Today in class we discussed Hobbe’s theory of human motivation. In his view, everything man done is motivated solely on his or her self interest. He claims that self interest is an innate quality man possesses, and that even seemingly good intentions are unintentionally spurred from selfishness. Thus, a man who does a good action only does so in order to benefit from the positive way it makes him or her feel. So if every man is innately selfish, is the only morally adequate individual Jesus? I don’t think so.
According to this argument, man is even acting in a selfish manner when he or she is grieving for the loss of a loved one. When one mourns for another’s death he or she is trying to grasp the reality that he or she will never see that person again during his or her worldly existence. Hobbe’s would most likely say that an individual is acting selfishly because he or she should be celebrating the life of the deceased and be rejoicing that his or her loved one is in a better place verses feeling sorry for themselves and thinking about how his or her life will be different without that individual. He supports this idea when he discusses the motivation behind adults caring for their children, he says that it “can be explicated in terms of adults’ own self-interest” because adults enjoy the sense of obligation and dependence that they receive from helping the child stay alive.
Perhaps Hobbes isn’t insinuating that a selfish man is a bad man, but he does make the reader question his or her motives. While I agree with Hobbes that deep down individual actions are induced by self interest, I believe that an individual can be selfish yet more humane, both at the same time. For example, a mom who chooses to die so that her child can live cannot be promoting her own self-interest. Hobbes would probably say that the mother acted out of self interest because she couldn’t deal with the pain of losing and living without her child; however, her choice to die and experience the unknown in order to let her child live is both the more self sacrificing, and less appealing option.
This situation would also contradict Hobbes’ opinion that human beings are reasonable. The mother’s choice to die for her child is defiantly the irrational option. However, everyday, humans allow their reasons to supersede their emotions. Emotions can blind one’s rationale.
-Leann
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People would always associate selfishness with immorality and based on this, they start to argue whether men are born moral or not. However, I often wonder if we could think about selfishness in another way. Just as existence is one of the properties of God according to Descartes, selfishness can also be one of the properties of human beings regardless of good or bad. People were born selfish and this is unchangeable, which I think is accepted by us all, and therefore, we might not need to go so hard to dig out its relationship with morality. There might not be any relationship at all. And once we accept it, it will be easier for us to go on with the discussion of morality. Say, based on the selfish property of human beings, if one still do things that benefit the society, then he is moral no matter if it's due to his self-interest. And if not, he is immoral.
ReplyDeleteI guess this could be easier. What do you think?
Jasmine If I am correct, you are suggesting that though humans are innately self interested, this does not mean that humans lack morale. I believe that Kant would support this argument. Just because an individual makes choices based on his or her best interest doesn't mean that society is going to suffer. If a person's intentions do not jeopardize the welfare of the community then there is nothing wrong with one acting in a selfish manner. Kant supports this notion when he says that when making choices, "what counts is what one intends." If an individual is a moral human then the majority of the time their self interest will coincide with the welfare of society. As Kant puts it," [one] should always act in such a way that the maxim behind [his or her] actions could be generalized as a universal law for everyone."
ReplyDelete-Leann
Leann I agree with you that people's self interest will coincide with the welfare of society. I also agree with the quotes from Kant that the maxim behind one's actions could be generalized as a universal law for everyone. What's more, this reminds me of the argument we had the other day about whether Hobbes and Locke can both be true in terms of human morality. I'm even more convinced that it could be true after seeing this quote from Kant. Because sometimes one person's self interest can really be an interest of the majority, which means everyone would think the same way. So rather than calling it a self interest, we could probably call it a general interest. Therefore, when almost everyone is doing something based on their own interest for the reason that they believe it to be good for the whole community, why don't we just think of it as a moral act? So I would still choose to believe that although human beings can be self-interested, they can be moral at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI think it is impossible not to act out of self interest. Whenever I take time to evaluate a decision, no matter which option I choose and how selfless it seems, it is still self interested. This seems like a circular argument, but if I pick that decision then it is by default out of self interest. Even if my sole purpose was specifically not to act out of self interest, my action would be self interested for the reason that I was self interested in acting that way. I want to give donuts to the homeless to be selfless, but this itself is self interested.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Cole's statement is correct. Regardless of the choices a person makes on a day to day basis, he/she will always act out of self interest. While selfishness may not always be the most predominant foce, it is always a factor in decision making. As such, no decision can be entirely altruistic. This is even true given the example of a mother sacrificing herself for her child. Though the mother is sacrificing her own existence, she is doing so because she wants to. In this situation, the mother displays a desire to act in a particular way, and by giving in to her preference, she is acting in a self interested manner.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that Cole brings up many important points, I do not agree that it is impossible for man not to act out of self interest. If this was the case, then how would one explain empathy or sacrifice?
ReplyDeleteIn my psychology class we recently read an article that showed how even babies, the epitome of innocence, can be affected by the distress of others. A baby boy watched a stranger cut his finger and began to cry. In response the baby reacted the same way as the stranger, he began to moan, suggesting that the baby was emotionally saddened by observing another’s pain. It no way was it in the baby’s self interest to become upset, however, sympathy and care caused him to react this way to a complete stranger. Baby’s a priori expression of empathy suggests that this emotion is a natural instinct that has no ties to ones self interest.
Also, I don’t think that it is fair to say that when we put down our life for another we are acting selfishly. When making this choice, we are consciously deciding that our life is less important and at the same time subjecting ourselves to the unknown. In this case, death is defiantly not in our best interest.
The nature of empathy and self-interest is a pretty complex web of examples and counter-examples, and I've come to accept that I don't really know whether I believe in a good deed or true empathy anymore. I think that it's pretty clear we have an inclination for both self-sacrifice and self-service. I would say that this stems more from the biological state of humans as mammals, requiring a dualistic nature where we must survive and sacrifice ourselves in different situations. Human beings are unlucky because with our intelligence, we're more aware of our actions when we make either choice. And so we contemplate.
ReplyDelete