tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post110492642560800964..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Selfish Selflessness?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-68825134817174055492009-04-07T04:13:00.000-04:002009-04-07T04:13:00.000-04:00I agree that selfless/altruistic action is likely ...I agree that selfless/altruistic action is likely prompted by the desire to help one's self feel better in some way (relieve anxiety for example) However, I think that is the important part that people here are missing. What matters is THAT the selfless act relieves anxiety for the subject. Instead of laughing at the old lady having trouble crossing the street, a selfless or empathetic person's response is a desire to help.<BR/><BR/>Because this helping brings good feelings to the individual, the behavior is reinforced. This is a healthy response and should not be labeled "selfish" if for no other reason than to avoid confusion of what really is selfish - the disregard of others.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09043515505445911392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1162012600789100102006-10-28T01:16:00.000-04:002006-10-28T01:16:00.000-04:00. - Tina Teodoro, Christina Tintin Jorge Teodoro. - Tina Teodoro, Christina Tintin Jorge TeodoroAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1155125593803134462006-08-09T08:13:00.000-04:002006-08-09T08:13:00.000-04:00Richard, I've only now come across your arguments ...Richard, I've only now come across your arguments here for selflessness, and do believe your comments here are like a vigorous attempt to explain, say, why a blue cube isn't really a blue cube.<BR/>It seems obviously irrefutable that every action we take is intended to produce good feelings, as opposed to bad ones, relatively speaking. None of the examples you've provided show otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Hang tight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131738638849243692005-11-11T14:50:00.000-05:002005-11-11T14:50:00.000-05:00selflessness & true happinessselflessness & true happinessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1116978506801538852005-05-24T19:48:00.000-04:002005-05-24T19:48:00.000-04:00See my post on Genes, Brains and Behaviour.See my post on <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/12/genes-brains-and-behaviour.html" REL="nofollow">Genes, Brains and Behaviour</A>.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1116977919316694292005-05-24T19:38:00.000-04:002005-05-24T19:38:00.000-04:00But I don't understand how you are seperating the ...But I don't understand how you are seperating the motivations of my behaviour from my genes and some other place, perhaps reason?<BR/><BR/>I only ask because I'm studying the very same problem.Illusive Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05077172398731952774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1116923262951239912005-05-24T04:27:00.000-04:002005-05-24T04:27:00.000-04:00Yeah, I discussed biological altruism in the latte...Yeah, I discussed biological altruism in the latter section of the main post.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1116918454294637662005-05-24T03:07:00.000-04:002005-05-24T03:07:00.000-04:00Hey Richard,I've come across what I regard as the ...Hey Richard,<BR/><BR/>I've come across what I regard as the most sensible definition of altruism in the philosophical literature.<BR/><BR/>It is in reference to the debate over the evolution of altruistic behviour. <BR/><BR/>Altruism can simply be considered as the actions or bahviour of an organism that promote the interests of another to the apparent detriment of their own interests.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not they have certain desires or interests that are fufilled by the act is irrelevant. A mother who sacrifices her life or her food for her children is performing an altruistic act, even if it may be in her interests for her children to survive.Illusive Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05077172398731952774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106452996593904122005-01-22T23:03:00.000-05:002005-01-22T23:03:00.000-05:00Jeremy,
The desire-fulfillment theory of self-inte...Jeremy,<br />The desire-fulfillment theory of self-interest was discussed in more detail back in my '<A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fflourishing.html">flourishing</A>' post. So I've briefly responded in a <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fflourishing.html%23c110645282482060514">comment</A> over there. (Hope you don't mind.) <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106450398023484742005-01-22T22:19:00.000-05:002005-01-22T22:19:00.000-05:00I'm not sure why you would define self-interest in...I'm not sure why you would define self-interest in terms of desires. It just seems that someone could fail to desire their own self-interest in any way. We would consider this sort of person highly defective, but it seems like a genuine counterexample. Doesn't self-interest have to have a basis in things besides our desires anyway, because it's the most fundamental object of our desires?<br /><br />I think cases like smoking, any other addiction, bulimia, etc. are going to be problems too. I'm sure you have a response to this, along the lines of weighting desires for damaging things as less then desires for health, longer life, etc., but that just seems wrong to me. The desire for the cigarette or to binge and purge is stronger than all the other desires combined, or it wouldn't win out. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fmt.ektopos.com%2Fparablemania" TITLE="parableman at gmail dot com">Jeremy Pierce</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105516268693553832005-01-12T02:51:00.000-05:002005-01-12T02:51:00.000-05:00selfishness = "an inappropriate disregard for othe...<B>selfishness = "an inappropriate disregard for others"</B>Who decides the level of inappropriateness? I think that this definition is a good one because it illustrates the subjectivity of selfishness and by extension altruism. <br /><br />It is on par with "Good" and "Bad", in the sense that the 'objective' observer is appealing to some moral standard of what actions constitute an appropriate respect for others. Then a social consensus is reached which dictates the social norms of acceptable behavior.<br /><br />It is ok to buy <B>your</B> kids MP3 players whilst not donating money to starving children who are not yours. It is ok to leave your neighbors to be depressed and suicidal because you are respecting their <I>privacy</I>. In larger communities we create these 'force-fields' of selfishness so that we can co-exist with massive amounts of people in a small space, in a small town this does not apply.<br /><br />The point is, their is no good way to objectively measure selfishness because it requires appealing to non-objective principles. I remember reading about a case where a man was sued for not jumping into a pool to save his neighbor’s son, whom he could clearly see was drowning. His defense was that it was not his responsibility. The court rejected this.<br /><br />Who knows in a few more years this might change, and another line is drawn to what is deemed 'appropriate'. Who can say what constitutes an instance of ‘other-regarding’ desires outweighing ‘self-regarding’ ones?<br /><br />Perhaps Richard is right in that it requires relying on common sense intuitions about the subject (which I think are manipulated by social consensus), that is what bring me to this point: <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fillusivemind.blogspot.com%2F2005%2F01%2Fcommon-sense.html">Common Sense</A> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fillusivemind.blogspot.com%2F" TITLE="illusive_mind at hotmail dot com">Illusive Mind</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105313899183899072005-01-09T18:38:00.000-05:002005-01-09T18:38:00.000-05:00Congradulations :)
OK well then what about the ot...Congradulations :)<br /><br />OK well then what about the other part of the discussion - what exactly are you gaining by describing them in a philosophical manner? (I say philosophical because so far it seems more philosophical than psychological).<br /><br />In fact - regarding the above - you might need to be clearer in order to prevent me from thinking you are conflating two distinct concepts of selfishness yourself.<br /><br />maybe we should start using a "mirror neuron" definition of selfishness? Or look at the methods one uses to trick oneself into being selfless etc......<br /><br />even at the philosophical level I am concerned by hte internal and externally evaluated versions of altruism - if we are planning on using it as a moral tool. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?genius.blogspot.com" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">GeniusNZ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105312269797015632005-01-09T18:11:00.000-05:002005-01-09T18:11:00.000-05:00Genes build the human host, they do not control it...Genes <I>build</I> the human host, they do not <I>control</I> it! (See <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fgenes-brains-and-behaviour.html">genes, brains & behaviour</A>.)<br /><br />More importantly still, you are conflating two distinct concepts of 'selfishness' - see yesterday's <B>update</B> to the main post.<br /><br />It's not that I have anything against biology - quite the opposite in fact (after scoring top in the country in the NZEST scholarship exams for the subject, I'm rather fond of it)! But biological concepts are distinct from psychological ones - they <I>mean</I> different things - so it would lead to conceptual confusion were we to conflate them. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105307002374071552005-01-09T16:43:00.000-05:002005-01-09T16:43:00.000-05:00You are right that
selfishness = "an inappropriate...You are right that<br />selfishness = "an inappropriate disregard for others"<br />resuts upon the definition of "appropriate" as long as you define that as "appropriate by my moral standards" then genes have nothing to say about it because your moral standards (or mine) ae not physical things in the world that genes could take cues from.<br /><br />I wonder what you plan on doing with these definitions though that makes them so useful. a key problem is the "first you save yourself then you save the world" (quoting form a song) issue continuing "it doesnt help us very much if you throw the line to someone else". <br /><br />Excessive amounts of altruism may be bad - in fact a strong capitalist might argue that all but the smallest amounts of altruism (in specific situations) are bad. And the above examples of extreem altruism are obviously ridiculous (in fact worse than evil selfishness) because everyone would drown while throwing the line to each-other (and generally driving each other insane).<br /><br />So arbitrarily defining altruism as good seems flawed.<br />The question then is - is utalitarianism altruism? what about socialism? is that a better form of altruism? what if you are a poor socialist?<br /><br />Anyway sumarising the other argument which skips the moral side..