[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
RE: My Housemate
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
I disagree that the "selfishness" factor doesn't get us far. To be clear, I
was trying to make the point that true altruism does not exist.
What we often forget in philosophical discussions is that humans are just
another species of animal with behavioral patterns. These patterns are in
general learned. Discussions about human behaviour are not terribly
philosophically enlightening, however philosophy does allow us to unravel
and examine human behaviour, and I was applauding philosophy for its help in
establishing that this is a behavioural issue rather than a philosophical
one. Good scammers understand human behaviour. A good scammer could even
justify their action by saying that they are giving members of the public
the opportunity to feel good about themselves. I guess your friend should
therefore always try to believe that they are providing genuine help,
thereby satisfying everyone's needs. If she entertained thoughts about being
scammed, then maybe she had been tricked by a poor scammer (or by a
genuinely needy person with poor interpersonal skills).
Darwin explained so much .......
Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com] On Behalf Of Nick Jones
Sent: 14 October 2006 12:43
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: Re: My Housemate
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
(Ooh look, one of my rare BUPS contributions....)
Agreed - to say that all behaviour is selfish is not to get us very far.
For 'selfish' to mean anything, it must be possible to contrast it with
potential 'non-selfish' behaviour. As far as Andrew's example is
concerned (Hi Andrew!), I'm afraid this is a very common scam.
Seems to me that your housemate's reaction may have been along these lines:
* Helping people is good;
* It may be that I get scammed as a result;
* Still, maybe I won't;
* I can't tell;
* Either way, someone is asking me for money because they seem to be
in need, and my duty is then to give them money.
* If I am scammed, shame on them, but I am just going to do what I
believe my duty to be
This seems to me to be a coherent response: I guess where we are
unsettled by it, it is because we fear that it might encourage scamming.
I probably would not give money in these circs because I have come
across this so many times, and feel no obligation to give in cases where
someone intends to deceive me. If I did so, it would be in the
expectation of never seeing my money again - so I would both help and
distrust someone!
Strikes me that your housemate's response is pretty Kantian: do your
duty, and let other people worry about their response to this.
best
Nick
djf500@york.ac.uk wrote:
> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
> BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
> I have lots of deadlines, so this will be my only contribution:
>
> Bernie suggests the apparent altruism under investigation might be
> explained by selfishness. I'm not quite sure of his position, but if
> in some way *everything* that we do is in some way selfish (even via
> our dna) then i'm not sure how meaningful it is to apply this to a
> particular case. I'm not saying that this is what Bernie is saying,
> but perhaps care is needed to identify a non-general selfishness. Of
> course, nothing I have said precludes saying that applying
> general-selfishness (i.e. an everpresent motive) to a particular case
> *is* meaningless - but it seems to be an possibility that needs
> addressing.
>
>
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the
> mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
>
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml