What is the common good?

The question for the next in-class debate/essay (students get to choose) in my political science class is "Agree or disagree: the Founding Fathers were motivated by self-interest, not the common good."

It's clear to me that this question assumes one of these is good and the other bad. Also important is that 'self-interest' in this case probably mostly refers to the financial gain the founders stood to earn from independence and from centralizing power. As my professor explained in class, those most upset by British rule and 'anarchic' trading conditions, especially between states under the Articles of Confederation, were the rich, the merchants and traders who had more money moving around.

Regardless, my question is....is there such a desire motivated by helping the 'common good'? I usually interpret action aimed at benefiting masses of people to be self-interested anyway. But is there any kind of real, valid desire that's totally unselfish? What does it mean, is it good, etc etc.

I think that is my question, and I'm sorry if it doesn't make quite enough sense. I only have a loose, intuitive grasp of what I mean, as usual. I will clarify or write more if you clever RoRers need it.

thanks,
Michael

Post 1

Friday, September 7, 2007 - 3:06am

The question for the next in-class debate/essay (students get to choose) in my political science class is "Agree or disagree: the Founding Fathers were motivated by self-interest, not the common good."

Don't you just love it when "educators" set up false dichotomies like this? Promoting self interest is promoting the common good. These two ideas are not at odds with one another. If his goal is to show that they are at odds, he'll have to do better than try to pull one over like this.

I usually interpret action aimed at benefiting masses of people to be self-interested anyway. But is there any kind of real, valid desire that's totally unselfish? What does it mean, is it good, etc etc.

I don't think it's possible to be motivated to do anything that doesn't benefit the actor in some way. "Totally unselfish" is a myth, in my book. It may be possible for ghosts, but not for living, thinking, human beings.

Of course the Founders were thinking of their own benefit! Duh! What the question leaves out is the idea that all would have the same opportunities as the Founders. The Bill of Rights doesn't name names. If it did name names, the implied premise of the question would have some merit.

Is this a college or highschool class?

Post 2

Friday, September 7, 2007 - 4:52am

Every man is a creature of need. That alone makes it impossible for a man to do something that he does not perceive as in his own BEST interest.
-
This is blurred by the fact that man calculates dangers and possiblities that he refuses to make explicit. This is nothing less then a lie. The man who says "I do this because of this and this reason, and therefore I am altruistic" is hiding facts he KNOWS. The mystic who proposes an altruistic attitude secretly bears in mind that he will benefit the most by doing so, i.e. because he will be one of the rulers. Rand said about defenders of the State: people who say that either are the State or they want to become the State.
-
A man who refuses to confirm - after short and easy explanation - that everything cannot be but selfish is a LIAR.

Post 3

Friday, September 7, 2007 - 11:44am

to clarify--

"probably mostly refers to the financial gain" should have read "was intended to refer to the financial gain".

So the question was not intended to refer to -actual- self-interest. It was not placing self-interest /as such/ as opposed to the common good, but suggesting that the profit the founders stood to earn from centralizing power compromised a more objective, more just Constitution, or was a stronger motivation in the Constitution's creation than was the 'common good'; my professor just used the wrong term, making an all-too common error. The question is not a purposeful indictment of self-interest in itself, but the fact that the term is misused once again is unfortunate.

I recycle, when it is very convenient for me, because I tend to file away all kinds of papers and thus have so much to throw away when I clean my room top to bottom. I like how popular open-source software is. We spend our time and mental energy writing articles to appear online at RoR for free, to enlighten the teeming millions.....dozens....few who read them. These are a few examples of objectivist behavior that may appear very altruistic but just aren't. My question is whether there are any behaviors -at all- that are in fact as altruistic as they seem, whether 'total unselfishness' is indeed a myth.

It's poli sci 101 at Vanderbilt University, intended for freshman and sophomores.

Post 4

Friday, September 7, 2007 - 11:26pm

Jan van Kollenburg wrote, "A man who refuses to confirm - after short and easy explanation - that everything cannot be but selfish is a LIAR."

And Mike Yarbrough asked (rhetorically?):" My question is whether there are any behaviors -at all- that are in fact as altruistic as they seem, whether 'total unselfishness' is indeed a myth."

