The end of all actions: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » The end of all actions » The end of all actions

The end of all actions
Is there a goal at which human action should aim?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The end of all actions

essence
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 07/02/08 - 02:19 AM:	#31
emanswen wrote: Yes, I can say that I do x because of y about most of my actions, but I cannot say it if the x I am talking about is my final goal. For instance, if my final goal were the maximisation of my own pleasure, then I could not say that I choose to maximise my own pleasure because of y. If I could, then maximising my own pleasure would not be my final goal after all. There has to be some point at which my justification stops; some x that cannot be explained by a y. At this point all I can say is, "I choose to realise x; I just do"; I cannot say "I choose to realise x because y." If I could say the latter, then I could ask why I choose to realise y; if I chose to realise y because z, then I could ask why I choose to realise z, etc. This would go on until I reached some thing that I choose to realise just because I do. . . So I can see no way to choose one final goal over another; it seems totally arbitrary to me. Hi emanswen: It seems in any given circumstance claiming to do x in order to achieve x would be redundant...right? You might as well simply say, my goal is maximizing my pleaure. The meaning of the equation you provided, as I understood it, was that a person uses an overall goal (y) to explain the reason for a specific behavior (x). In other words, a person could say I have as much sex as possible because my ultimate goal is to maximize pleasure (assuming of course one accepted sex as pleasurable). Now although saying I maximize my pleasue becaus I want to meximize my pleasure is redundant, I don't see how this precludes maximizing pleasure from being one's ultimate goal. Can you explain what you mean here? In terms of their being a point at which one's justification stops, I would say that this is entirely up to the person doing the experiening of life. Generally, this ultimate goal -if one is consciously chosen- need not end as a result of any logical construction, but will only end when either A: the experiencer of life decides to pursue a new goal, or B: the experiencer of life reaches the stated goal and thus seeks for a new expression/goal. All of these goals, however, according to my own theory of this aspect of life, are things that we choose for reasone that are apparent when we look at our experiences. As far a any of these choices being arbitrary, I feel that this is not truly an accurate reflecton of the reality of any real human being's experience. Theoretially, we could imagnine making arbirary choices, but in reality, we all make choices based upon our experiences, our actions and their outcomes, and what it is we wish to experience of life. The main point of my intial post to you was to point out that our life experience provides the needed guidelines in order for anyone to use in deciding what they wish to do. Do you understand what I mean? I liked your initial post because you showed how, in a personal way, ultimate ideas of what one ought to do, are not apparent. I basically agree with this. I also agree with you in that you seem to be claiming there is nothing we "ought to do". Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do you think there is an ought? I see no ought, however, I do see an ultimate goal. This ultimate goal, however, is something that I believe expresses itself uniquely in each human being and it is something that only that human being can define for himself/herself. Trying to uphold or attain an ultimate goal according to the definition or idea of another will, in my experience, result in something that is far less satisfying than what the seekers truly wants. One other thought, it is possible to go through life with the conscious thought that there is no ultimate goal or aim that one is seeking to achieve. This does not preclude the possiility that such a goal does indeed exist subconsciously, however, but has simply never been recognized and articulated. Anyone can ask themslves why they do any particular thing, for instance, and -assuming they truly wish to understand life- will be able to come up with a reason. By looking overall at the reasons one comes up with for one's actios, furthermore, one will reveal some overall patterns that we could reasonably call "ultimate aims". Do you agree?

