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

Thomistic
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 29, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 778

Posted 07/06/08 - 02:47 PM:	#41
emanswen wrote: Hello, Do you think there is some end, which I ought to try to bring about by my actions; some goal at which all of my actions ought to aim? Should I try to bring about maximum personal happiness (egoism), maximum total human happiness (utilitarianism), or something else. . . ? Do you think there is such an end/goal? Why/why not? I am also interested in hearing the famous answers to this question and what you think of them. Thanks Aristotle would say the motivation of all your actions is for happiness. The question is, how is this possible when faced with the reality of death in the future or near present? Eitherway, Aristotle was not speaking of a temporal happiness, but an immaterial one...is that even possible? Many say no...few say yes...
"Truth Being and Beauty are all the same, but differ in the mind," - Aquinas "You cannot put a price on awesomeness" - Kung Fu Panda

emanswen
Graduate

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

Posted 07/06/08 - 09:29 PM:	#42
unenlightened wrote: 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. I agree that "because I am naturally inclined to do so" is a reason for my pursuing a particular goal in a causal or descriptive sense. But I still don't think that it is a logical reason for pursuing a goal, given that I am naturally inclined, not naturally obligated. Your argument seems to rely on the premise: 1. If, overall, the strongest natural inclination of a person, S, is to pursue goal, G, then S must pursue G. If 1 were true, then "because I am naturally inclined to do so" would indeed be a valid logical reason for S to pursue G. But I'm not sure that 1 is true, and I guess that is where we differ. I think that if, overall, my strongest natural inclination is to pursue pleasure, I can still choose to devote the rest of my life to the pursuit of pain. I think you would say that this is impossible and that in this case, overall, my strongest natural inclination is in fact not to pursue pleasure, but some other goal, such as to demonstrate my ability to choose, or something else. I may be wrong about 1 and I guess a discussion about it would be a discussion about freedom vs. determinism; determinism would answer the question of how to choose your final goals; you do not really choose your final goals; nature gives them to you. Freedom, on the other hand, would not provide an answer to the question and would make the adoption of one goal over another appear arbitrary.

emanswen
Graduate

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

Posted 07/06/08 - 09:58 PM:	#43
essence wrote: 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? When I speak of a "natural inclination" I mean simply, something to which we naturally tend. essence wrote: 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... If you adopt a goal, G, because it has "better results"; because it yields higher "quality of life experience," then G is not your "ultimate goal"; "quality of life experience" (however you may define that) is. G is just a means to an end. That for which you are ultimately striving is "quality of life experience." My question is, why do you strive for "quality life experience?" and I don't think an answer can be given beyond, "I just naturally do."

emanswen
Graduate

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

Posted 07/06/08 - 10:04 PM:	#44
Thomistic wrote: Aristotle would say the motivation of all your actions is for happiness. The question is, how is this possible when faced with the reality of death in the future or near present? Why would knowledge of the reality of one's own death make happiness impossible? Everyone knows they are going to die, but many people are happy nonetheless.

Thomistic
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 29, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 778

Posted 07/07/08 - 05:07 PM:	#45
emanswen wrote: Why would knowledge of the reality of one's own death make happiness impossible? Everyone knows they are going to die, but many people are happy nonetheless. Because they will lose happiness at death, and because happiness is a good to which they will be deprived it has become that which is corruptible and therefore will die as well. Aristotle also said that if a thing has potential, it is not perfect in totality since it is deprived of actuality. To be perfectly actual is to be perfectly happy. If we are perfectly happy (the ultimate end of the human person) it means that we no longer have potential, simply because we need none (we have everything we could possibly want. So motion would become impossible, (motion from potency to actuality) thereby meaning that we would not search or want for anything, b/c we would possess that which satisfies us fully. Yet even elderly people, search and continue to find things to make them happy in the moment, only therefore pointing to their unfulfilled desire to be complete and wholesome. When we stop seeking its either because we give up, or because we are fulfilled. But no one ever stops searching, even he people who give up do so out of some unreasonable attempt to find peace and happiness. Aristotle believed that death was a terrible thing, especially in De Anima when he argued that the soul is immortal (CONTROVERSY!). He explained that the soul would be eternally frustrated since it is meant to be united to a body, to actualize complete and incorruptible happiness, to which all human beings seek, perhaps not existentially but ontologically. And death seems to make that impossible, which is why Aristotle did not want to believe the soul was immortal. This is one of the reasons Aquinas took a liking to Aristotle, because if any philosopher ever pointed to the need for a resurrection of the body, it was Aristotle.
"Truth Being and Beauty are all the same, but differ in the mind," - Aquinas "You cannot put a price on awesomeness" - Kung Fu Panda

