Is enlightened self-interest Good?

[aurance]

I'm afraid I have to come down on the side of "There's no such thing as altruistism."

Even if all you get out of it is a "good feeling", then you benefitted from it. About the only act I can even begin to feel is altruistic is giving your life - in a split second decision - to save someone else's. But then it's kind of hard to ask the person who did it how he feels about it

Research suggests that sometimes one does not even get "good feeling" after an altruistic act, in certain circumstances. In those cases, the only thing that could be driving altruism is an inability to deviate from that behavior at that particular moment.

 

[fredramsey]

Sounds almost like you're doing it against your will, which makes it hard to be selflessly motivated, eh?

Research suggests that sometimes one does not even get "good feeling" after an altruistic act, in certain circumstances. In those cases, the only thing that could be driving altruism is an inability to deviate from that behavior at that particular moment.

 

[LRathbun]

Okay, consider this hypothetical scenario: I am a D&D NPC. I sincerely believe that gnomes are an evil and inferior race, and must be eliminated from the face of the campaign setting for their own good and the good of us all. I sacrifice other personal ambitions, laboring only towards the noble cause of gnomish genocide. Sincere motivation to do good in the world? Check. Evil? Double check. Proof by contradiction that D&D morality is action-based, not motive-based. I think. :/

--Impeesa--

Well, I disagree. Devilic (?new word?) genocide would be praised as good, but not Gnomish. Why? Because we see one as good (Gnome) and one as bad (Devil) because of preconceived ideas. But, if we just consider genocide by itself it is just a neutral concept. It can be good or bad, depending upon the motives of the groups or individuals involved.

So, yes the action of the NPC would have a bad outcome (innocent lives are lost), but would the NPC be Evil? IMO no. Misguided and probably stupid, but not evil.

Now we could ask lots of questions about how stupid you have to be to think something like that (all gnomes are evil), and if said NPC has actually convinced himself of something he "deep down" knows is not true, but all other things being equal he would not be evil.

Consider the case of someone who has been cursed to see all gnomes as if they were devils. He would go about killing every gnome he came across. A terrible/bad/evil outcome but his motives were pure (in a D&D world where all devils are EVIL).

I don't think anyone would be quick to say that such a person would be evil, but rather a tragic victim. Why? Because his motives were good at all times. The blame/guilt lies with the one who cursed him. Any other standard would hold people morally responsible for mistakes, based on the outcome. And that, I submit, is just silly.

Now society, on the other hand, must judge by a different standard, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Again all of this is MHO.

 

[fredramsey]

Dude, I hate to be the one to drop the bomb, but...

You just defended Hitler

DOH!

Well, I disagree. Devilic (?new word?) genocide would be praised as good, but not Gnomish. Why? Because we see one as good (Gnome) and one as bad (Devil) because of preconceived ideas. But, if we just consider genocide by itself it is just a neutral concept. It can be good or bad, depending upon the motives of the groups or individuals involved.

So, yes the action of the NPC would have a bad outcome (innocent lives are lost), but would the NPC be Evil? IMO no. Misguided and probably stupid, but not evil.

Now we could ask lots of questions about how stupid you have to be to think something like that (all gnomes are evil), and if said NPC has actually convinced himself of something he "deep down" knows is not true, but all other things being equal he would not be evil.

Consider the case of someone who has been cursed to see all gnomes as if they were devils. He would go about killing every gnome he came across. A terrible/bad/evil outcome but his motives were pure (in a D&D world where all devils are EVIL).

I don't think anyone would be quick to say that such a person would be evil, but rather a tragic victim. Why? Because his motives were good at all times. The blame/guilt lies with the one who cursed him. Any other standard would hold people morally responsible for mistakes, based on the outcome. And that, I submit, is just silly.

Now society, on the other hand, must judge by a different standard, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Again all of this is MHO.

 

[Sejs]

'Enlightened' self-interest isn't good, it's neutral. It's the attitude of "I'll help you, if I will directly, tangibly benefit from doing so. If helping you won't generate any return for me, then you're just out of luck, pal." Warm-fuzzies and good will are not tangible return. Someone acting out of enlightened self-interest would never help someone, sacrifice something of their own for the benefit of another if the Return does not exceed the Output. No net gain for me? Pfft, screw them then.


