Empathy + Selfishness = Human: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Empathy + Selfishness = Human » Empathy + Selfishness = Human

Empathy + Selfishness = Human

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 06/25/09 - 08:51 PM: Subject: Empathy + Selfishness = Human	#1
The premise of this topic is that it is a fundamental biological urge for humans to be both empathetic towards other humans and to be self serving. For the sake of discussion, sociopaths who are incapable of empathy are out of the equation. The truth value of this premise isn't the subject of discussion, seems quite apparent to me that it is the case(mirror neurons, natural selection, etc.). What's a bit more of a stretch is to claim that all motivations of human behavior falls either under empathetic motivations or selfish motivations, but given the course of philosophical moral theories and human history in general it seems that this is the case. Now the problem is that there are way too many moral doctrines that takes either one side or the other. Given a fair view, perhaps it will seem that both sides are rather convincing. This ethical split has made its way deep into politics. Here's an example: Consider two newborns, I am born into a rich family, while Lucas is born into a poor family. If we use our empathy to judge the situation, it might seem that it's unfair that I will likely have more opportunities than Lucas, thus some type of inheritance tax maybe necessary to achieve social equality. On the other hand if we use self serving tendencies to judge the situation, it might seem that it's fundamentally unfair for someone to take away my money and give it to someone else when I earned that money, my individual liberty would be violated. Which side is right? Appears to me they both are right. Given that both empathy and selfishness are fundamental human features, how can we claim that we ought to utilize one and not the other? Wouldn't the biological tendencies themselves be the ethical motivation as opposed to moral doctrines? Even if we assume that humans are fundamentally selfish and empathy is something lesser, can we then claim that human beings ought to be selfish? Why would we need to be told to follow our biological desires when they themselves are the motivational source? Should we even ask the question of which side should I pick? Could there be an answer to that question that doesn't involve tremendous personal soul searching that is too subjective to be made into some kind of doctrine? If this is true, the biggest issue would be: How do we structure our society then if neither side is fundamentally right or wrong? Are we then forced to pick a side on individual issues? It's not a very hard task to get a satisfying mixture of both sides of human motivation for the individual, but it seems a lot harder to construct a satisfying mixture of both sides for a social structure. What can we do? Personally speaking, I have no problems with not being able to exclusively pick a side to be my personal ethical structure, but not being able to make up my mind on politics is somewhat troubling. Edited by kkiiji on 06/25/09 - 08:57 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 06/25/09 - 09:22 PM:	#2
The human brain can be described as a difference engine that incorporates a variety of positive and negative feedback systems. Our emotions and reason, for example, exert both positive and negative feedback control of each other. One theory is that this kind of system evolved so that organisms could take advantage of both a system that provides rapid responses to survival situations and another that provides the ability for problem solving. Theoretically then it should be possible to design social systems that maximize such abilities in individuals and groups. However, this would require a dynamic system that evolves along with our biology and needs. In other words, it is a tall order to fill. However, it is certainly not hopeless and it is quite possible to gather empirical evidence to support what social systems in use today are the most effective at producing the results that people say they want.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 06/25/09 - 09:39 PM:	#3
It seems the biological systems that you describe when translated into the context of behavioral motivations refer indeed to the topic of discussion, empathy+selfishness. Though the issue is that there is a disconnect between what we subjectively want and what these wants are supposed to be doing in the context of evolution. In other words, because we take our motivations and desires so seriously, we've come up with ethical doctrines that isolate particularly strong sectors of the whole biological system, influencing more individuals to also isolate their motivational factors as well. It seems to me this creates a discrepancy between what we humans say we want and what would be most efficient biologically, therefore maximizing biological efficiency stopped being the number one priority. Furthermore if this efficient system you describe involves going against our various culturally constructed doctrines of empathy and selfishness allocation in favor of a more efficient one, it would be very poorly received, and perhaps a bit inhumane. On the other hand, perhaps this struggle between all these ethical doctrines and their complex social influence IS the most efficient system, and having so many conflicting political sides IS the best it gets. This notion is a bit hard to swallow. Edited by kkiiji on 06/25/09 - 09:45 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 06/25/09 - 10:31 PM:	#4