essence
Aspirant

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

Posted 07/10/08 - 11:44 PM:	#46
Hi emanswen: Thanks again for your reply. You have been helping me to more clearly articulate my thoughts and I have benefited from this exchange of ideas with you emanswen wrote: If you adopt a goal, G, because it has "better results"; because it yields higher "quality of life experience," then G is not your "ultimate goal"; "quality of life experience" (however you may define that) is. G is just a means to an end. That for which you are ultimately striving is "quality of life experience." Very good. This is correct. It seems you have helped me to get a clearer expression of what my answer to the original question would be! My intent in the previous post, however, was to highlight how reason can be a part of the whole process. This seems to be one area where we diverge in our conceptions on this topic. You have described our choices as "arbitrary" and according to our "nature". I agree with you about the nature part, but do not concur with the arbitrary part. Is nature arbitrary? This is an important question. How we answer this question, in my view, has profound implications with how we will thus view our world and our experiences in it. I suspect that though we are both using the term "nature", what we each imagine this to be is different. For me, our nature, is something universally shared among all human beings that, though expressed in an infinite variety of ways, is essentially the same for all of us. My guess is that you see "nature" as something that differs between different people and that this is the reason why you see our nature, and thus our "choices" as arbitrary (it's the luck of the cards). Is this correct? If not, then can you explain why you see no place for reason and why you think it is arbitrary? Additionally, given that we actually do have a nature, then I would agree that one's ultimate goal is not a choice, but is determined by that nature. Something determined by nature, however, is not arbitrary in view. But this is because I see nature as having a purpose. Could it be that you see life as "just happening" for no apparent reason? Assuming that we agree that ultimate choices are determined by nature (whether we see this determination from our given persepectives as having some purpose or no purpose) my argument for reason from this context is twofold. Firstly, we must use reason to determine what our nature truly is. Secondly, once we have determined what our nature is, we then use reason to make choices and decisions about how we seek to express that nature in our unique context. Do you see a value for reason here? emanswen wrote: My question is, why do you strive for "quality life experience?" and I don't think an answer can be given beyond, "I just naturally do." This is a good question with (and this is not meant to be offensive) a particularly poor answer, "I just naturally do." Generally speaking, any explanation for some phenomenon which says it "just is" is more a statement of our lack of an answer that that an answer does not exist. It is limiting and self defeating and goes against the very idea of a reasoned scientific approach to understanding life and reality. Imagine if doctors, back when soldiers were dying from infections as a result of surgery on the battlefield kept such a thought as, "some soldiers just get infections." In the case of ethics, furthermore, I feel that we already have a lot to go on in seeking an answer. So, I would like to share with you my thoughts on what it could be and look forward to your response (and maybe even a clarification of my reasoning if I'm lucky). I'm going to use analogy. Imagine a man putting his hand into a fire and experiencing the acute pain of a burn. Now does this man claim that it is just his nature not to put his hand in fire, or would he not claim that he does not put his hand in fire because fire burns, is painful, and renders his hand useless for the purpose to which it is obviously intended (to grasp and hold objects, to caress a loved one, etc..)? If it were just is nature, he would never have approached the fire. So what this example reveals is a mechanism through experience with our environment that reveals our nature and, in this case we can say that it is our nature to preserve the use of our hand and that it is the nature of the body to indicate pain whenever we do a thing with a that part of the body that can render it useless. What I have chosen to believe is that a similar mechanism exists in the realm of thought and feeling in terms of ethics. That part of ourselves which exists in this level of reality (call it our mind, our consciousness, our essence, our spirit...) also has a purpose and a use and, just like with the body, when it encounters things that can thwart that purpose, it experiences pain. The pain in this case, however, is emotional pain. I'll say a little more... As mentioned in previous posts, context is everything. Imagine a weak man on this planet who feels a sense of inferiority to other stronger men and perhaps has decided to take up weight lifting in an effort to remedy what he sees as a deficiency in himself. Now imagine this same man suddenly finds himself on another planet which has much less gravity than our own. Suddenly this man experiences himself as superstrong and, in comparison to the people of this world, he is superstrong. However, the people in this other planet are highly intelligent. Now instead of feeling weak, this man, who had been seen as quite intelligent before, now perceives a lack of intelligence in himself... This imaginary story is intended to highlight the significance of context. What I have chosen to believe is that the "real" world which we all now currently share is one in which we have been raised in a context such that everyone around us exists with their ethical hands in fire. The resulting pain from this, however, is so commonplace that it is claimed to be a part of our very natures... So what is our nature, how do we define it, and on what basis may we make any claims to having identified it? Edited by essence on 07/10/08 - 11:50 PM

