Is motivational contradiction really irrational?

Philosophy of Mind
1

Motivational contradiction is not irrationality but the result of competing motivational systems.

I present this claim as something I have sat down with and observed for quite some time now. Many theories reduce human behaviour to a single dominant drive like survival, pleasure, conditioning, rationality or meaning. This doesn’t explain why humans might crave multiple contradictory things at the same time but still end up making choices following perceived importance, subjective value and priority allocation biased by personality and situational context.

My current hypothesis is humans function with three foundational systems;

Survival system

Duty system

Meaning system.

These systems each have their own functions.

I don’t mean these are the only influences on behavior but they seem to capture many of the tensions people experience.

For example a soldier might want to survive, feel obligated to comrades or even find meaning in sacrifice as honor all at the same time. In my opinion this contradiction might not be irrationality but rather different systems pulling in different directions at the same time.

With survival pulling towards biological continuity and psychological preservation, while duty pulls one towards obligations that are either self-imposed or socially generated, at the same time meaning tries to burrow its way through by interpreting sacrifice as honour. In this scenario an individual shows three fundamental forces that exist and compete within every reflective human.

I’ll stop here for now and won’t go too in-depth. I’m curious what others may think of this hypothesis.

2 Likes
2

It is truly an interesting opinion. To establish criteria for evaluating whether one’s contradiction is irrational or not, we should judge whether the decision was made by primitive feelings without considering the consequences, or by rational thought that determines that prioritizing another value would bring greater benefit than prioritizing the original value.

3

I agree that not every contradiction is irrational,but my current hypothesis is that contradiction actually is a product of the systems I mentioned above competing rather than pure irrationality. Reflection is what evaluates this competing systems and determines which one receives priority in a given situation. So for me I see irrationality as one possible outcome of the contradiction-solving process rather than the source of or what produces contradiction

1 Like
4

I suppose there is a significant gap in how we understand the concept of contradiction. In my understanding, even a primitive decision that is not the result of rational thought is still included as a form of contradiction.

5

I think we are using ‘contradiction’ differently here because in my hypothesis by using the word ‘contradiction’ am referring to the simultaneous competing systems or tendencies within an individual regardless of the end decision being rational or impulsive. My point is the contradiction is always there regardless of what the eventual decision is.
So from my perspective, irrationality doesn’t create contradiction but rather it’s one possible way in which the underlying systems conflict can be resolved. I don’t know if am making my self clear enough but what I think is we are describing different stages/levels of the same process rather than disagreeing about whether primitive decision can involve contradiction

6

I hope this will help clarify what I mean,
Imagine someone genuinely wants to tell the truth but also wants to avoid hurting a friends feelings,so before even the decision is made,both motivations already exist and are competing with one another.
In my argument above that’s what I call motivational “contradiction”,so the decision that follows whether thoughtful,impulsive or irrational is the resolution of the conflict rather that the contradiction itself.
So am not arguing that the entire system is irrational but rather that the competing systems create contradiction and the eventual decision be it irrational or rational is the system’s resolution of the competition

7

I agree with your opinion. There’s nothing irrational about the existence of multiple goals, only some (one?) of which may be realized with a given choice.

Perhaps you need a different example of a contradiction that is actually irrational.
For instance, I believe in a present, and I also believe that the notion of a present is false, just an illusion. Thing is, it is the pragmatic part of me that holds the former belief, and the rational part of me that holds the latter. So despite my belief in both X and ~X, I’m not sure if this counts as a contradiction since it’s not the same part holding both beliefs.

1 Like
8

Well that’s an important distinction but in my hypothesis the use of the word contradiction is confined to the motivational domain rather than the epistemic domain. Your example talks about the coexistence of incompatible beliefs and therefore leads to raising questions about belief formation, justification and epistemic consistency but by contrast mine concerns the simultaneous presence of competing motives that exert opposing normative pressure on action.
What am trying to explore is the motivational architecture and how behavior is generated rather than cognition or epistemology, so am trying to understand how competing motivations are evaluated and turned into action not how belief themselves are acquired,maintained or reconciled. So I think we’re discussing two types of conflict while yours is primarily epistemic mine is motivational.

