Why Is This A Problem???

[zippy2006]

The thesis that every human act is for the sake of pleasure only makes sense until one thinks about it a bit more, and then it doesn't.

Who's thesis is that? Not mine.

Oh? You've been arguing in favor of it for at least eight pages now.

Here's where I picked up the thread from you:

That's the point, that there isn't even a consensus that being is good. As I said to Zippy in another post, living is a second order type of thing. We evaluate living as good if we believe living will lead to pleasure, which is the more fundamental thing. Suffering is a more fundamental thing. And we evaluate living as bad if we believe living will lead to suffering.

(Good is pleasure and bad is suffering)

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh? You've been arguing in favor of it for at least eight pages now.

Wrong. You're not paying attention, Mr. Gideon.

Here's where I picked up the thread from you:

That's the point, that there isn't even a consensus that being is good. As I said to Zippy in another post, living is a second order type of thing. We evaluate living as good if we believe living will lead to pleasure, which is the more fundamental thing. Suffering is a more fundamental thing. And we evaluate living as bad if we believe living will lead to suffering.

(Good is pleasure and bad is suffering)

Yep, and that doesn't translate into a statement about "all human acts" at all. I talked about how we evaluate things. You thought you could disprove my statements by showing examples of us not making any valuations before we act at all because you constructed yourself a nice little strawman there.

 

[zippy2006]

Yep, and that doesn't translate into a statement about "all human acts" at all. I talked about how we evaluate things. You thought you could disprove my statements by showing examples of us not making any valuations before we act at all because you constructed yourself a nice little strawman there.

Right: if we act quickly enough we can avoid acting for the sake of pleasure.

Just keep dropping that red herring and we will be bound to get off the scent of your strange claims.

 

[Moral Orel]

Right: if we act quickly enough we can avoid acting for the sake of pleasure.

Just keep dropping that red herring and we will be bound to get off the scent of your strange claims.

What are you on? I made a claim about evaluations, you turned it into a claim about acts. It's a clear cut, caught red handed, strawman. Own a mistake for once.

 

[zippy2006]

What are you on? I made a claim about evaluations, you turned it into a claim about acts. It's a clear cut, caught red handed, strawman. Own a mistake for once.

The conversation you started was about what "good" means, and I pointed out that good is what people seek. You then claimed that things are good insofar as they are thought to conduce to pleasure.

Now clearly the soldier who covers the grenade believes it is good to do so. According to your ongoing claim that associates what is good with pleasure, clearly he must be doing so because he believes it conduces to pleasure. Or else he doesn't think it is good to cover the grenade. Or else things we do quickly aren't good. Or else not all good things are thought to conduce to pleasure.

You gotta pick one of the undesirable options that your strange claim has led you to. You can't just keep ignoring the problems you've gotten yourself into. Well, at least you shouldn't.

 

[Moral Orel]

The conversation you started was about what "good" means, and I pointed out that good is what people seek. You then claimed that things are good insofar as they are thought to conduce to pleasure.

Now clearly the soldier who covers the grenade believes it is good to do so. According to your ongoing claim that associates what is good with pleasure, clearly he must be doing so because he believes it conduces to pleasure. Or else he doesn't think it is good to cover the grenade. Or else things we do quickly aren't good. Or else not all good things are thought to conduce to pleasure.

Does a person with tourette syndrome believe that randomly shouting obscenities at somber social gatherings is good? He must, right? If he's acting then he is seeking what he believes is good. That's your thesis, not mine, buddy.

 

[zippy2006]

...Or else he doesn't think it is good to cover the grenade. Or else things we do quickly aren't good. Or else not all good things are thought to conduce to pleasure.

You gotta pick one of the undesirable options that your strange claim has led you to. You can't just keep ignoring the problems you've gotten yourself into.

Does a person with tourette syndrome believe that randomly shouting obscenities at somber social gatherings is good? He must, right? If he's acting then he is seeking what he believes is good. That's your thesis, not mine, buddy.

"...or else there is no difference between a Tourette tic and covering a grenade."

See, picking one of the absurd conclusions wasn't so hard, was it? As long as you can convince yourself that those two acts are similar your position is salvaged.

 

[Moral Orel]

"...or else there is no difference between a Tourette tic and covering a grenade."

See, picking one of the absurd conclusions wasn't so hard, was it? As long as you can convince yourself that those two acts are similar your position is salvaged.

They're both human acts. You put your "all human acts" premise into my claim of evaluation. As long as you hold to your premise, the only similarity necessary is that they are both a human act. Or you can acknowledge that not all acts are "for the sake" of something. Not every act is caused by a belief.

 

[zippy2006]

They're both human acts.

They're not.

Objection 3. Further, then does a man seem to act for an end, when he acts deliberately. But man does many things without deliberation, sometimes not even thinking of what he is doing; for instance when one moves one's foot or hand, or scratches one's beard, while intent on something else. Therefore man does not do everything for an end.