Have you guys read "Isn't Everyone Selfish" by Nathaniel Branden in The Virtue of Selfishness? If not, it's worth reading. The official Objectivist position on the view that everyone is selfish -- often referred to as "psychological egoism" -- is that it is a myth. Objectivists are ethical egoists, not psychological egoists. They believe that everyone should act selfishly, not that everyone does act selfishly.

The fact is that ethical egoism would make no sense if people couldn't help being selfish. Why prescribe selfish conduct, if people can't avoid acting selfishly? Although it is certainly true that everyone does what he or she wants to do in the sense of being motivated to do it, this does not mean that everyone is selfish, since people can be motivated to sacrifice their interest for the sake of others if they've accepted the altruist morality. You could say that they have an "interest" in acting self-sacrificially insofar as they believe it is their moral duty, but that is not the sense in which Objectivism uses the term "interest" when they advocate self-interest. What they mean by "self-interested actions" is actions taken primarily for the sake of one's own happiness rather than for the sake of someone else's happiness.

Suppose, for example, that I believe it is my moral duty to take care of my ailing grandmother, even if it means sacrificing my career, my marriage, my social life and every thing else that makes my life worth living and furthers my happiness. If I do it simply because I believe it is my moral duty, then I am acting altruistically, according to the Objectivist ethics, because I am sacrificing my own happiness for the sake of others. This does not mean that I don't "want" to do it in the sense of being motivated to do it, but it does mean that I am not doing what I recognize to be in my self-interest.

- Bill

Post 5

Saturday, September 8, 2007 - 6:54am

Though it might be possible for an indestructible robot to be wholly-unselfishly motivated to act (fully other-regarding; and totally self-disregarding) it is not possible for a human being to be so wholly motivated. Though (altruistic) actions can be totally self-disregarding (and hence, totally self-destructive), motivations cannot ever be so; because of internal contradiction stemming from what it is that motivation is.

For better understanding, take special note of Teresa's allusion to a ghost-morality. Why would she say something like that? What is different about ghosts which would allow for a totally other-regarding motivation -- one impossible for conditionally-happy, corporeal beings?

Ed
[happiness is not an optional motive]

Post 6

Saturday, September 8, 2007 - 11:25pm

Ed,

The point I was making is encapsulated by the following paragraph from Branden's article, "Isn't Everyone Selfish"?

"Obviously, in order to act, one has to be moved by some personal motive; one has to "want," in some sense, to perform the action. The issue of an action's selfishness or unselfishness depends, not on whether or not one wants to perform it, but on why one wants to perform it. By what standard was the action chosen? To achieve what goal?"

Do you disagree with this?

- Bill

Post 7

Sunday, September 9, 2007 - 10:17am

Bill,

I think we are very close to being on the same page here. Our potential agreement/disagreement stems from a potentially-equivocative subject-switch between our ...

(1) simple (independently-observable) actions

... and our ...

(2) complex (independently-unobservable, due to "privileged access") motivations for actions

So, when you say that ...

The official Objectivist position on the view that everyone is selfish -- often referred to as "psychological egoism" -- is that it is a myth.

... then I'd qualify the statement to refer solely to actions, and not to motivations. Everyone is 'psychologically egoistic' regarding motivations. The opposite would mean to be a robot obeying a dictaphone (which is absurd). But it is still true that not everyone is 'psychologically egoistic' regarding their actions, and Objectivism-Proper not only agrees with this, but finds its most stalwart opposition in the real existence of that aspect of reality. Indeed, Objectivists understand perhaps better than all others do, that human actions aren't -- by default -- egoistic.

;-)

So, in regard to the excellent quote from Branden ...

"Obviously, in order to act, one has to be moved by some personal motive; one has to "want," in some sense, to perform the action. The issue of an action's selfishness or unselfishness depends, not on whether or not one wants to perform it, but on why one wants to perform it. ..."

I couldn't agree more.

Ed

Post 8

Monday, September 10, 2007 - 5:53am

Both ethical and psyhological egoism are de facto inescapable. Mystics are egoists too, but they base their choices and preferences on lies. Mostly they will lie willfully - to others - expecting to benefit thereby personally. They cannot lie to themselves though, so they are blind to the truth that lies will not benefit you.