<br /><br />genes are "selfish" <br />in general genes "effectively" identify their survival with the human host<br />genes control the human host<br />thus genes make the human host selfish.<br /><br />But obviously that does not stop other effects - In addition there are a number of others - these are<br />the meme effect as noted by Doug<br />the general benefits of sharing (evolutionary psychology)<br />the desire hang over effect as I noted <br />spandrel effects as CR noted <br />and just random mutations. <br /><br />All of which are then moderated by genes but are also "default facts of the universe" (ie a gene would generally have to go to a specific "effort" to resolve the issue).<br /><br />It seems you are very eager NOT to use biology as a solution in psychology. Personally I see this as a great weakness in psychological research probably a result of people trying to protect their turf. It is lucky chemists do not seem to see physists in the same way.<br /><br />When one learns about plants one talks about photosynthesis and nowadays one learns the chemical reactions and when one learns about the chemical reactiosn one learns about the electrons and basic physics of it, with things like entropy in mind (using potential energy and turning it into heat). One does not have to talk about entropy when discussing the growth of plants but the chain of logic is possible to follow most of the way - even in a childrens text book. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?geniusnz.blogspot.com" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">GeniusNZ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105149417456349182005-01-07T20:56:00.000-05:002005-01-07T20:56:00.000-05:00"are you saying that all human behaviour should be..."<I>are you saying that all human behaviour should be assumed to be the result of natural selection</I>"<br /><br />No - note that I said 'if', not 'only if'. That is, I was pointing out one possible source of altruism, not necessarily the only source.<br /><br />"<I>I don't accept this difference between genes and the human mind - they're both chemical reactions and hence the same language can be used.</I>"<br /><br />That's a bit ridiculous. The patterns exhibited on the psychological level differ significantly from those on the physical level. (This general issue is an interesting topic in its own right; I'll post about it in more detail soon.) Compare: "Plants photosynthesise. Plants and rocks are both made of atoms. Therefore rocks photosynthesise." No, there are significant differences between minds and genes, such that psychological terms can only be properly attributed to the former. I'm a physicalist, but it doesn't follow that all physical systems can be described with the same terms.<br /><br />But we're getting a bit off-topic here. The important point is that psychological and biological 'selfishness' are two distinct concepts - and we are only concerned with the former here. This should be clear from the definitions offered above, i.e. selfishness = "an inappropriate disregard for others" - this is a question of psychological motivation, and doesn't imply anything at all about whether the resultant behaviour is likely to benefit one's genes or not. That simply isn't relevant to assessing this matter. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105137942281056612005-01-07T17:45:00.000-05:002005-01-07T17:45:00.000-05:00"Biologically 'selfish' genes can create psycholog..."Biologically 'selfish' genes can create psychologically (and genuinely) altruistic minds, if such altruism would tend to help those genes."" <br /><br />It seems like you might be agreeing with me here, but I'd better check: are you saying that all human behaviour should be assumed to be the result of natural selection until proven otherwise? <br /><br />If not:<br /><br />"Genes are 'selfish' only in a metaphorical sense, in that we can understand them as if they were aiming to reproduce themselves. But of course they don't really have minds and so cannot really 'aim' at anything, nor be 'selfish' in doing so."<br /><br />Richard, I don't accept this difference between genes and the human mind - they're both chemical reactions and hence the same language can be used.<br />Do you accept that nothing inside a human being can happen without a chemical reaction taking place? Do you accept that thoughts and desires could not happen without movements or alterations of electrons/atoms/molecules in a manner that would be accepted as 'normal' by a biochemist?<br />If so, why do you find it so easy to separate gene behaviour from human behaviour? Gene behaviour can be entirely explained by chemical reactions... but it seems to your mind that human behaviour doesn't follow the same rules and therefore you can talk about 'psychological selfishness' being different from 'gene selfishness'. Surely we only need a 'psychological' explanation to keep us going until we've understood the chemical explanation. 100 years ago we knew vaguely that kidneys 'cleaned the blood'. Now we can explain precisely why (emphasis on 'why' not just how) a kidney cleans the blood in terms of chemical reactions. Currently we can't explain the chemical reactions involved when someone decides to help an old lady across the road. But this is surely just a matter of time. <br /><br />Note the use of 'why' kidneys clean the blood. Kidneys clean the blood because chemical reactions (and diffusion etc) take place when<br />blood passes through a kidney. There is no choice for a kidney because chemical reactions don't involve choice, they are condemned to happen, they are automatic. When blood passes through a kidney, the resulting separation of urea is as automatic as an apple falling to the ground when its stem weakens.