Everything we do is for our own benefit
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
(19-03-2014 05:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-03-2014 05:07 PM)Baruch Wrote:  ...reason being he will spend it on more beer. However I can give the money to some children who are distant from myself whom I do not have empathic experiences because it is a rational way to build education and society and I have some surplus resources I don't need. I can throw the resources away, but its more rational to give it to some needy children.
Of course a person can give money away to some far off needy children that they have never met BECAUSE perhaps they have seen and Ad on TV, perhaps a documentary, perhaps some collecotrs came to their door and created empathy pains by informing them of the plight of these needy children...

(19-03-2014 05:07 PM)Baruch Wrote:  You are trapped in that you think you need to explain a motive with another motive and then another motive as per infinite regress getting more unconscious and far fetched
That's not true.
I am linking the motivations to the person taking the action.
This is not far fetched at all, to ask what motivates person X to take action A.

I think it is far fetched to say that Person X takes action A because Person Y will benefit from A.
My reasoning is that there is no causal link between "Person Y benefiting from A" and Person X. I insist that there must be a causal link for Person X to take action A.
This is not an infinite regress problem, nor is it far fetched.

Fair enough.
You are looking for the causal link connecting person X taking action A so that person Y benefits.

I gave the example of building a bridge - person X has rational reasons for taking action A (eg structural engineering principles) to build bridge Y.

Person X has a rational reason A to feed person Y.
Person Y is hungry, person X has excess food so person X thinks it is rational to give person Y some food. Person Y benefits and person X does not necessitate any gain for themselves.

I can act independently of empathy for a rational reason.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
(19-03-2014 06:22 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Person Y is hungry, person X has excess food so person X thinks it is rational to give person Y some food. Person Y benefits and person X does not necessitate any gain for themselves.

I can act independently of empathy for a rational reason.
I can understand that person X may think it is rational for person Y to eat food especially if person Y is hungry.
But I can't see why Person X would think it rational to give up their own food and give it to Person Y.

I understand that you believe this is enough cause. That person Y is hungry, I have food and am not hungry so I will give it to person Y.

It would make a bit more sense to me if Person X was wanting to throw away the food anyway. Maybe the Person Y and the rubbish bin were equal distance away so Person X gives the food to Person Y rather than throw it away.
That could make rational sense.

But if Person X was expecting to eat the food himself then why would he give it away? Person Y is hungry now, but at some point Person X is going to be hungry and will want the food.
In this instance it makes rational sense to hold onto the food and eat it later rather than give it to Person Y.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 06:50 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
(17-03-2014 11:21 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(17-03-2014 10:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If altruism is based on doing "good" (without expectation of self gain) and an amoralist (moral nihilist) doesn't believe in "good" then how can an amoralist strive to do good for good's sake?

If I do "good" then it is purely coincidental. My motives are something other than good's sake.

The question is not that if your motives are for good's sake, is if those motives are selfish or not. Good is just an useful example of a case in which people do things selflessly, to defeat the premise of absolute selfishness.
I agree with this. In this case I've assumed 'good' equates to 'unselfish' in terms of altruism.

The beauty of the heart, is the lasting beauty. - Rumi Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
(19-03-2014 06:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-03-2014 06:22 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Person Y is hungry, person X has excess food so person X thinks it is rational to give person Y some food. Person Y benefits and person X does not necessitate any gain for themselves.

I can act independently of empathy for a rational reason.
I can understand that person X may think it is rational for person Y to eat food especially if person Y is hungry.
But I can't see why Person X would think it rational to give up their own food and give it to Person Y.

I understand that you believe this is enough cause. That person Y is hungry, I have food and am not hungry so I will give it to person Y.

It would make a bit more sense to me if Person X was wanting to throw away the food anyway. Maybe the Person Y and the rubbish bin were equal distance away so Person X gives the food to Person Y rather than throw it away.
That could make rational sense.

But if Person X was expecting to eat the food himself then why would he give it away? Person Y is hungry now, but at some point Person X is going to be hungry and will want the food.
In this instance it makes rational sense to hold onto the food and eat it later rather than give it to Person Y.

I'm not sure if your projecting your own narcissism or something inst clear ?

I have some surplus food, there is a starving person and I rationally decide it is the most appropriate action to take to relieve someones pain and feed them. They gain very much and I have carried out a rational action without any expectations of rewards, gains, recognition or anything else. I do the action for its own sake for someones benefit - why do I necessarily have to benefit ? My point is remarkably simple, reasonable, intuitive and also based on experience & compatible with cognitive science. Even if there is some indirect pleasure - this doesnt have to be the prime motivator but a secondary effect (which isn't even guaranteed to take place)

In the thought experiment you can systematically remove other motives when feeding the starving person such as:

1. I'm fed and don't need the extra food.(this isnt even necessary - I can give the food even if I am also hungry)
2. It can be done anonymously - no recognition therefore no rewards of social approval.
3. No empathy is necessary - I could intellectually recognize the situation without wallowing in the other persons pain. Likewise a person can have empathy and not give anything. Empathy is often contingent & associated but not necessary.
4. No religious reasons, no Godly approval or expectations of good karma or heavens.

etc...