9

OK, but where does irrationality come into play with this analysis of motivation? It’s in your title, so I tried to come up with an example where rationality (or lack of it) comes into play.

10

Reminds me of how uncomplex life is. Ask 6 questions.

  1. Do you get money out of this?
  2. Do you get (a) mates(s) out of this?
  3. Do you get food out of this?
  4. Do you get clothes out of this?
  5. Do you get shelter out of this?
  6. Is it fun?

This is my little hypothesis? My hunch is that both your hypothesis and mine will do the job of decoding human functioning. Mine is more visceral though while yours is so hifalutin. :cry:

As like yours my hypothesis also provides a rough account of human contradictions. By the way what do you mean by human contradiction? :thinking:

11

Well,many philosophical traditions treat contradiction as a mark of irrationality, particularly when they’re discussing incoherent preferences or inconsistent reasoning but I don’t regard them as an irrationality in fact to me it appears to be a normal feature of a reflective human with multiple competing motivations that compete for prioritization each,so from my perspective the contradiction is a norm and not irrationality. That’s why it’s in my title. For me the irrationality if any would arise during the evaluation of the competing motivations and translating them into action. So my claim is contradiction and irrationality belong to different stages of one process through which behavior is generated. In other words to me contradiction is the simultaneous presence of the competing motivations while the irrationality is one possible way of solving the motivational conflict.

12

But the example in the OP was a soldier finding conflict in a choice between survival and duty. The choice to say hold one’s ground is one of duty, and yet that choice answers ‘no’ to all 6 of your questions.

There’s nothing irrational about the inability to have your cake and eat it too. It just means there’s a choice, and you can’t choose both. The philosophical traditions that treat contradiction as a mark of irrationality typically means asserting a self-contradictory position of some kind.
Anyway, you say you don’t regard these as irrational, but then I guess I have to ask, who does?

Maybe this is the example: One makes a choice that irrationally seems to choose both of mutually exclusive options. An example of this would help.

I mean, sure, the soldier that holds his ground is also not going to choose to expose himself needlessly. Survival (for the next 5 minutes even) is part of the goal of holding one’s ground. But running/surrendering, while maybe increasing chances of survival, necessarily discard the goal of duty.

13

Well, your hypothesis captures most of the outcomes humans often desire, and I can see why it has explanatory value. Let me give an example. Let’s say a house is on fire and when the firefighters arrive, it comes to their attention that there’s someone in the burning house. With no time to weigh their options, a firefighter takes the risk and runs into the fire to rescue the person(s). As I see it, this action at first glance doesn’t obviously maximize money, food, shelter, mates, or fun, so I’m curious how your hypothesis will explain that behavior.

In my hypothesis, a lot is in play here. I haven’t introduced my theory very well yet, so some terms might sound familiar and not mean exactly that, or be completely new, but you can ask for clarifications. In my hypothesis, behavior is generated from three core systems that compete for dominance, each but none is permanently dominant. These systems are survival, duty, and meaning. Of course, these systems don’t work alone; instead, their relative influence shifts based on factors such as emotion, conditioning, and social reinforcement, which modify how each system is ‘weighted’ in a given situation. So in this case, while survival may be pushing towards self-preservation, duty and meaning may be pushing for them to rescue another person. For me, this exposes how the competing motivations are prioritized rather than a single dominant incentive. How would your hypothesis solve this, though?

14

By human contradiction I mean the simultaneous presence of competing motivations that compete each to be prioritized.

15

The OP states that he’s talking about humans. How do you know the answers are no to all questions? :thinking:

@Reflectivenomad my hypothesis also is not perfect. The firefighter is at work, like everybody else. He gets paid, hopefully fairly; I heard there’s something called hazard pay.

