Tell me more about how you can know someone’s internal motivations and how can=does. (Not being snarky - I want to know how this works. Saying that my argument doesn’t hack it doesn’t tell me why. Tell me why and I’ll try to be more clear or come up with a different argument, or even agree with you if you’ve convinved me.)
WhyNot
I have to go on an errand and will answer you when I return.
Rest assured my tone will be courteous and respectful. I apologize for what might have seemed just the opposite in that reference to you in my previous post. Didn’t mean it that way, and if I hurt your feelings (even a little bit) I ask your forgiveness.
See you in a bit.
WhyNot,
I will answer as if I were a Hedonist.
I am not a god, so I make bad decisions just like you. I have cut classes, smoked, drunk, had relationships with bad ass women, etc. But each time I made one of those choices, I opted for the one that was less painful.
At the time, it was more painful to attend a class than to blow it off, less painful to smoke and drink rather than to abstain. I chose to have relationships with some not-so-hotsy-totsy women because it would have hurt more to be alone.
People don’t do good for the sake of doing good. They do it because alternative actions would hurt too much.
Corporations are run by people. Corporate decisions are made the same way you make yours. If we contribute to The United Way, we’ll lose a lot of money (Great Pain) but the public will think better of us (Lesser Pain).
As a Hedonist I can understand why a doctor would give up a thriving practice to work with a bunch of lepers on some deserted island. At this point in life, he feels it would be excruciating to live in the lap of luxury when those lepers so desperately need him.
Some folks choose “goodness” because “evilness” is too painful. Others fake goodness because the appearance of evil is a greater pain.
All in all, however, I think Mangetout got it right. Hedonism, as stated, is unfalsifiable, and maybe I’m better off not thinking about it.
You want me to reformulate someone else’s argument in order to refute it? Not gonna do it.
Antiochus, thanks for your answer. Lemme ponder it a bit and give it the thought it deserves before I formulate a proper reply. (Which will, I hope, be a slightly more articulate version of: “heh. Maybe.”)
Actually, what I meant was those evil bastards who run a corporation, form a legally separate not-for-profit, and then “donate” large sums of money from the for-profit to the NFP (themselves) so as not to have to claim it at tax time. It’s apparently legal, I’ve worked for several places now that have been encouraged by lawyers to do this very thing as part of a “strong” business plan. I think it’s despicable, myself, and perhaps the height of *not * being altruistic in a “generous” donation situation.
As for the Hedonist’s agument, it does seem largely unprovable, as I was trying to say earlier. Just because a motivation can be attributed to someone, it’s not a logical progression that that hypothetical motivation was what actually motivated someone. Stupid example: I went to Panera Bread today. Possible motivation: I was hungry. Actual case: No, I didn’t even order food, I wanted to get information on bringing a field trip there for lunch next week.
Additionally, the Hedonist’s Theory seems to be potentially acurate for young people, but I don’t see it holding out for older people. Part of aging is learning moral principles. Kohlberg’s Theory on the Stages of Moral Development indicate that in post-convential stages, people do make moral decisions out of a sense of “what is right for right’s sake”, although he does admit that not many people actually make it that far.
Carol Gilligan found the picture even more complex in women, finding that women are more likely than men to make decisions based on social interactions. In the second stage of moral development, women actually view putting their own needs first as “selfish and immoral” and will make decisions based first on what others need. In the third stage, they realize that this is stupid, but ironically, they come to that understanding because they realize that the “martyr” attitude itself harms relationships.
Parenthood seems to bring the Hedonist’s Theory into question. Wednesday night, I spent the entire night helping my son with his science project? Was it pleasant? No. Would I have experienced pain or discomfort if I had not helped him? No. It’s his project, not mine. I can let him fail without a bit of guilt. Were there other, more pleasurable options open to me? Heck yes! I could have been here on the Dope with you fine people. I could have been watching *Dogville * with my husband. I could have been getting a frontal lobotomy (did I mention I hated this science project?) So why did I help? Because it’s my job as a parent. Because it was the right thing to do.
Now - I see where your Hedonist will take this: But WhyNot, he’ll say, it gave you pleasure to act in accord with what you think a parent should do. It would have been uncomfortable for you to not help, and feel you were being a bad parent. But the fact is, this never occured to me. So if it was indeed my motivation, it was entirely unconscious.
Again, how can you know that that’s his motivation? He may deny it completely, at which point the Hedonist claims it to be unconscious*. And the problems I have with assuming someone’s unconscious motivation are: 1. You can never really know and 2. You can’t proove *or * refute that kind of argument.
We can’t “read” the unconscious. We can’t “see” what someone’s thinking. We can’t observe, measure, quantify or calculate such things.
Which takes it out of the realm of science.
So know we have a philosophy based on unmeasureable, unprovable constructs.
Which is an awful lot like a religion.
And I know better than to “disprove” a religion. You can’t “disprove” the “unprovable”.
The other problem is that no matter what choice a person makes, the Hedonist has his answer fulfilled. If I had chosen to watch the movie, Hedonist says, “ah., pleasure of the moment trumps future discomfort!” It’s like the man who, no matter what happens, attributes it to God’s ineffable Will. Ok, maybe, maybe not, but sorta useless to debate, no?
*Except does he? IIRC, Hedonism is an ancient Greek concept, and the “unconscious” wasn’t bandied about until Freud - so did they have a similar concept to explain why they knew better than the subject what the motivation was?
Some people do claim that every good deed which we perform is ultimately motivated by selfish desire, such as the bastardly, reprehensible desire to feel that we’ve made the world a better place.
I guess that when a soldier throws himself upon a live grenade, we should conclude that he is being a selfish bastard. Shame on him!
No. Self-interest is what we need to survive. This is not the same as being selfish.