What Motivates You To Do "Good"?

[_EAllusion]

Moniker - I think it is trivial to say all your motives are self-interested if by that you simply mean they are your motives. I'm not sure how it could be any other way. How can your motives be anything but your own? Of course they are going to aim at something you want out of the world. Usually when people point out that all behavior is self-interested, they are attempting to advance the more contraversial thesis that all behavior is selfish - meaning it will make you better off in some way. People give to charity to make themselves feel good, for instance. That I disagree with. I agree with the former, but I regard it as a tautology.

[_Moniker]

Moniker - I think it is trivial to say all your motives are self-interested if by that you simply mean they are your motives. I'm not sure how it could be any other way. How can your motives be anything but your own? Of course they are going to aim at something you want out of the world. Usually when people point out that all behavior is self-interested, they are attempting to advance the more contraversial thesis that all behavior is selfish - meaning it will make you better off in some way. People give to charity to make themselves feel good, for instance. That I disagree with. I agree with the former, but I regard it as a tautology.

You're right, it is a tautology. :)

I just didn't want to phrase it so that theists were only working for self interest of an external reward -- so I was willing to fess up to my self interest in an internal reward. Of course there are theists that want internal rewards and atheists that do things for the external rewards.

I wasn't saying people do good things for selfish reasons, or expectations of a return, necessarily -- although some people do. I was really getting at this (and worded it very badly) - there are motivations for being good outside of religion. The motivations can be internally driven. My driving motivation is to be a good person, and that is ALL there is to it! When I fail at this then I fail at who I want to be and this is outside of fear of bolts of lightning or hell.

[_Moniker]

One of the problesm is that people just assume that being "bad" is more enjoyable. This can seem even more true to LDS people who have never really lived, and they become obsessed with all the things they can't do. Hence, why Utah is top on the charts for Internet Porn. While everyone needs a few solid vices, being "good' just works better all around. Is there really just lots of personal satisfaction involved in hurting people? In being mean to cute little animals? Apparently there is for many LDS, since they think without Jesus and the Book of Mormon then they'd lose total control of their lives.

So, contrary to the opinion of the scriptures, which are false, being "good" is actually the stronger general disposition in people and it's much more enjoyable to live that way.Unless you have some kind of mental thing going on.

Yah, the natural man came up today on MAD and it's startling every time I see this thought pattern. I think most people are kind, generous, and compassionate, and the thoughts that we must be put in a box of dogmatic thinking to tell us what actions to take or else we'd be out raping and pillaging strikes me as bizarre.

[_Moniker]

Seeking personal happiness by attending to the needs of others is not just inoffensive; it is actually part and parcel of the very human magnanimous impulse simpliciter.

I agree! Is this a first?

[_cksalmon]

Moniker - I think it is trivial to say all your motives are self-interested if by that you simply mean they are your motives. I'm not sure how it could be any other way. How can your motives be anything but your own? Of course they are going to aim at something you want out of the world. Usually when people point out that all behavior is self-interested, they are attempting to advance the more contraversial thesis that all behavior is selfish - meaning it will make you better off in some way. People give to charity to make themselves feel good, for instance. That I disagree with. I agree with the former, but I regard it as a tautology.

Hey EA--

As you know, tautologies derive their power (rightly or wrongly) from their inherent, presumptive assumptions.

I adhere to a radically hedonistic morality. In other words, I believe that my maximal personal pleasure is derived from such acts that do the most good in any given situation.

I might be reading you incorrectly at this point, but, if not, then I'd ask, What is controversial or wrong with "giving to charity" precisely because it makes one feel good?

If I haven't misread you, a follow-up question: If I'm correct that maximal personal pleasure is obtained via instantiating the most amount of good in any given situation, what would be wrong with believing such and acting upon that belief in the domain of morality?

Chris

[_EAllusion]

I might be reading you incorrectly at this point, but, if not, then I'd ask, What is controversial or wrong with "giving to charity" precisely because it makes one feel good?

