Research on the Role of Personal Interest in Human Life

Social Philosophy
21

@guestioner

First of all, you performed a great act in your life, and one cannot help but admire that.

Now about your comment.

“So, for the most part, we are driven by the same instincts as our non-human animal ancestors, with the added bonus of self-reflection.”

I do not know whether “for the most part” is accurate, but they certainly do drive us.

For some reason, most commenters, when they see my formula, immediately see only egoism in “personal interests,” and mostly material egoism at that. To clarify the material aspect, the word “benefit” is deliberately included in the formula.

By personal interest I mean all the needs, desires, goals, dreams, and aspirations of a person which they consider personally significant for themselves and for the sake of which they act.

Such interests may be material or non-material: physical, emotional, cognitive, creative, aesthetic, spiritual, and so on.

Next:

In your comment, you gave examples of the behavior of particular people in different situations. But these situations, as you yourself said, are exceptional. In my research, I speak about the behavior of most people in most situations.

But although your examples are exceptional, they do not contradict the formula — the regularity that I am studying. Because when the formula speaks about the majority, it also allows for a minority. Including those people who, in the examples you gave, behave exactly as you described.

In examples 2 and 4, this is closer to egoism. In examples 1 and 3, these are altruists.

I believe that both the first and the second groups constitute a minority in the human community. The majority are those whom I call reasonable egoists. When their own interests intersect with the interests of others, they still give priority to their own interests, but they are willing to seek compromises and in fact do so.

I examine the approximate relationship between these categories of people in detail in my topic “On Human Egoism and the Pattern of Personal Interest” in the Ethics category. There I also present my understanding of aggressive and reasonable egoism.

Unfortunately, the rules of this forum do not allow me to repeat the same topic in our category. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be easier for us to understand each other in this discussion if you read the above-mentioned topic.

One more thing:

Your position seems to be that it is impossible to describe the motivation of human behavior with a simple answer. It seems to me, however, that my formula quite “simply” describes the motivation of the behavior of most people in most situations, when personal interest takes priority.

I think this is shown to a significant extent by the examples I have given in this topic from the everyday — and not only everyday — life of ordinary people.

The “human connection” that you speak of as “our main motivation” is also part of the emotional and spiritual interest of each of us. Few people want to live in an atmosphere of conflict. And this also does not contradict my formula.

Sorry for the late and rather long reply — circumstances, and my wish to answer the thoughts of participants as carefully and concretely as possible.

1 Like
22

Just wondering how you figure gratitude in your point-of-view?

23

So it looks like perhaps you missed my point.

I’ll try it again. If the reason you choose any life pursuit is ultimately because it gives you satisfaction (one’s perceived satisfaction, pleasure, or relief from dissatisfaction), then there appears to be no real difference between a philanthropist or a criminal. Whether it looks like hedonism or self-sacrifice, it all boils down to satisfaction, which is the core claim of psychological egoism: that all human action is ultimately driven by the pursuit of what the agent finds satisfying.

24

@guestioner.To avoid breaking the style of your overly short reply to my overly long post, this time I will also keep my answer short:

“I agree with Google’s definition of gratitude.”

25

@Flying

Right. So it becomes a truism based on viewing the organism as caught in the causal nexus. Mark Twain got very caught up in this “empty” insight, which does have a “spiritual surplus” in that there’s something seductive about determinism and fatalism. For Nietzsche it made the world innocent again.

Twain lets the Old Man speak for him to the sentimental Young Man who believes in goodness and creativity, the poor simp.

Y.M. Well, never mind Adam: but certainly Shakespeare’s creations—

O.M. No, you mean Shakespeare’s imitations. Shakespeare created nothing. He correctly observed, and he marvelously painted. He exactly portrayed people whom God had created; but he created none himself. Let us spare him the slander of charging him with trying. Shakespeare could not create. He was a machine, and machines do not create.

Y.M. Where was his excellence, then?