No matter how unrational someones action may look, they WANT it - as was stated in earlier posts here - which shows that they are NOT altruistic. They are only liars.
(Edited by Jan van Kollenburg on 9/10, 5:55am)

Post 9

Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:08pm

Volition is not Virtue

Jan, you can keep insisting, louder and louder, that since all men do what they want, what they do is in their self interest. But you are confusing volition with objective self interest, the fact of choice with the choice of value. Men do what they choose to do - yes, no need to scream. What it is that they choose to do may not be in the interest of their own lives, ask anyone in AA. If it were true that what men do is always in their interest as they see it, then non-hypocritical Objectivists would automatically be angels. No Objectivist who is not insane believes that simply knowing and believing in his own rational self-interest automatically makes him a virtuous being - unless he is a hypocrite.

Ted Keer

Post 10

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 12:10am

These posts have been helpful, especially in describing the differences between psychological and ethical egoism, and between motivations and actions as William and Ed have pointed out. Thanks very much for that.

Finally, I typed a lot of questions below, but I think I figured them all out; I just needed to think more and writing about them helped. There's a tiny personal motivation in each of the actions, and this is enough to prompt me to do it. Funny that all these actions can basically be called 'manners,' and that there's such a huge emphasis on them.

I don't think I need any comment on them.....but I'll include what I wrote anyway, because it might be interesting-----

________________________
But, I am not yet 100% convinced that an action can never be totally other-motivated. For instance, I gave directions to a stranger today. In the dining hall where I eat, it is customary for students to put away their own trays and plates; I'm sure there is no enforced rule, but I do it anyway. I flush before I leave public restrooms. I hold open doors for concomitant passagewayfarers. Is the motivation for these behaviors just the personal consideration for the social ostracism I'd suffer if I didn't do them? (in which case I'd be considered a total asshole). If not, and since I was alone in all these situations, is the initial assertion not quite true? If I exhibit such behaviors that are possibly other-directed, then are there other behaviors, that are seen in, say, socialists, that are certainly and totally other-motivated?

These situations, these observations or products of introspection and imagination are what I'm after. I apologize if this sounds like I'm trying to punch holes in our theories of selfishness and egoism, but if I want to perform dazzlingly for this debate, I want to be quite, quite sure.

**Oh, here's another. I refrained from tossing coins in the landscaped pond/scenery for the eagles at the zoo. There was a sign said that I shouldn't because it diminished the water quality in ways that ruined the experience for other zoo-goers and for the animals. But what should I care about them? Aren't my fun from tossing coins, and the well-being of some engineer who invents a system to filter water so people can throw coins in it more important than the zoo administration's reluctance to find a better solution? And Lo, hundreds of coins littered the bottom of the pond.

Finally--there were two elevators next to each other in my residence hall of last year. From all floors, the two buttons on each floor worked to summon only one elevator--so if you pressed both to exit the building, you were sure to get the lift nearer to your floor, but then you don't need two elevators, and so you'd without fail make students on lower floors wait for your elevator to descend to theirs. This was only a subtle imperfection in how the elevators were summoned, and was felt only in minor ways during the rush a few minutes before each class. but I usually pressed only one button, while some did not............
________________________

I think I'm prepared enough for this debate now.

Thanks,
Michael

Post 11

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 9:54am

In Post #7, Ed wrote,

Everyone is 'psychologically egoistic' regarding motivations. The opposite would mean to be a robot obeying a dictaphone (which is absurd).
As I understand it, a motivation is the reason that a person has for choosing an action. Are you saying that it's impossible for a person to choose his actions for altruistic or self-sacrificial reasons?
But it is still true that not everyone is 'psychologically egoistic' regarding their actions . . .

I don't understand the distinction you're making between motivations and actions in this context. Psychological egoism means the view that everyone chooses his actions from an egoistic motivation. So how could a person be a psychological egoist in regard to his motivation but not in regard to his actions?

Then you say,

and Objectivism-Proper not only agrees with this,
No, it doesn't!
but finds its most stalwart opposition in the real existence of that aspect of reality. Indeed, Objectivists understand perhaps better than all others do, that human actions aren't -- by default -- egoistic.

Human actions are not by default egoistic, because people are not always motivated by egoistic considerations.

