


You feel good helping other people. You want to help other people. Altruism.

[GePap]

God, this claptrap again- good posts Ludd

Most people would not know "happiness" if it came and bit them in the ass.

Self-interest has nothing to do with "feeling happy" in the "aww, I did good, I feel warm and shinny inside" way- it has to do with your relation vs other individuals and within the system. The obvious cases of self-interested charity would include corporations giving away stuff in order to claim the tax breaks, or things like that.

Giving money to a beggar is not a self-interested act- aftyer all, you could in theory keep that money, invest it, and make sure your kids will be rich latter in life, securing your heritage and genes. That is self-interest, NOT a temporary and wanning emotional sensation like "feeling happy about giving charity".