emanswen
Graduate

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

Posted 07/11/08 - 05:15 AM:	#47
essence wrote: Hi emanswen: Thanks again for your reply. You have been helping me to more clearly articulate my thoughts and I have benefited from this exchange of ideas with you Very good. This is correct. It seems you have helped me to get a clearer expression of what my answer to the original question would be! My intent in the previous post, however, was to highlight how reason can be a part of the whole process. This seems to be one area where we diverge in our conceptions on this topic. You have described our choices as "arbitrary" and according to our "nature". I agree with you about the nature part, but do not concur with the arbitrary part. Is nature arbitrary? This is an important question. How we answer this question, in my view, has profound implications with how we will thus view our world and our experiences in it. I suspect that though we are both using the term "nature", what we each imagine this to be is different. For me, our nature, is something universally shared among all human beings that, though expressed in an infinite variety of ways, is essentially the same for all of us. My guess is that you see "nature" as something that differs between different people and that this is the reason why you see our nature, and thus our "choices" as arbitrary (it's the luck of the cards). Is this correct? If not, then can you explain why you see no place for reason and why you think it is arbitrary? Additionally, given that we actually do have a nature, then I would agree that one's ultimate goal is not a choice, but is determined by that nature. Something determined by nature, however, is not arbitrary in view. But this is because I see nature as having a purpose. Could it be that you see life as "just happening" for no apparent reason? Assuming that we agree that ultimate choices are determined by nature (whether we see this determination from our given persepectives as having some purpose or no purpose) my argument for reason from this context is twofold. Firstly, we must use reason to determine what our nature truly is. Secondly, once we have determined what our nature is, we then use reason to make choices and decisions about how we seek to express that nature in our unique context. Do you see a value for reason here? We all naturally inclined to pursue certain goals. It seems that many of us are naturally inclined to pursue the same goals, but that is not really important in this discussion. If the final goals that we pursue are "naturally" predetermined then we do not choose our final goals. In this case our choice of final goal would not be arbitrary, because there would be no choice of final goal. If we can choose between our final goals however, then the choice is arbitrary as far as I can see. Reason certainly can help us in trying to discover what our final goals are at the moment and in trying to realise our final goals, but I cannot see how it could help us to choose which final goals to pursue. essence wrote: This is a good question with (and this is not meant to be offensive) a particularly poor answer, "I just naturally do." Generally speaking, any explanation for some phenomenon which says it "just is" is more a statement of our lack of an answer that that an answer does not exist. It is limiting and self defeating and goes against the very idea of a reasoned scientific approach to understanding life and reality. Imagine if doctors, back when soldiers were dying from infections as a result of surgery on the battlefield kept such a thought as, "some soldiers just get infections." As far as I can see, you are giving an answer that is not much different to mine: "Why do you choose to pursue G as your final goal?", "Well, because 'nature' has determined that my final goal be G." That is not much different to saying, "Well, I just do"; it does not say anything interesting about your reasons for choosing to pursue G.