Believe it or not we are capable of making rational decisions.
I know in this world of skepticism and love for cognitive bias, illusions, emotive behaviors, faith, behavioral economics etc people are lead to believe everything must irrational. In contrast the concept of bias, illusion, irrationality and making errors presupposes that rational action is possible (otherwise we would be incapable to even discuss this subject).

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 07:54 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
(19-03-2014 07:35 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I'm not sure if your projecting your own narcissism or something inst clear ?
I certainly wouldn't classify myself as a narcisist. I am an amoralist (lacking moral beliefs) and I suspect rational decisions are selfish at their root. I understand that beliefs can override rational decisions and I suspect that it is hard for a believer to see beyond their beliefs (be they religious or moral or anything else for that matter). I also think that many of the reasons or justifications that we give ourselves for our own behaviours may not be the real cause. I think it is difficult to know for sure whether I am correct or whether you are correct, or whether there is some other correct answer different from both our positions.

However, I have enjoyed having this conversation. I have listened to what you have said (although not agreed and possibly not understood) and have been grateful that you have provided me the opportunity to sound out my thoughts to you.
Both of us are gong in circles now though, going over the same points we have already made.
For me it would make sense to bow out at this stage and let your points sink into my own thoughts.

Cheers
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 03:39 AM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
Whilst the thoughts are sinking in your brain also consider:


None of what I said is incompatible with amoralism.

The idea that altruism must be good & selfishness must be bad has no real "moral" justification and is a hangover from christian or other indoctrinations.
I recall once reading "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden and some valid points have been made such as how destructive altruism based ideologies can become. We need mutual cooperation not necessarily altruism for the species to flourish and this doesn't have to be framed "morally".
(can be framed pragmatically as rules to achieve a functioning society)

I gave many examples of feeding a hungry person without personal gain - just because a rational decision has been made with no calculation as to personal benefit. This doesn't have to be phrased from an "altuistic moralist perspective" that the less benefit I get, and the more benefit I give, then the better the morality of the situation.

As an amoralist someone can rationally see there is a problem, lets say someone is sick - then they can treat them if they have the training and resources. Treating them may not incur any tangible personal benefits.
Precisely because the person is an amoralist, they dont even believe they have accumulated moral virtue in treating this person !!!!!
Society as a whole may benefit from their action and they are not guaranteed to gain from this overall benefit (or the benefit to society once spread out is negligible to the individual)
Go back to my engineering example for building a bridge - where rational rules are required to be followed. The case can be framed without moral language. In the same way you can help someone without it being framed in moral language as what you did being "good or bad".

As I am writing this - it becomes clearer that the amoralist can benefit someone even further than the moralist without personal gain because they dont have the baggage of believing they accumulate "moral points" for "good action" - 0the moralist might be under the illusion of expectations due to believing "virtue" has been accumulated (well, at least a crude moralist version - I'm sure Kant will disagree).

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
(20-03-2014 03:39 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Whilst the thoughts are sinking in your brain also consider:
None of what I said is incompatible with amoralism.
I don't think you have yet sufficiently established a causal link between person X and action A without invoking some sort of belief into person X.
Our two premises are:
1. Person Y would benefit from person X doing action A.
2. Person X does not benefit from doing action A.
The question is what would motivate person X into doing action A.

I think that if there is a motivation then that motivation must benefit person X in some way. This motivation would be classified as the "Cause of action A"

I think you are either telling me
a. action A is uncaused
or
b. Person X does action A due to a cause which does not impact(benefit) person X.
I think your position is most likely b

But I struggle to see why person X would do action A if there is no impact to person X.
This logic seems to me to be irrational.

If person X sees no personal benefit in reaching into their own bag, grabbing a sandwich, extending their hand and releasing their grip on the sandwich then why would they do it?
I think you are ignoring that:
- person X knows that the sandwich will be eaten by a starving person (Person Y).
- That person X gains personal value (satisfaction) from knowing that hungry person Y gets to get.
- That person X has a belief that a starving person is something that is bad
- That person X has a belief that feeding a hungry person is something that is good.

I understand that you consider it to be rational thinking to feed a starving person. The vast majority of people would think this to be rational.
But I consider this "rational thinking" of yours to be based on some irrational underlying beliefs. I consider it irrational (not because I am a heartless narcissistic monster) but philosophically speaking and logically speaking there must be a direct cause before person X reacts. Person Y being hungry is not a cause because Person X is not Person Y. This logic would be a variation on "Spooky action at a distance", instead it would be "Spooky cause at a distance".
Personally, I might give Person Y a piece of bread (historically I have given person Y some crackers), but this was because I benefited by buying off my empathy pains and by my expectation that my behaviors influence the society that I live in. That I want to be part of a society that helps people out in hard times because I am a person and I am not immune to having hard times.
Outwardly a person would not see me or you any differently.
But inwardly our reasons are different.
I consider myself to be awake with my eyes opened and clear from the cloud of moral belief, instead making rational reasoned decisions.
but I also understand that you might consider yourself to be awake with eyes opened making rational reasoned decisions using your moral principles as your rational guide.