O.M. In this. He was not a sewing-machine, like you and me; he was a Gobelin loom. The threads and the colors came into him from the outside; outside influences, suggestions, experiences (reading, seeing plays, playing plays, borrowing ideas, and so on), framed the patterns in his mind and started up his complex and admirable machinery, and it automatically turned out that pictured and gorgeous fabric which still compels the astonishment of the world. If Shakespeare had been born and bred on a barren and unvisited rock in the ocean his mighty intellect would have had no outside material to work with, and could have invented none; and no outside influences, teachings, moldings, persuasions, inspirations, of a valuable sort, and could have invented none; and so Shakespeare would have produced nothing. In Turkey he would have produced something—something up to the highest limit of Turkish influences, associations, and training. In France he would have produced something better—something up to the highest limit of the French influences and training. In England he rose to the highest limit attainable through the outside helps afforded by that land’s ideals, influences, and training. You and I are but sewing-machines. We must turn out what we can; we must do our endeavor and care nothing at all when the unthinking reproach us for not turning out Gobelins.

Y.M. And so we are mere machines! And machines may not boast, nor feel proud of their performance, nor claim personal merit for it, nor applause and praise. It is an infamous doctrine.

O.M. It isn’t a doctrine, it is merely a fact.

Y.M. I suppose, then, there is no more merit in being brave than in being a coward?

O.M. Personal merit? No. A brave man does not create his bravery. He is entitled to no personal credit for possessing it. It is born to him. A baby born with a billion dollars—where is the personal merit in that? A baby born with nothing—where is the personal demerit in that? The one is fawned upon, admired, worshiped, by sycophants, the other is neglected and despised—where is the sense in it?

Y.M. Sometimes a timid man sets himself the task of conquering his cowardice and becoming brave—and succeeds. What do you say to that?

O.M. That it shows the value of training in right directions over training in wrong ones. Inestimably valuable is training, influence, education, in right directions—training one’s self-approbation to elevate its ideals.

Y.M. But as to merit—the personal merit of the victorious coward’s project and achievement?

O.M. There isn’t any. In the world’s view he is a worthier man than he was before, but he didn’t achieve the change—the merit of it is not his.

26

Sorry not really following the Twain comparison. Is that the argument being made? But I should also say I am not necessarily an advocate of the argument I presented, that kindness and serial killing are the almost identical if pleasure is the motivation. But I’d like to hear a careful argument against this. If Frank is motivated by virtue and it satisfies him and Tony is motivated by vice, which satisfies him, it would seem to me that its consequences ultimately which separate them. I hope this is wrong.

1 Like
27

Just to be clear, I think Twain is a bad philosopher in What is Man ?. Yet he’s a poet in that he captures the “shock” when humans view themselves and others as machines caught in nature.

I don’t think anyone “lives” in such a vision. So it’s a kind of theoretical feast. Determinism has a dark beauty. The future already happened. The universe is a frozen god. We are trapped in the illusion of time and choice. Very exciting story that no one believes in/through their worldly action.

We are “condemned to be free” in suffering the burden of decision. Calling it an “illusion” doesn’t free me of this burden in the least, but maybe it’s a form of wiggling around beneath this burden.

I’m also saying that psychological hedonism is a sort of triviality that flows out of seeing human beings as “machines” in a causal network.

It’s bit like saying “their brain decided what to do, and the brain is a little machine caught in the big machine, so the brain has no choice.” All actions are "therefore " “selfish.” Just because the local brain is (ir)responsible.

But making any argument presumes some kind of normativity. We, as readers, “ought” to acknowledge our unfree selfishness in order to fix the world “realistically.” But we have no choice ? And the OP itself is a compulsive emission ? A selfish output ?

28

I’ll mull this over.

We do seem to be driven to please ourselves by what we do, our choices seem to be motivated by our preferences and for me this leads to that obvious quesion.