<br /><br />So when we understand the chemistry of the apparent 'choice' of whether to help a lady across the road, we'll know 'why' it happens. And the 'why' will be - 'because that's the way chemical reactions in the brain automatically happen given the way those particular light waves hit the retina'.<br /><br />When we ask the question 'how come all these chemical reactions took place to create a kidney that functions to clean the blood' we answer 'natural selection'. <br />When we ask the question 'how come all these chemical reactions took place to create a human brain that helps old ladies across the road' our first assumption must also be 'natural selection'. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>conscious robotAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105110903543626372005-01-07T10:15:00.000-05:002005-01-07T10:15:00.000-05:00I think you would enjoy reading "The Meme Machine"...I think you would enjoy reading "The Meme Machine" by Dr Susan Blackmore. It deals with the exact problem you are mentioning, and gives a very good solution with the meme theory.<br /><br />Here is an introductory article on memes:<br />http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NSmeme%201999.htm <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>DougAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105096880871980942005-01-07T06:21:00.000-05:002005-01-07T06:21:00.000-05:00No, no philosophy at my blog, at least, not in pro...No, no philosophy at my blog, at least, not in prose form. Poems and pictures mostly, might rant about America, or pot if I feel the need :) <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fperdalley.blogspot.com" TITLE="shadowmist136 at hotmail dot com">Mea Culpa</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105063215755664722005-01-06T21:00:00.000-05:002005-01-06T21:00:00.000-05:00Hey Zane, good to hear from ya! I didn't know you...Hey Zane, good to hear from ya! I didn't know you have a blog - do you plan to write about philosophy there at all?<br /><br />GeniusNZ - The desires you describe as 'required steps' are simply the opposite of what I called 'self-standing' desires. Both are possible.<br /><br />Just to clarify: those four claims come from the 'flourishing' thread, wherein I accept (1) & (2) but reject (i) and (ii).<br /><br />CR - You're equivocating between biological and psychological selfishness. These ought not be confused. Genes are 'selfish' only in a metaphorical sense, in that we can understand them <I>as if</I> they were aiming to reproduce themselves. But of course they don't really have minds and so cannot really 'aim' at anything, nor be 'selfish' in doing so. <br /><br />Biologically 'selfish' genes can create psychologically (and <I>genuinely</I>) altruistic minds, if such altruism would tend to help those genes. (Think of kin selection, reciprocal altruism, etc.) See also the points raised in <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fgenes-brains-and-behaviour.html">Genes, Brains, and Behaviour</A>. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105057076091692622005-01-06T19:17:00.000-05:002005-01-06T19:17:00.000-05:00from the other thread
You talk about these
i) S ...from the other thread<br /><br />You talk about these<br /><br />i) S is motivated to do those things (and only those things) that are good for S.<br />ii) S's pleasure (and only S's pleasure) is good for S.<br /><br />1) "S desires P" means that S is motivated to make P true (ceteris paribus).<br />2) S is well-off to the extent that S's desires are fulfilled.<br /><br />and <br /><br />You note that achieving Not P and still enjoying it is probably a result of achieving a further goal (Q).<br />Now this is true but then one could equally say a desire tp achieve P is actually a desire to achieve R,S and T.<br />P has just become seen as a required step and at some point that assumption is made without thinking.<br /><br />In fact one might say this is ALWAYS true. In essance your answer to the question is the same sort of deeper analysis that CR and I are doing resorting to root causes and effects as opposed to perception. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?geniusnz.blogspot.com" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">geniusNZ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105056530790024302005-01-06T19:08:00.000-05:002005-01-06T19:08:00.000-05:00I managed to get through the previous comments wit...I managed to get through the previous comments without mentioning evolution, but it was possibly the most difficult thing I’ve ever done. All good things come to an end, however, so here goes:<br /><br />"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" - why I assume all behaviour is selfish until proved otherwise:<br /><br />The magician James Randi offers a US$1 million prize to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers under scientific conditions. He says that if an event appears to defy the known laws of physics/science we must assume it to be untrue unless we have overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />‘Every action is selfish’ is the ‘ordinary’ explanation provided by science – it is the most likely explanation. Genuine altruism is a considerably less-likely explanation and therefore requires extraordinary proof.<br /><br />We would always look to ascribe a ‘selfish gene’ explanation to any (non-human) animal behaviour – so what gives us the right to ascribe ‘genuine altruism’ to human behaviour? Gouldian spandrels are only used to explain occurrences for which there is no apparent ‘natural selection’ advantage. So given that all human behaviour can comfortably be ascribed ‘selfish gene’ motivations, shouldn’t ‘selfish’ be our assumption?