So, in regard to the excellent quote from Branden ...
"Obviously, in order to act, one has to be moved by some personal motive; one has to "want," in some sense, to perform the action. The issue of an action's selfishness or unselfishness depends, not on whether or not one wants to perform it, but on why one wants to perform it."
... I couldn't agree more.

What?? Branden is saying precisely the opposite of what you're saying. He's saying that people's actions not always selfish, because they're not always motivated by selfish considerations or selfish goals. According to Objectivism, choosing one's actions for the sake of unselfish goals is precisely what the morality of altruism entails, and altruism is alive and well in the current culture.

- Bill

Post 12

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 2:58pm

Ted @ post 9 (Volition is not Virtue)
You are right, I had not thought it through enough. And I will try to not "scream". :o)

Post 13

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 3:18pm

Jan, I cannot read what it says on your avatar other than "Objectivist Coffee." Can you let us know?

Ted

Post 14

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 5:48pm

It says: Celebrating the joyous delight of rational self interest. One cup at a time.

I liked it because of the "every day life application" it hints at. I regard Objectivism as relevant for every day life.

Got ir from http://graniteledgecoffee.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/page5.html
(Edited by Jan van Kollenburg on 9/11, 5:49pm)

Post 15

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 6:25pm

Bill,

As I understand it, a motivation is the reason that a person has for choosing an action. Are you saying that it's impossible for a person to choose his actions for altruistic or self-sacrificial reasons?

I'm making a distinction between doing and desire. I'm saying it's impossible for someone to be motivated by a desire that they do not personally have. Desires are personal, they're subjective; they're true of you and no one else. Your personal desires provide the backgound against which your personal motivations (to action) spring up. Actions are different. Your personal desires don't, in the same way, limit the potential actions you may take -- as they limit the potential motivations you may have. The wild-card here is your intellect.

Another way to say this is that your desires are inherent to you, but your action-choices aren't inherent to you in that same manner. Sometimes your choice of action is wrong, even for your own concept of your own best interest, because of an inappropriate level of intellectuality which you had mixed-in with your desire (in order to create a choice). It's possible to act against desire, it's not possible to desire against desire.

While we can say that you always do what you think is best for you to do (even if it isn't), we can't say that you always desire what you think is best for you to desire -- you just desire exactly what you desire**. Desires are a static fingerprint of your growing soul, actions aren't. Actions are a created painting, not a thumbprint. Your specific desires form the general seed-bed for your potential motivations. Working with your desires, your intellect will try to "add value" during choice-deliberation -- and will often err in this crucial step.

The exercise of your intellect -- not the unique constellation of your personal desires -- is what it is that allows you to be a self-made soul.

Psychological egoism means the view that everyone chooses his actions from an egoistic motivation.

I interpret that to mean that folks choose actions against a background of personal desires (which, when actively mixed with thought, provide motivations) -- and that's true.

Human actions are not by default egoistic, because people are not always motivated by egoistic considerations.

But they are always motivated by egoistic desires (as there can be no other such way to have a desire, except egoistically).

Branden is saying precisely the opposite of what you're saying. He's saying that people's actions not always selfish, because they're not always motivated by selfish considerations or selfish goals.

They're getting something desired from those choices of action, it might be a "wrong" desire being met (as when a man is motivated by fear, not love) -- but it's still a personal (egoistic) desire. This is where the intellect comes into play -- to validate/invalidate our own personal desires. After the intellect has "worked on" our desires (e.g. deliberation, rumination), a choice is made to perform an act. The genesis of the act is not merely a static feeling (i.e., a held desire) which one has, it is an interplay of the intellect with felt desire.

Human choices come from an interrelation of thought and feeling -- not merely from a thoughtless feeling (basic desire), or from an unfeeling thought (mechanical calculation).

**The 3 ways in which desires exist:

(1) natural, non-validated (by the intellect)
(2) natural, validated
(3) man-made, promulgated (by the intellect)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/11, 6:45pm)

Post 16

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 10:38am

I wrote, "As I understand it, a motivation is the reason that a person has for choosing an action. Are you saying that it's impossible for a person to choose his actions for altruistic or self-sacrificial reasons?"

Ed replied,

I'm making a distinction between doing and desire. I'm saying it's impossible for someone to be motivated by a desire that they do not personally have. Desires are personal, they're subjective; they're true of you and no one else.