emanswen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 149

Posted 07/02/08 - 05:59 AM:	#32
essence wrote: It seems in any given circumstance claiming to do x in order to achieve x would be redundant...right? You might as well simply say, my goal is maximizing my pleaure. The meaning of the equation you provided, as I understood it, was that a person uses an overall goal (y) to explain the reason for a specific behavior (x). In other words, a person could say I have as much sex as possible because my ultimate goal is to maximize pleasure (assuming of course one accepted sex as pleasurable). Now although saying I maximize my pleasue becaus I want to meximize my pleasure is redundant, I don't see how this precludes maximizing pleasure from being one's ultimate goal. Can you explain what you mean here? I did not say that it precludes maximising pleasure from being one's ultimate goal, I was simply trying to show that there is no way to show that maximising pleasure ought to be one's ultimate goal (as opposed, say, to maximising pain), or to give a reason for choosing maximising pleasure as an ultimate goal (rather than maximising pain). essence wrote: All of these goals, however, according to my own theory of this aspect of life, are things that we choose for reasone that are apparent when we look at our experiences. Could you give me an example of a reason that could justify choosing one ultimate goal (an end in itself; not pursued for the sake of any other end) over another? essence wrote: As far a any of these choices being arbitrary, I feel that this is not truly an accurate reflecton of the reality of any real human being's experience. Theoretially, we could imagnine making arbirary choices, but in reality, we all make choices based upon our experiences, our actions and their outcomes, and what it is we wish to experience of life. The main point of my intial post to you was to point out that our life experience provides the needed guidelines in order for anyone to use in deciding what they wish to do. Do you understand what I mean? For our experience to be relevant to our choices, we must already have some ultimate or basic goal. If your experience tells you that a given action, p, consistently produces pleasure in you, that fact is useless unless you already have some goal where pleasure plays a part (e.g., the pursuit of pleasure). The fact that p produces pleasure cannot tell you whether or not to adopt the pursuit of pleasure as an ultimate or basic goal. My point is that if we were to choose an ultimate or basic goal, then that choice would be arbitrary. The fact is, however, that we generally do not choose our ultimate or basic goals; we simply go with the ones that we naturally have. essence wrote: I liked your initial post because you showed how, in a personal way, ultimate ideas of what one ought to do, are not apparent. I basically agree with this. I also agree with you in that you seem to be claiming there is nothing we "ought to do". Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do you think there is an ought? I see no ought, however, I do see an ultimate goal. This ultimate goal, however, is something that I believe expresses itself uniquely in each human being and it is something that only that human being can define for himself/herself. Trying to uphold or attain an ultimate goal according to the definition or idea of another will, in my experience, result in something that is far less satisfying than what the seekers truly wants. I agree with all this; I cannot see any principle by which to distinguish between basic goals, which we ought to pursue and basic goals, which we ought not to pursue. Given that you believe this, I cannot understand why you are so insistent that it is possible to give reasons why we adopt our basic goals. essence wrote: One other thought, it is possible to go through life with the conscious thought that there is no ultimate goal or aim that one is seeking to achieve. This does not preclude the possiility that such a goal does indeed exist subconsciously, however, but has simply never been recognized and articulated. Anyone can ask themslves why they do any particular thing, for instance, and -assuming they truly wish to understand life- will be able to come up with a reason. By looking overall at the reasons one comes up with for one's actios, furthermore, one will reveal some overall patterns that we could reasonably call "ultimate aims". Do you agree? Yes.

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 07/02/08 - 06:18 AM:	#33
emanswen wrote: ...but I could choose different ones if I wanted to (e.g., pain, unhappiness, bad reputation) and I cannot see any way that I can justify saying that it is "better" for me to choose certain goals over others (e.g., "It is better to pursue pleasure over pain") or that I "ought" to choose certain goals over others. We almost agree I think, but here I have a niggle. I have a natural inclination to eat ice cream, but I have another natural inclination to remain healthy. So it becomes apparent to me at some point that my inclinations conflict. I express this by saying "I desire ice cream, but I ought to abstain from it." I suppose it is possible for me to kid myself into thinking that I do not like ice cream, like the fox who says that the grapes he cannot reach are sour. But I don't really think I can choose not to like ice cream - it is a natural inclination, a part of my nature. Having said that, I can, indirectly, (which means I guess in the future) change my (immediate) appetites. If I do abstain for a long time from ice cream and all sweet foods, I may find eventually that I do lose the appetite for ice cream and eventually find it disgustingly over-sweet. But this is not a simple matter of choosing different goals to the ones I have. People do choose pain sometimes, though it seems a bit 'unnatural' to me. I surmise that they choose pain over a feeling of emptiness which they find to be 'worse'. I think choice always arises from a conflict - the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods. I have to choose between my natural inclinations when they conflict; I do not, and cannot choose my inclinations, any more than I choose to be a human.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

emanswen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 149

Posted 07/02/08 - 04:58 PM:	#34
unenlightened wrote: We almost agree I think, but here I have a niggle. I have a natural inclination to eat ice cream, but I have another natural inclination to remain healthy. So it becomes apparent to me at some point that my inclinations conflict. I express this by saying "I desire ice cream, but I ought to abstain from it." I suppose it is possible for me to kid myself into thinking that I do not like ice cream, like the fox who says that the grapes he cannot reach are sour. But I don't really think I can choose not to like ice cream - it is a natural inclination, a part of my nature. Having said that, I can, indirectly, (which means I guess in the future) change my (immediate) appetites. If I do abstain for a long time from ice cream and all sweet foods, I may find eventually that I do lose the appetite for ice cream and eventually find it disgustingly over-sweet. But this is not a simple matter of choosing different goals to the ones I have. People do choose pain sometimes, though it seems a bit 'unnatural' to me. I surmise that they choose pain over a feeling of emptiness which they find to be 'worse'. I think choice always arises from a conflict - the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods. I have to choose between my natural inclinations when they conflict; I do not, and cannot choose my inclinations, any more than I choose to be a human. The fact that you like something does not logically entail that you choose to make it your (final) goal. You may like experiencing pleasure, but, just for the hell of it, choose to do the opposite of what you like. In that case you would still like pleasure (or ice-cream, or whatever) but pleasure would not be your final goal. The conscious choice between pleasure and abstinence is thus arbitrary (non-rational), although we are naturally inclined to go with pleasure. So unless we make an unusual choice such as I just outlined, we will generally go with pleasure.