<br /><br />Sure, genuine altruism is a ‘possibility’ given the observed evidence… but ‘possibility’ isn’t good enough in this case. We must assume the action to be selfish unless we're unable to suggest a selfish explanation for it.<br /><br />So how does this impact on your definitions? “These definitions make it clear that if you genuinely want to help other people, then acting on that desire is selfless, not selfish.” We must assume, if we follow the ‘most likely assumption’, that helping other people is only a means to an end. Humans work together, just like ants and vampire bats do. Each individual is required to make a contribution to others, in return for which he gets reciprocal help. <br />He is described as ‘selfish’ if he is regarded by others as receiving more than he gives, and ‘selfless’ if the opposite appears to be true. If I were to attempt to enhance your definitions, I’d imagine I were describing the behaviour of vampire bats rather than humans.<br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?www.consciousrobots.blogspot.com" TITLE="info at consciousrobots dot co dot uk">conscious robot</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105055130027172262005-01-06T18:45:00.000-05:002005-01-06T18:45:00.000-05:00>Instead, I suggest that it is a useful distinctio...>Instead, I suggest that it is a useful distinction for us to make, given our purposes.<br /><br />I think our two arguments are despite their aparent contradiction able to live side by side.<br />But I think it is important to note that it may well be that they reduce to each other - because while we often make false assumptions for various purposes - it is useful to know exactly what those assumptions are becaue they may well lead directly to the conclusions. If so we can only check back to see if this has happened if we understand those assumptions. Your position on your blog however gives the impression you want to reject the reduction hypothesis as opposed to just use your own for your own purposes.<br /><br />Besides that Illusive Mind said it all.<br />Then using Tennessee Leeuwenburg's definition of altruism we can have a practical model for how to look at people philosophically even though we may KNOW that CR's logic is behind it.<br /> <br />> Would you continue to have the original altruistic desire?<br /><br />Again I wil probably look deeper than you care to look.<br /><br />every desire I know if "lingers" you will continue acting to do things even after you are no longer geting the brain chemical reward. Do we accept this?<br /><br />Some might term this a "not changing the way of doing things" reward. and still see it as a reward (or at least an avoidance of punishment)<br /><br />but if you dont do that you can create a third catagory terming some desires neither self regarding NOR other regarding in that they are just "lingering" desires. <br /><br />> but we reject it because it implies that all our common-sense beliefs are false.<br /><br />I thought we rejected it because of occam's razor <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?geniusnz.blogspot.com" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">GeniusNz</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105054856957902992005-01-06T18:40:00.000-05:002005-01-06T18:40:00.000-05:00Richard, I accept your point. It’s ‘possible’ that...Richard, I accept your point. It’s ‘possible’ that one could ‘just’ have a desire to help an old lady across the road without emotion attached. However, I don’t think it’s very likely. <br />I have (from my personal experience) no doubts that ‘how I feel’ is ultimately controlling my goals – only the detail is ever unemotional or ‘intellectual’. So, if I were a ‘lollipop lady’ and my job were to help old ladies across roads, I’d probably do most of them without ‘feeling’ about it. <br />But given that I’ve never in my life helped an old lady across a road, I’m pretty convinced that if I ever do it’s going to be a pretty emotional moment.<br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?www.consciousrobots.blogspot.com" TITLE="info at consciousrobots dot co dot uk">conscious robot</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105014016468360792005-01-06T07:20:00.000-05:002005-01-06T07:20:00.000-05:00Hey man, it's Zane. I wish you'd posted this a lit...Hey man, it's Zane. I wish you'd posted this a little earlier, I <br />remember trying to come up with words to describe this exact concept<br />during a Philosophy tut earlier this year. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fperdalley.blogspot.com" TITLE="shadowmist136 at hotmail dot com">Mea Culpa</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1105013974021142302005-01-06T07:19:00.000-05:002005-01-06T07:19:00.000-05:00Your own definitions hold the path to the answer y...Your own definitions hold the path to the answer you seek. By making desires non-homogenous - viz rejecting the happiness hypothesis - you can simply say that the altruism desire is a motivation of itself, and is of different kind to other desires.<br /><br />Oh, that's exactly what you say in the next sentence.<br /><br />I think it's clearly true from introspection that the fulfilment of different desires feels different. Perhaps, that is how we distinguish them?<br /><br />-T <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?melbournephilosopher.com" TITLE="tennessee at tennessee dot id dot au">Tennessee Leeuwenburg</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com