On a slightly different note, I have worked with a lot of people in philanthropy and charity and community work, and one of the things that sometimes comes across in those sectors is people who “do good” purely for narcissistic reasons. Their ego drives their charity, not any particular care for people. It pleases them to be identified as doing good. And I guess I wonder to what extent we can judge people by their works. Intention might be more significant.

1 Like
29

I think most of us can feel the genuine caring in good deeds, when that genuine caring is there. Just being human and genuinely kind to some employee on the cash register is a simple good deed. And of course it feels better to go through life with an open heart. So there’s no trade-off. It’s just good for everyone involved.

Probably we’ll all take a “false” generosity that feeds the hungry over a “sincere” selfishness.

Of course in the real world you sometimes have to be ready to treat people like rabid dogs. So we have locks and cops and guns and ICBMs.

I don’t pretend to any great virtue. I just think it’s a better life to be kind when one can afford to. And it’s hard to judge particular moments sometimes. I think most of us want to get home safe to our loved ones, at the cost of under-rating a tactless stranger.

30

Nice. Yep. Although perhaps I’d rather take the sincere generosity of a drug dealer than the phony, virtue signaling of a local church volunteer.

Agree. But even here the formulation is almost entirely about a preference for self-interest. I do agree that if people are kind, the world offers a better, safer experience. Reciprocal altruism, norm‑based cooperation, call it what you will.

1 Like
31

Right. So I’m trying to offer a “non-sentimental” version of virtue. Really I should probably talk about mothers attacking bears with umbrellas to save a child. But a shrewd cynic will just quote Dawkins at me. Then the genes are the agents. And really The Selfish Gene is a dark book, darker than Schopenhauer.

32

Great line.

Do you mean by this you have no use for kindness or compassion? Or do you reach similar ends via a different path?

33

I wouldn’t want to live without kindness and compassion in both myself and others. Why bother ?

The “unsentimental approach” is a rhetorical strategy. Virtue is its own reward, not something imposed on one. It’s more like the better part of oneself trying to claw itself out.

Of course sometimes it sucks to do the right thing. But overall it’s just a much better life to take care of other people, while also taking care of yourself. Healthy self-love is also love for others. And let us forgive the worldly wisdom that prefers to care for others who also care for us.

34

Cool. I know nothing about morality, I only know how I will act and I barely have to think about it.

1 Like
35

I think something was lost in translation.

When I put in what you translated my question to, and then translate it back to English, this is what I get -

“I’m just curious, how do you understand gratitude from your point of view?”

Which is not the same thing as what I asked.

I did not ask how you understand gratitude, but how it figures into a theory that puts self-interest first,

36

@guestioner

My reaction to your reply was surprise that, after my rather detailed post, you found nothing better to do than respond with a single question that seemed only loosely connected to the substance of my comment.

By the way, regarding translations: I also performed two back-translations, and in my case the result was that, had you asked what you later explained that you meant, it would have sounded something like this:

“How does it fit into a theory that puts self-interest first?”

That would have been much clearer. Even so, it is difficult to regard such a reaction to a long post as entirely adequate. It almost gives the impression of a lack of respect for the author.

That is precisely why my reply to you was even shorter. It seemed to me that nothing else I had written interested you at all, and that a serious discussion between us was unlikely.

However, after your clarification, I would draw your attention to the fact that in my explanation of the concept of “personal interest” I explicitly included the word “emotional,” which already contains the answer to your question.

How exactly?

First, in the sense described in Google’s definition. Second, gratitude does not in any way contradict the formula of the law. If someone does something useful or pleasant for me, I derive emotional satisfaction from it, and that fully corresponds to my own non-material interests, as I explained in the same text.

I would not like this misunderstanding between us to continue. Therefore, let me say that, if you are willing, I am interested in continuing our discussion of my topic, but on a more serious basis

37

Human beings have the capacity to know right from wrong. Humans have evolved as creatures capable of morality. The foundation of morality is love. Our development of any knowledge of right and wrong can be traced back to the earliest evolution of this capacity to love.