Should you be selfish or altruistic? The easy answer is -- whichever benefits you most, according to your values, is the most rational. The answer isn't all the same and no solution is completely altruistic or selfish. There are direct and indirect benefits to nearly every action. Altruism relies on mutual consent and is far more mutually beneficial, (try building your own highway or school sometimes). Selfishness relies on mutual assent and concentrates reward. Values aren't always the same, so no one solution is going to work in every case. Thinking rationally usually leads to selfish choices. Emotions usually lead to altruistic choices. Your categories are so broad and vague, they can't be used as ethical rules. Systems develop. Your side might get benefits one way, while Lucas gets benefits another way. You can trade your resources, (money), for his services for things you would rather not do. The difference in resources can lead to motivation, (give all the money to the most talented people and they don't need to work, so you don't get the benefit of their talents). Egalitarianism isn't an ends, it is an appeal to emotions.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 06/26/09 - 04:10 AM:	#5
People are not the only ones to have discrepencies between the demands of reality and their desires, and reality has a way of catching up with every living creature. I assume that is why evolution made us such flexible creatures in the first place. Perhaps a little perspective is in order. Modern humans evolved around a 100,000 years ago, an almost indecernable amount of time on an evolutionary scale. Surveys of the greatest scientific minds today indicate that they believe it will be perhaps a few thousand years before we have managed to apply the vast majority of the discoveries of science towards the betterment of mankind. Again, this is nothing on an evolutionary scale and represents perhaps 3 percent of the total time humanity will have existed. So, it's important to think big when talking about restructuring societies to maximum effect. With the time scale settled (just call it BIG) it is then possible to ask ourselves how best to support this process for the immediate future without burdoning ourselves with thoughts of achieving utopia any time in the forseeable future (visions of Star Trek). Fortunately there is empirical evidence already in existence which can possibly give us a clue as to where all this is going. First and foremost there is a wealth of evidence that suggests that people do best when they feel their society supports their basic needs and desires and vice versa. Societies do best when its members feel empowered and supported by their societies. That is, individuals support and give back to their respective societies more when they feel the relationship is reciprical. The question then becomes what rudamentary physical biases of the human brain can be promoted in which societies in this reciprical fashion for the foreseeable future and which are headed for a train wreak in the near future. Again, it is important to remember that we are talking about positive and negative feedback systems in both the physical brain and physical societies, and therefore it is important to make the best assessments we can of both. From a strictly behavioral point of view, the use of mostly positive reinforcement with only the occational negative tends to get the best results. This runs contrary to how many people believe the world works, but the empirical evidence to support this view is overwhelming. Therefore one of the most effective changes it is possible to make is to change such negative attitudes. This might superficially sound difficult if not impossible, but there are quite a few modern examples of how this has already occured. For example, the Swedes voted by popular referendum to outlaw hitting or striking a child and there are now 11 countries that have followed suit. Fifty years ago the very thought that a society might even consider such legislation would have seemed crazy to most people, not to mention the possibility that such legislation might actually produce desirable results. In the case of Sweden the legislation has not resulted in higher rates of children being taken away from their parents, the collapse of society, or any such imagined results. What it has achieved is to force the politicians to find innovative ways to support their people's obvious desire to bring their childrearing practices more in line with what behavorists and other psychologists have said works best (ie- lots of positive reinforcement, just a little negative.) Such changes in societies are rudamentary and a great deal more needs to be done, but you can't reasonably expect much progress on other fronts unless such basic changes are made first. Abstract attempts to change the way people think, moralizing about right and wrong for example, just can't compete very well with someone hitting you over the head. However, there are other approaches to such social problems that can compete. For example, psychiatrists today believe that sometime within the next fifty years or so roughly 80 percent of all mental illness will be curable, not merely treatable mind you, but curable. Such advances may not directly provide the kind of rudamentary behavioral changes needed, but they certainly provide an environment that supports their eventual adoption.

cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 171

Posted 06/26/09 - 06:09 AM:	#6
I assume that human is determined by two elements in society. One is biological gene and the other is cultural meme, coined by Richard Dawkins. I believe one's meme as well as gene decide on one's social class or position in society. As for sociopaths or psycopaths, Isn't it gene and meme by which they are categorized? So, what has to be done for better off society as to politician?

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.