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 07/03/08 - 03:21 AM:	#35
I suppose I am talking about psychological entailment rather than logical entailment. The case that comes to mind where I might choose an arbitary goal, 'just for the hell of it' (interesting phrase) is in the context of a game. Play is usually contrasted with real or serious, although people often 'forget' that they are only playing. Can you give another kind of example of choosing to go against one's inclinations that does not involve some other inclination? I can think of many reasons for not eating ice cream, although I like it, cost, health, the environment, etc, but given that I have no objection whatever to doing something, and I want to do it, I cannot see why, or how, I would decide 'for the hell of it' not to do it. I can see doing something for no reason, but to do something like that seems to me to be against reason, and against (human) nature.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

emanswen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 149

Posted 07/03/08 - 04:49 AM:	#36
unenlightened wrote: I suppose I am talking about psychological entailment rather than logical entailment. The case that comes to mind where I might choose an arbitary goal, 'just for the hell of it' (interesting phrase) is in the context of a game. Play is usually contrasted with real or serious, although people often 'forget' that they are only playing. Can you give another kind of example of choosing to go against one's inclinations that does not involve some other inclination? I can think of many reasons for not eating ice cream, although I like it, cost, health, the environment, etc, but given that I have no objection whatever to doing something, and I want to do it, I cannot see why, or how, I would decide 'for the hell of it' not to do it. I can see doing something for no reason, but to do something like that seems to me to be against reason, and against (human) nature. Well I'm not sure that another example will be much more illuminating, but someone could, inspired by this discussion, ask themselves, "Can I really choose to pursue goals which are all totally contrary to my natural inclinations?" and then try it out for themselves; in this case they would be pursuing goals that are totally contrary to the ones, which they are naturally inclined to pursue. I'm not saying that you would ever make such a decision "just for the hell of it," but that you could do so. Even though in a real-life situation it is extremely unlikely that you would deliberately go against your natural inclinations "just for the hell of it," that does not mean that there is some (logical) reason not to. If you can give me a reason to choose certain final goals over others, which is better than "Well, it's just unnatural not to!" then I am interested to hear it.

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 07/03/08 - 06:16 AM:	#37
Nice! Do you think anyone is bothering to follow this? I'd try it myself, except that I would worry that the inspiration would turn out to be a natural inclination to demonstrate my ability to choose. I always seem to be just missing making my point.: to have an inclination to do something is nothing other than to have a reason to do it. The reason may be irrational, made up, ethical, contrarian, or whatever, but it is a reason for doing X and correspondingly a reason for not doing not-X. "That it hurts" is a strong reason for not banging my head against the wall, I am disinclined to do it. I might do it, but I would need an even stronger reason to tip my inclination in that direction. It is possible that someone reading this thread would become so desperate to prove their freedom to choose their inclinations, that they would bang their head against the wall, but I would argue that it would be a foolish reason, because it does not in fact demonstrate anything of the sort. And anyone that desperate could more conveniently convince themselves that unenlightened is talking rubbish.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