Reply to Objection 3. Such like actions are not properly human actions; since they do not proceed from deliberation of the reason, which is the proper principle of human actions. Therefore they have indeed an imaginary end, but not one that is fixed by reason.
​

NB: Deliberation != discursive reasoning


Your implicit claim that a Tourette tic and covering a grenade are similar with respect to their orientation towards what is conceived as good is a bad argument. You're reaching. The soldier covers the grenade because he believes it is good to do so.

 

[Moral Orel]

They're not.

Objection 3. Further, then does a man seem to act for an end, when he acts deliberately. But man does many things without deliberation, sometimes not even thinking of what he is doing; for instance when one moves one's foot or hand, or scratches one's beard, while intent on something else. Therefore man does not do everything for an end.

Reply to Objection 3. Such like actions are not properly human actions; since they do not proceed from deliberation of the reason, which is the proper principle of human actions. Therefore they have indeed an imaginary end, but not one that is fixed by reason.
NB: Deliberation != discursive reasoning


Your implicit claim that a Tourette tic and covering a grenade are similar with respect to their orientation towards what is conceived as good is a bad argument. You're reaching. The soldier covers the grenade because he believes it is good to do so.

Then why did you lump in pupil dilation as a human act?

Lots of self-sacrificial acts are not for the sake of pleasure; lots of people enjoy a great deal of pleasure and don't constantly desire more--at least in certain moments of fulfillment or satisfaction; many evolutionary motives, such as the stress response to fear-relevant stimuli, are based on survival, not pleasure, etc. The thesis that every human act is for the sake of pleasure only makes sense until one thinks about it a bit more, and then it doesn't.

Or did you not understand that is the "stress response" referred to in that study. lol

Either way, label it what you want, the soldier who covers a grenade doesn't deliberate prior to his act. That was the whole point of giving an example with no time to think, right? If you want to talk about how we deliberate, then we can get back to my claim of how we evaluate things and abandon this silly make-believe claim you've imagined and assigned to me without warrant.

 

[zippy2006]

Then why did you lump in pupil dilation as a human act?

I never did. I merely pointed out that acting on the basis of fear, or a stress response, is not acting on the basis of pleasure and pain. It was a counterexample to your thesis. Here is your quote that started us off on that route:

Eh... I don't see desire/aversion as another level from pleasure/suffering. Pleasure and suffering are the objects of our desire and aversion, respectively. It doesn't make sense to me to call them "more fundamental".

If the person who acts on the basis of a stress response, or the soldier who covers a grenade, are not acting on the basis of pleasure and pain, then your thesis fails.

Either way, label it what you want, the soldier who covers a grenade doesn't deliberate prior to his act.

I already pointed out in my last post that deliberation is not discursive thinking. A deliberate act is one that is informed by the reason (by intellect and will). There is a reason Steve Rogers is praised for covering the grenade while Dan Aykroyd is never praised for uncontrollably emitting expletives. It is because Rogers' action flowed from himself. We don't praise or blame people for things like tics, or muscle spasms.

That was the whole point of giving an example with no time to think, right?

No, that doesn't really matter. Have you really managed to convince yourself that the atheist-soldier who covers the grenade would always refrain from doing so if he had more time to think?


I'm about ready to drop this conversation. You seem to be lost in eristic with such claims that Tourette tics and covering grenades are the same.

 

[Moral Orel]

I never did.

You did, and I quoted you doing it. The "stress response to fear relevant stimuli" is the act. There is no other act but pupil dilation. Once again, you didn't understand the studies.

If the person who acts on the basis of a stress response, or the soldier who covers a grenade, are not acting on the basis of pleasure and pain, then your thesis fails.

Not my thesis. Not every act is for the sake of something.

I already pointed out in my last post that deliberation is not discursive thinking. A deliberate act is one that is informed by the reason (by intellect and will). There is a reason Steve Rogers is praised for covering the grenade while Dan Aykroyd is never praised for uncontrollably emitting expletives. It is because Rogers' action flowed from himself. We don't praise or blame people for things like tics, or muscle spasms.

My claim is about deliberation. If you want to talk about someone not deliberating, then it has nothing to do with my claim. Stop strawmanning or shut up.

No, that doesn't really matter. Have you really managed to convince yourself that the atheist-soldier who covers the grenade would always refrain from doing so if he had more time to think?

Nope. Never said anything of the sort.

 

[zippy2006]

You did, and I quoted you doing it. The "stress response to fear relevant stimuli" is the act.