The seed of all the kinds of love we know today first appeared in our ancient ancestors over two hundred million years, in the earliest form of love – that of the parental-offspring connection, a completely selfless love. Had that particular oxytocin and dopamine neurochemistry not evolved, neither love, nor morality, would have, either.

Love is the primary instrument of morality. With love, others are valued in their own right, not just as things we care about in relation to our own concerns. With love, we put the ego aside, and then see, attend and respond to others.

Intuitively, I’ve understood this for many years, and I found support for my position in the philosophy of Iris Murdoch and Mary Midgley (who were lifelong friends). Both argue against egoism, and I think it’s noteworthy that they are women.

Murdoch holds that love is central to morality - not “duties and demands” – and specifically, attentive love - a kind of just, patient, generous attention to others – that makes us more moral.

And here is a quote from Mary Midgley -

“The trouble with human beings is not really that they love themselves too much; they ought to love themselves more. The trouble is simply that they don’t love others enough.”

Anyway, I believe that compassion is the default position of humanity. We are born to be received in love, and develop our capacity to love in return. (Toddlers learn about the happiness they get by sharing by around the age of 2.)

Granted, life, and brain development, are complicated processes, and humans exist along a spectrum of how they develop and function. Outliers exist, but I believe that most fall squarely in the “I will do good for the sake of good” range.

So, you see, this is my take on humanity.

I’ve already told you about my situation as caregiver to my disabled husband. My reward for that was his comfort and happiness. I’ve already told you it wasn’t about me. I don’t think I am unique among humans.

I’ll add to that I really do have a deep love of all of humanity, what the ancient Greeks called agape.

38

@Questioner

Dear Questioner

First of all, as before, you have not commented on the arguments I presented in my first reply to your comment. Instead, you continue to present your own view on love and affection. Once again, this makes our dialogue more difficult. It seems that each of us is talking about different things without directly addressing the other person’s arguments.

Your latest post is entirely devoted to the subject of love, which, according to you, is the foundation of morality.

“The seed of all forms of love we know today first appeared in our ancient ancestors more than two hundred million years ago, in the earliest form of love—the bond between parent and offspring, an entirely selfless love. Had the special neurochemistry of oxytocin and dopamine not evolved, neither love nor morality would have emerged.”

I do not object to this observation at all. However, in my topic I explain that more than two hundred million years ago there also arose the necessity of self-preservation, expressed through the defense of one’s own interests, without which neither morality nor love could have emerged either.

But this is not the main point. I am speaking about reality as it belongs to the sphere of human existence. You speak about love for children and romantic love. Yet I include these feelings within the sphere of a person’s personal interests. Therefore, they do not contradict my formula. I have repeatedly emphasized that I regard the interests of one’s own children, and sometimes those of other family members, as personal interests. The interests of loved ones belong to the sphere of personal interests no less than one’s own.

If you take these clarifications into account, the apparent contradiction between our views of life should largely disappear.

However, if you do not accept this explanation and continue to maintain that “most people definitely fall into the category of ‘I will do good for the sake of good itself,’” then our discussion leads to another question:

In human life, which constitutes the majority of situations: “doing good for the sake of good itself,” or all the other situations that make up everyday life?

If we follow your thesis, then in light of the examples in my topic describing how everyday life actually unfolds, we would have to insert between every pair of situations examples of a person constantly interrupting their own affairs in order to perform acts of charity: helping an elderly woman cross the street, rescuing a dog, giving money to a homeless person, picking up litter from the sidewalk, abandoning their own work to help someone else, or, after every two hours of preparing for university entrance exams, rushing off to teach a friend the material they have just learned.

Even in such a caricatured representation of life, these acts of charity would only appear as often as the examples involving a person’s own concerns. But obviously real life does not work this way. People primarily attend to their own affairs. Acts of kindness and charity certainly exist, but they do not constitute the majority of life situations that I am discussing in my topic