essence
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 07/04/08 - 12:23 AM:	#38
Hello emanswen: Thanks for your reply. I think I more clearly see some of your points. When you speak of what is our natural inclination, you are speaking of something at the most fundamental level of human nature. Is this correct? emanswen wrote: Could you give me an example of a reason that could justify choosing one ultimate goal (an end in itself; not pursued for the sake of any other end) over another? I can. One way to do this requires that I know what the true fundamental aspects of my nature are, and are not. It also requires the belief (which is probably justified empirically) that seeking a goal which is in tune with my true nature yeilds better results in my life than seeking one which is not in tune with that nature. Given these two conditions are met, I can say that I choose ultimate goal A over ultimate goal B because ultimate goal A is in tune with my true nature whereas ultimate goal B is not, and goals that are in tune with my true nature get better results in my life. ("Better" here would be defined in terms of the quality of one's life experience.) Another way to do it is this. Let's say I have no idea of what my "true" nature is, but I have the hypothesis that goals in lne with that nature will yeild the most satisfying experience in life and I wish to test this hypothesis. Being a true human scientist, I could say that I am choosing ultimate goal A over ultimate goal B in order to observe the resulting effect in my life experience so as to determine whether or not goal A is in line with my true nature. Or perhaps I believe that my "true" nature is something that is not very grand in a moral sense. I could claim that I choose B over A because I am tired of struggling to be what I am not. There are probably other constructions as well... emanswen wrote: For our experience to be relevant to our choices, we must already have some ultimate or basic goal. If your experience tells you that a given action, p, consistently produces pleasure in you, that fact is useless unless you already have some goal where pleasure plays a part (e.g., the pursuit of pleasure). The fact that p produces pleasure cannot tell you whether or not to adopt the pursuit of pleasure as an ultimate or basic goal. My point is that if we were to choose an ultimate or basic goal, then that choice would be arbitrary. The fact is, however, that we generally do not choose our ultimate or basic goals; we simply go with the ones that we naturally have. I agree with you that whether p produces pleasure or not does not tell you to make pleasure your goal. My point is that, given the inherent ambiguity of life, all that we are left with is our ability to notice actual causes and effects related to our actions and thus base our choices accordingly. My contention is that the pathway to one's true nature is built in naturally and simply requires that one pay attention to one's own experiences and how one feels in order for one to uncover this nature; notice what happens when you pursue y or do x, is this what pleases you? Making grand claims and creating high principles of what one ought to do without the benefit of noticing what is actually ocurring when one does something tends to de-rail this process and ends up with people who believe, for instance, that sexual abstinence is a high ideal and, even though an honsest awareness of their experience might reveal that they are not very happy campers, they hold on to this idea and suffer for it. (This example is not meant to impl that everyone who is abstinent is secretly suffering as I am aware of those who are not.) The idea that we are here to suffer for some higher purpose, in fact, is one of the most rampant ideals spread all over the globe that I believe a truly empirical approach to life would reveal to be the source of a great deal of unneccessary pain and dysfunction in life both at a personal and collective social level. If it is true that all of our true ultimate goals are simply a part of our natures (I think this is your claim -and I agree with this claim), then, ultimately, there would be no choices arbirary or otherwise, our choices would be determined and thus, not truly be choices at all. emanswen wrote: I agree with all this; I cannot see any principle by which to distinguish between basic goals, which we ought to pursue and basic goals, which we ought not to pursue. Given that you believe this, I cannot understand why you are so insistent that it is possible to give reasons why we adopt our basic goals. The reason why I am insistent about giving reasons is that the above construction of a determined morality greatly oversimplfies our reality. The fact is, is that it is not openly apparent to most human beings just what our true nature's are or if there are some universally shared traits: Hence the nature vs. nurture controversy. Clearly, research in the social sciences is showing that many things thought by one group of people to be a part of our natures is not apparent to another group (the issue of monogamy is a good example). I am insistent about reason, therefore, as it is one important way for us to work out what our natures truly are. Additionally, even if we finally reach some consensus about the truth of our nature, such truths will be highly generalized principles and must still be interpreted in some way in order for them to be adequately expressed in the ever changing contexts of individual and colletive human experiences. Reason is one of our most valuable tools here. It is one thing to say, for instance, that human beings are essentially loving, greedy, competitive, cooperative, etc. and something else entirely to apply those principles in any given real life context.

universalanomaly
has returned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Location: Being
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 125

Posted 07/06/08 - 12:13 AM:	#39
The end of all actions is to fulfill desires. I don't see any other plausible end for actions. Of course the best path is to fulfill the most pressing or greatest number of desires but the hard part is figuring out how to balance and fulfill these desires because of course there are other desires than your own and even your own desires conflict. However, I don't think that the causes of desires are of significance on this level of considerations.
Taking evolution as the starting point for morality is no different than claiming the laws of physics are necessarily good because they are the laws of physics. "Any desire is imperative to the extent of its amount; it makes itself valid by the fact that it exists at all." William James

Phil8659
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/06/08 - 06:24 AM:	#40
A wise man once said 'I come so that you can have life and have it more abundantly' The definiton of self, which is consistent with biological function is, put briefly as "We learn by experience." If we develope that further, Perception determines conception, conception determines will. Further development, if we take perception as our teacher, conception as what is learned or the learner, and will as human expression or spirit. we come to The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are One. And we can go back and become more politically correct with a more scientific exppression, That human body system which must acquire from experience those forms of expression which we apply to human action which sustain and promote the life of the body. Every form of expression agrees, we are designed to seek, promote, and sustain the life of the body. The end of all of our expressions, by biologivcal design, when we are expressing what we should be doing, is one, for A = A. In the early stages of evolution of a life system, it cannot, and does not function in accordance with its impending design. Nothing so complex comes to be wholly functional instantly. History is the story of man waking up and some day, he will be what he is to become, the master of his environment such that he becomes life sustaining.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.