Except I never said that. Here is my quote:

...many evolutionary motives, such as the stress response to fear-relevant stimuli, are based on survival, not pleasure...
​

This means that the motive for action which is the stress response is not based on pleasure (which is a different motive for action). Neither pleasure nor the stress response are themselves acts, for a motive is not an act. We can choose to act on the basis of a stress response, or survival, or pleasure, but none of those things are acts in themselves. Perhaps Estrid's abysmal strawmen led you astray.

Not my thesis. Not every act is for the sake of something.

So now the soldier who covers the grenade does not act for the sake of anything. Grand.

I used to find it amusing to see how many absurd things I could get someone to affirm when they hold to an absurd principle. Now it's sort of depressing.

• "A Tourette tic and the act of covering a grenade are the same sort of thing."
• "The soldier who covers a grenade does not act for the sake of anything at all."

Anything else we should add to the list?

 

[Moral Orel]

Except I never said that. Maybe don't lie?

I'm explaining it to you. That's what the stress response is that you're talking about. The act, the stress response, is dilated pupils. There is no other thing that the infants did. You see how I only put "stress response to fear relevant stimuli" in quotes? That's the part where I'm quoting you. The part outside the quotes is me talking. That's how quotation marks work. So yes, you did lump dilated pupils in with all the other kinds of acts you're talking about.

Now lying would be repeatedly claiming that my thesis is 'every act is for the sake of pleasure' after being repeatedly corrected.

So now the soldier who covers the grenade does not act for the sake of anything. Grand.

When he sees that grenade land near his comrades, he doesn't stop, and think, and decide. He reacts. Reacting without thinking is not "acting for the sake" of anything. To act for the sake of something requires one to say to themselves, "I will do X act because I want Y outcome" beforehand. The soldier didn't do that when he acted, so no, there is no Y.

I made a claim about how people think about what is good, and you want to talk about how people react to situations without thinking. lol Do you want to talk about my claim yet or do you want to keep living in your own little fantasy world?

"A Tourette tic and the act of covering a grenade are the same sort of thing."

hahaha How hypocritical. I never said that. Maybe don't lie?

They have a pertinent similarity: they're both acts we don't think about doing before we do them. If I were to say, "Psychopath mass murderers and charity workers are both human beings" you would say "Oh how ridiculous to say that psychopath mass murderers and charity workers are the same sort of thing!"

Do you know how to argue without strawmen? I haven't seen it yet.

So if I'm wrong, and we don't call things good because they make us feel good, then why do we call things good?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm explaining it to you. That's what the stress response is that you're talking about. The act, the stress response, is dilated pupils. There is no other thing that the infants did. You see how I only put "stress response to fear relevant stimuli" in quotes? That's the part where I'm quoting you. The part outside the quotes is me talking. That's how quotation marks work. So yes, you did lump dilated pupils in with all the other kinds of acts you're talking about.

From my edit above:

Except I never said that. Here is my quote:

...many evolutionary motives, such as the stress response to fear-relevant stimuli, are based on survival, not pleasure...
​

This means that the motive for action which is the stress response is not based on pleasure (which is a different motive for action). Neither pleasure nor the stress response are themselves acts, for a motive is not an act. We can choose to act on the basis of a stress response, or survival, or pleasure, but none of those things are acts in themselves. Perhaps Estrid's abysmal strawmen led you astray.

I never claimed that babies act for the sake of ends. You brought up babies as a way to assess the question of pre-experiential aversion. Once such things are established (like the stress response to fear-relevant stimuli) rational agents would presumably be capable of acting on such motives. Babies are not rational agents.

When he sees that grenade land near his comrades, he doesn't stop, and think, and decide. He reacts. Reacting without thinking is not "acting for the sake" of anything. To act for the sake of something requires one to say to themselves, "I will do X act because I want Y outcome" beforehand. The soldier didn't do that when he acted, so no, there is no Y.

I made a claim about how people think about what is good, and you want to talk about how people react to situations without thinking. lol Do you want to talk about my claim yet or do you want to keep living in your own little fantasy world?

I'm not going to respond to another strange theory, namely that acts done quickly cannot be rational. You'll probably work out the error over time.

 

[Moral Orel]

I never claimed that babies act for the sake of ends. You brought up babies as a way to assess the question of pre-experiential aversion. Once such things are established (like the stress response to fear-relevant stimuli) rational agents would presumably be capable of acting on such motives. Babies are not rational agents.

Dilating pupils don't show aversion either. If anything, focusing on something (which is what our pupils dilate to do) is more akin to seeking it than avoiding it.

I'm not going to respond to another strange theory, namely that acts done quickly cannot be rational.

Another strawman. I didn't say anything about it being quick. Things done without reasoning are not rational. That the reaction comes quickly is an impertinent byproduct of your scenario. But you'll just keep claiming I said things I never said 'cause you can't argue without all that straw.

I made a claim about how people think about what is good, and you want to talk about how people react to situations without thinking. lol Do you want to talk about my claim yet or do you want to keep living in your own little fantasy world?