essence
Aspirant

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

Posted 07/11/08 - 07:01 AM:	#48
emanswen wrote: As far as I can see, you are giving an answer that is not much different to mine: "Why do you choose to pursue G as your final goal?", "Well, because 'nature' has determined that my final goal be G." That is not much different to saying, "Well, I just do"; it does not say anything interesting about your reasons for choosing to pursue G. Well, as I hinted at in my previous post, it all depends on what you decide nature is. If one sees nature as having no purpose, then it would be the same as saying, "it just is". However, if one sees nature as having a particular purpose, it allows one to continue to understand more; the trail is not lost. We can next examine nature's purpose and attempt to understand why nature is the way it is. Answers to these questions will bring us to other areas about the nature of life. Admittedly, there soon comes a point at which further questioning loses it's value as, for practial purpose in this reality, nothing more is needed. The question of human purpose, however, is a pivotal choice in the creation and experience of one's reality. In other words, to answer this question one way opens the door to one set of experiences and closes the doors to many many others. To answer it another way opens many doors, yet closes very few. But most people don't see themselves as creating their reality. They see themselves as being at the whim of forces greater than themselves and either beyond their understanding or without there being anything to understand. One path can empower the self. Another path can leave the self powerless. Empowerment feels one way. Disempowerment feels anothers way. Which do you chose? To be more specific, I will say that I believe it is our nature to express and experience unconditonal love and that it is the nature of the created universe to provide a context in which that experience may take place. Now without getting into how I define "unconditional love", as this would take us off topic, it is fair to say that this perspective is saying more than the following: The world just happened for no conceivable purpose and I am a certain way for no conceivable reason. In one case we have the concept of unconditional love to work with, we have the opportunity for expression and experience, and we have a world created for us to achieve these purposes. This is a lot more to go on than in the second case and, consequently, will yield more positive outcomes. Of course people can -and do- argue to the edge of reason about what can or can't be proven, is or isn't true. In the end, none of that matters. Neither perspective can now be logically proven, though most people like to imagine they have the superior position. What we do know, however, is that all of us have taken a stance according to whatever reasons on each of these issues be it consciously or otherwise. What we can[i]do, furthermore, is notice the quality of our experience as we take a side. This I have done and that is why I have chosen the belief expressed above. Believing in a pointless universe takes a huge number of highly desireable experiences off the menu. I enjoy these experiences and, thus, I no loner emrace such a belief -though I used to. This is why I keep emphasizing the importance of looking at our experience. Let life tell us what is true by using the tools of observation rather than thinking thoughts based on unproveable premises and then living life according to our ultimately unfounded conclusions. Notice that all of the ultimate questions are unproveable by logic, yet that the results of having them as a position are revealed through our lives lived when we believe any given one of them. Then choose the ones that give us the experiences we most desire. Speaking in total abstraction, furthermore, obscures reality. As mentioned, how any individual chooses to define and express "G" is as varied as there are individuals seeking its expression. "G" as a final goal is a formless abstraction, yet it appears that you are seeing it as the same thing in the case of all individuals which is not only discouraging, but rather depressing as a thought. Am I misunderstanding you? What I am saying is that all that is really determined is some innate desire of ultimate experience. How that ultimate experience is conceived of and expressed is without limitation. In order to understand what the greatest quality of experience for any one person would be, it would be necessary to place one's consciousness into the context in which that individual experiences reality. No two will be exactly alike. One way to understand this is to let G be "love of one's chldren". Each parent loves a child in a particular way, yet each love is unique and different. Love of children is the formless abstraction. How that love is actually expressed and experienced in reality is the particular form that the formless takes in a particular context. Finally, when we know what any given individual's conception of G is, we then know many interesting things about that individual's reasons for pursuing it. If, however, we assume that every individual conceives of the same "G", then, of course, that would not be very interesting or enlightening. Do you believe that every individual will conceive of "G" in the same way?

emanswen
Graduate

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

Posted 07/11/08 - 04:29 PM:	#49
I would like to clarify exactly what I am asking; I am asking: "Do we choose our final goals and, if so, why should we choose final goal A over final goal B?". You have answered this question by asserting that we do not choose our final goals - they are predetermined - but then you seem to give a lengthy answer to the question: "Why do we have the final goals that we do have"; which is an interesting question, but not the one, for which I am seeking an answer in this thread. Incidentally, I have never said that everybody has the same final goal; when I use "G", I am simply referring to a person's final goal, whatever it may be (and it may be different for different people).

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 588

Posted 07/11/08 - 09:41 PM:	#50
Exciting conversation. Mind if I speak my 2cents? Do we choose our final goals and, if so, why should we choose final goal A over final goal B? No, we do not choose our final goals if good is our final goal and what is good is unconditionally good for everyone. Of course, we have free will, and so one may avoid the good or pursue some subordinate path. Why do we have the final goals that we do have This does hinge on the conception of goal. Is it the specific goal, or is it a goal contrasted by a lack of a goal? I deal in the latter. I couldn't tell you if psychologists were worse than crane operators... We hardly have a system of value for such criteria. Utilitarianism compares the goodness- but this is rather dubious. Bottom up metrics sucks in moral cases. A goal is the end to a function. I'll let someone else get into the semantics of human purpose. Human purpose is rather vague to me. Maybe someone else has criteria for self-actualization... Or what of 'benefit?' What are the criteria for helping others? Crazy Talk, I swear.
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.