In general, and admittadly there are buckets of wiggle room in this example as nearly nothing is concrete when it comes to morality, but in general:

Willingness to sacrifice of yourself for the betterment of another, without expectation of recompense is Good. Altruistic self-sacrifice is good.

Primary concern with the well-being of yourself and those you directly care for, whether thru helping others but not to the point of self-sacrifice, or thru predation on others, but not to the point of malice is Neutral. Self-preservation is neutral.

Willingness to sacrifice others for the betterment of yourself, without thought to any actual need you may or may not have regarding the gain you will garner from said sacrifice is Evil. Malicious self-interest is evil.

Killing a badguy to stop his predation of the innocent - good.
Killing something because you need to eat - neutral.
Killing someone just because you can - evil.

Giving your own money to the poor - good.
Stealing because you need to raise a certain ammount of money or they'll shut down the orphanage you run - neutral.
Stealing something just because you want it - evil.

Etc, etc.

 

[Michael Morris]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

EDIT: Ok, just kidding - but calm down guys.

 

[LRathbun]

Dude, I hate to be the one to drop the bomb, but...

You just defended Hitler

DOH!

Um, not quite. But thanks for the red herring.

 

[fredramsey]

Let's check this one more time.

Well, I disagree. Devilic (?new word?) genocide would be praised as good, but not Gnomish. Why? Because we see one as good (Gnome) and one as bad (Devil) because of preconceived ideas. But, if we just consider genocide by itself it is just a neutral concept. It can be good or bad, depending upon the motives of the groups or individuals involved.

Ok, so we are still talking about genocide against Gnomes. Let's continue.

So, yes the action of the NPC would have a bad outcome (innocent lives are lost), but would the NPC be Evil? IMO no. Misguided and probably stupid, but not evil.

So, if someone, oh I don't know, but someone, decided that all the members of a religion were evil (cough-jews-cough), and that ridding the world of them would make it a better place, and this theorectical person attempted just that, by killing millions of them, they are not evil, just stupid. Come again? "Bad outcome", "innocent lives are lost"?

Now we could ask lots of questions about how stupid you have to be to think something like that (all gnomes are evil), and if said NPC has actually convinced himself of something he "deep down" knows is not true, but all other things being equal he would not be evil.

I rest my case. Sorry, it may not have been intended that way, but calling genocide a stupid mistake but not evil, is a bit of a stretch.

Consider the case of someone who has been cursed to see all gnomes as if they were devils. He would go about killing every gnome he came across. A terrible/bad/evil outcome but his motives were pure (in a D&D world where all devils are EVIL).

I don't think anyone would be quick to say that such a person would be evil, but rather a tragic victim. Why? Because his motives were good at all times. The blame/guilt lies with the one who cursed him. Any other standard would hold people morally responsible for mistakes, based on the outcome. And that, I submit, is just silly.

Now society, on the other hand, must judge by a different standard, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Again all of this is MHO.

 

[LRathbun]

I'm afraid I have to come down on the side of "There's no such thing as [altruism]."

Well, at the risk of being too blunt for the written word, that's only because you either don't understand the definition of the word (which has nothing to do with how I feel about what I just did for someone else) or you have never perpetrated an altruistic action.

I have, and do, act altruistically.

Dictionary.com
altruism - Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the
interests of others; brotherly kindness;

 

[fredramsey]

Well, at the risk of being too blunt for the written word, that's only because you either don't understand the definition of the word (which has nothing to do with how I feel about what I just did for someone else) or you have never perpetrated an altruistic action.

I have, and do, act altruistically.

Dictionary.com
altruism - Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the
interests of others; brotherly kindness;

Bet those poor dead gnomes don't think so

Whatever you think, but ask most people what it means, it usually means unselfish to the extreme, to the extent that you get NOTHING out of it. But I'm glad you and Mother Teresa are around; you certainly make the world a better place. Unless you're a gnome.