I'm disagreeing with psychological egoism - of which psychological hedonism is a subset - not ethical egoism or hedonism. PE is the position is that all human action is motivated by selfish interests. I don't think that is true. As for why, I posted a fairly lengthy argument on the matter. That's a different subject than determining the rightness of acts in terms of how much pleasure it brings yourself or others.

I'm a type of desire consequentialist, which isn't far off from hedonism, but takes more than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain into account. It is far off from egoism, which I am fiercely critical of.

[_Gazelam]

Moni,

Nice thread. This reminds me a little of when people say that all evil actions stem from the devil. My argument there is that Satan is kind of the rock star of evil, but not the source of it. The whole thing is a bit different when we're talking about God though.

Our bodies, the world we live on, the sun that gives it life, the universe itself, are all upheld by his power. He gained this power through virtue and self control, by abiding by eternal laws. (D&C 88)

You yourself can see the results of making good decisions, and the effects that these actions have on yourself and those around you. It is by choosing to live this way, often overcoming carnal and sensual personal desires to achieve the greater good, that we learn not only Gods mind, but the way the universe works and responds.

I recall Joseph Smith once stated after he had spent a day healing and blessing others, that he felt exhausted and drained and that the virtue had gone out of him. Almost implying that virtue fueled the priesthood.

People can be good outside of religion, as you have said, but the Church is designed to improve and develop this nature. The Church instructs its members in doctrines and covenants which are designed to improve understanding and educate one in their actions. Included in this are the covenants of baptism and the sacrament, which cleanse one from the harmful effects of sin and increase the inspiration and guidance one can receive from the Holy Ghost (God).

Much could be said on this, but I think I might be getting a bit scattered now. So I'll stop here.

Gaz

[_cksalmon]

I might be reading you incorrectly at this point, but, if not, then I'd ask, What is controversial or wrong with "giving to charity" precisely because it makes one feel good?

I'm disagreeing with psychological egoism - of which psychological hedonism is a subset - not ethical egoism or hedonism. PE is the position is that all human action is motivated by selfish interests. I don't think that is true. As for why, I posted a fairly lengthy argument on the matter. That's a different subject than determining the rightness of acts in terms of how much pleasure it brings yourself or others.

I'm a type of desire consequentialist, which isn't far off from hedonism, but takes more than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain into account. It is far off from egoism, which I am fiercely critical of.

Got it. I think I do see what you're saying.

I guess my point is that I don't assign the perceived motivation of "selfish interests" an inherently negative basis. Actually, I believe something close to the opposite (at least insofar as I'm reading you correctly): that true, inherent, personal pleasure is actually maximized via acts of compassion. There is, then, no discrepancy, no zero-sum game, if you will, even at issue in terms of personal happiness and public good.

Insofar as I understand your comments, I'd embrace some qualified version of "psychological hedonism," I believe.

Yet, I'd borrow from you and suggest that the "desire consequentialist" school of morality is merely a more (and respectably so) nuanced version of psychological hedonism.

Because I've been vague, I can fully appreciate your charge that, in apparent contradistinction to PH, "'desire consequentialism' takes more than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain into account."

I'm certainly not willing to argue against you at this point.

My understanding of a radically humanistic hedonism takes much more into account than merely the avoidance of temporal pain and the pursuit of temporal pleasure by an individual historical actor.

That's not what I'm shooting for.

My endgame is much broader: namely, that all persons inevitably pursue the deepest and most long-lasting pleasure available to them--a choice that is consonant with both individual hedonism and the public good (ideally).

I don't see the two in conflict (ideally).

Which is a roundabout way of saying that all persons always do what they most desire to do in any given situation.

Yes, it's a tautology; but, nevertheless, true.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I do it because I feel that it's the right thing to do. Not sure if it's CHristian residue or because I have a positive position on humanity. Also I believe in karma a bit. Oh screw it...I'm in for the women.