As for human contradiction I believe you mean conflict of interest or perhaps cognitive dissonance. I guess they all mean the same thing - a contradiction.

16

My bad then; I might have worded that a bit too broadly. What I intend to argue is not that all contradictions in general shouldn’t be treated as irrationality, but rather that “motivational contradiction” shouldn’t (I’ll have to adopt that term for better clarity). By motivational contradiction I mean the simultaneous presence of competing motivations in a reflective human. In my hypothesis, I regard this as a normal feature of a reflective human with multiple competing motivations pulling in different directions and competing to be prioritized.

17

I realize I might have worded that too broadly, so I refined it to motivational contradiction to avoid further confusion. Its meaning is basically the presence of competing motivations in a reflective human that each exert pressure towards a different course of action, rather than the contradiction between propositions or beliefs.

18

Okay, now that the word “contradiction” has been cleared thanks to @Scorpion and @noAxioms , I’d like to say something regarding this conflict of motivation.

At any given time, we are making both a moral judgment and a passion judgment (to borrow Hume’s word). This is actually what might have weakened Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

When you said:

Yes, (1) Survival is a desire (passion), but (2) duty could be willed universally - so based on reason, and then (3) meaning is a desire. As Hume points out: Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.

I don’t agree with Hume 100% because oftentimes reason (Reason as Kant had explained) makes us spring into action against our desire (to be comfortable) and do what we think universally what rational people would do in this or that situation.

So, the competing judgments within us is not irrationality, rather it’s our moral judgment that constantly connects with our desire.

1 Like
19

@Reflectivenomad

Good hypothesis! :+1:t3: Do you have an objection to me saying that your 3 systems boil down to duty: Survival is one’s duty to oneself and meaning is one’s duty to some x, where \diamond x = \text{ self}?. So we’re down to farz/duty from the trinity of zindagi (life), farz (duty), maksad (purpose).

Aligns with Hinduism’s karma yoga (if I understood correctly).

Does your hypothesis fail in any way?

P.S. I’m glad that your hypothesis isn’t for fishes. :smiley:

20

My hypothesis doesn’t deny that reason and passion exist but rather I ask a different question. Instead of asking whether reason or passion should primarily govern action—the debate between Kant and Hume—I ask which motivational systems are competing, how they are prioritized, and how the prioritization produces behavior. In my hypothesis, reasoning and emotion influence the evaluation of how motivational conflict is solved, but they are not the primary motivational systems.

In other words, I think like this:

I’ll use the same soldier example again for better understanding. As I mentioned in the OP, there are three primary systems/motivations competing at the same time in this soldier. First comes survival pressure, competing to be prioritized by escape or seeking safety. But duty at the same time competes, as the soldier is reminded of his duties as a soldier, which are either to protect his nation, civilians, and his comrades, and not to abandon his post. Meaning also reinforces action; I view meaning as symbolic significance granted to experiences by humans. For example, in this case, the soldier might view his suffering as for the devotion to his country or honor (interpretations are not just these). But still, these competing motivations have modifiers that change how strongly they compete, and this is where emotion, social conditioning, personality, and reflective evaluation come into the picture.

Emotion can suppress or amplify motivations. For example, fear can strengthen survival, and panic can disrupt reflective evaluation. Social conditioning is another modifier that influences the prioritization of motivations through shaping behavioral norms, perceived obligations, influencing identity formation, and reinforcing values. Personality, which in my hypothesis is a relatively stable pattern of individual disposition, shapes recurring behavioral tendencies and influences emotional responsiveness. Finally, reflective evaluation occurs, which in my hypothesis is the cognitive process through which competing motivational systems are consciously assessed, prioritized, and translated into behavior/action; so it is the mechanism through which motivational conflict is resolved.

So, according to me, human behavior is produced through the interactions of these systems, and every individual eventually resolves the conflict of competing motivations through the same mechanism. But the difference in every human’s modifiers brings the diversity of human actions/behaviors that I observed.

Please do ask for clarification on terms that appear unfamiliar.