Yes, it's impossible for a person to be motivated by a desire that the person doesn't have, but the point that Branden is making is that psychological egoism doesn't simply say that everyone is motivated by their own desires; it says that everyone is motivated by egoistic desires, which is false, because people who've accepted the altruist morality are motivated by altruistic desires and perform (at least some of their actions) for altruistic reasons.

I wrote, "Psychological egoism means the view that everyone chooses his actions from an egoistic motivation."

I interpret that to mean that folks choose actions against a background of personal desires (which, when actively mixed with thought, provide motivations) -- and that's true.

But that's exactly what Branden is saying it doesn't mean. Psychological egoism does not simply say that people choose their actions against a background of personal desires. Obviously, people's desires are their own. It means that everyone chooses his or her actions against a background of selfish desires. To say that people have selfish or egoistic desires in this context means that they are motivated to pursue their own interests (as an ultimate end or goal) in preference to the interests of others; it does not simply mean that their desires are personal.

I wrote, "Branden is saying precisely the opposite of what you're saying. He's saying that people's actions not always selfish, because they're not always motivated by selfish considerations or selfish goals."

They're getting something desired from those choices of action, it might be a "wrong" desire being met (as when a man is motivated by fear, not love) -- but it's still a personal (egoistic) desire."

Yes, they're getting something "desired from those choices of action," but the point Branden is making is that the desire doesn't have to be egoistic; it doesn't have to be the satisfaction of their own interests as an ultimate end or goal; if they've adopted the altruist morality, it can be the satisfaction of the interests of others in preference to their own.

- Bill

Post 17

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 6:31pm

Bill,

... the point that Branden is making is that psychological egoism doesn't simply say that everyone is motivated by their own desires; it says that everyone is motivated by egoistic desires, which is false, because people who've accepted the altruist morality are motivated by altruistic desires and perform (at least some of their actions) for altruistic reasons.

Rand once made a distinction between egoism and egotism -- we need to bring that distinction back, right here and now. Egoism is merely something self-regarding; while egotism is something more, it is other-ignoring or other-trampling, etc. With this useful distinction in mind, we can now begin to speak clearly about this subject ...

psychological egotism:
the view that everyone is motivated to perform irrational, cut-throat behavior -- which is false (and silly, too)

psychological egoism:
the view that your desires are your, and only your, desires; and when you actively mix your intellect with them, then you get personal motivation to perform an act -- which is true (and necessarily so)

And Bill, don't blame me for having a superior definition of terms which have been, for decades, wrongly used by professionals in the fields of psychology and philosophy. Don't shoot the messenger. Just because I am more right than the historical professionals who've been debating this subject for decades -- and I am -- doesn't make me out to be a bad guy or something.

Now that a superior definition of psychological egoism is available (one which adequately differentiates it from psychological egotism), I request we move forward. The other option is for you to bicker with me about "changing" definitions "late in the game" -- or about "not respecting" the paid professionals who've been wrongly debating this subject for decades now.

;-)

To say that people have selfish or egoistic desires in this context means that they are motivated to pursue their own interests (as an ultimate end or goal) in preference to the interests of others; it does not simply mean that their desires are personal.

See above (where I increased the efficacy of both discussion and potential human understanding of "this context").

... the point Branden is making is that the desire doesn't have to be egoistic; it doesn't have to be the satisfaction of their own interests as an ultimate end or goal; if they've adopted the altruist morality, it can be the satisfaction of the interests of others in preference to their own.

Right. This is called a promulgated desire (a desire created from thinking in a certain way about something, as opposed to thinking in a different way about it). Individuals can create desires in themselves by thinking in certain ways. This is part of the interplay of intellect and desire -- the 2 ingredients of human motivation (to perform acts) -- which I had discussed earlier. This fact -- that folks have been noted to harbor unnatural and man-made desires such as altruism -- proves my point about that very interplay.

It proves that, even though we are not free to choose unhappiness as our final end -- we are free to choose means which frustrate this very purpose of our being. Which is something huge.

Ed

Post 18

Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 6:18am

I am the creator of Objectivist Coffee, a component of our Schisms Coffee brand. The gentleman who uses this avatar lifted it from our website without permission or request. A fairly nice irony for an objectivist forum, eh?

Post 19

Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 8:14am