We just have different ways of looking at the same world.
In my view everything ties down to selfish causes, in your view selfish causes are not the only causes.
I know we are not going to convince each other to switch views.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
Stevil - I wouldn't be so pessimistic, I think we can agree in some areas and it is worth the discussion, because I used to have this debate with someone in my religious days and took your side but since then after much philosophy, experience & research dismissed your view.

Firstly I can not prove & neither can you that an action is 100% selfish or altruistic - because there can be unconscious motivations - so lets get that clear.
Even the most selfish action might have unconscious unselfish motivations because as a species we are social and want to cooperate & benefit others after millions of years of group and other forms of natural selection for cooperation.

Secondly - the title of the thread is EVERYTHING we do is for our own benefit - and I think this is seriously wrong and irrational - based on psychological research, evolutionary psychology, personal experience, cognitive sciences and many decent philosophers discussing the subject.
So we have to be clear on the title.
If the title was there is SOME benefit to our selves in everything we do - then the discussion would be more rational and your challenge more worthy.
Like I previously stated it is possible that there is a very tiny personal benefit (a moment of satisfaction) and massive benefit to the other person (save their lives or whatever)

I am certainly not telling you an action is uncaused.


Quote: I think you are ignoring that:
- person X knows that the sandwich will be eaten by a starving person (Person Y).
Of course person X knows this.

Quote:- That person X gains personal value (satisfaction) from knowing that hungry person Y gets to get.
Person X perceives a need from person Y and decides to give the sandwich - that is the cause. The satisfaction MAY come afterwards - but the satisfaction is not a necessary condition. (in the strong philosophical meaning of logical necessity)
Likewise empathy MAY be involved but not necessary. I have come across cases of brain damage (from a documentary by Ramachandran if I recall) were the frontal cortex links to the Mid brain/Amygdala have been severed and the person claimed not to be able to "feel" empathy, love or connection - but they were still able to be benevolent to his wife in some intellectual sense knowing what her needs are & benefit her. This is an extreme case - but the point being empathy can be associated but not causally necessary for benevolent action. In my own life I have given people something they need without experiencing empathy for their pain. A surgeon can still do their job without wallowing in their patients pain.
True, some people find it hard to dissociate from empathy and maybe there are some cases were charity is only given to remove empathic pain, perhaps your case. (not judging you - just pointing out there is a spectrum of motivations)

Quote:- That person X has a belief that a starving person is something that is bad
I am glad you used bad and not "evil." ( a loaded moral term)
Yes, I assume starving, when someone desires food (not a voluntary fast) is undesirable and hence "bad" However I don't need to use the term bad - undesirable will do. Technically saying involuntary starving is undesirable for person Y is all that is necessary. We can remove the terms bad & evil.

Quote:- That person X has a belief that feeding a hungry person is something that is good
I can avoid the use of the word "good" which has moral baggage attached. The title of the post used "benefit" which is not synonymous with "good"
Yes, Y BENEFITS from the food. I don't need to call this "good".


Quote:But I consider this "rational thinking" of yours to be based on some irrational underlying beliefs
You have not specified any irrational underlying beliefs of mine. I explained the causal link does not require by necessity feelings of empathy or satisfaction.

Quote:logically speaking there must be a direct cause before person X reacts
The causal chain is perception of someone else in need, knowing logically how to alleviate that need and doing the action required to solve the need.
Empathy might make it easier to perceive - but not necessary. Even if empathy was unconscious (or some other emotion unconsciously motivating the action) then it still wouldn't make sense to say EVERYTHING we do is for our benefit.

In any case - if the empathy or other motivator was unconscious then it can hardly be called selfish or beneficial for person X because the person is not even aware of any motivating benefit !!!!!

So to sum up:
1. Empathy isnt necessary BEFORE the action and therefore does not "cause the action." It is possible to act independently of empathy.

2. Any satisfaction which occurs AFTER the action cannot be causal - the action precedes the feelings of satisfaction. Also consider the counter-factual: satisfaction may have not occurred and if it did it was after the action took place therefore cannot be causal but more like an epiphenomena or secondary effect)-

You also didn't consider my previous posts about groups working together who strongly identify with each other - were the boundaries of the self include the group as a whole. In such cases the group as a whole may gain/benefit and not an isolated individual. (this would be compatible with group selection and the benefits to the "in group" as a whole vs competition with the "out-group" hence "my own benefit" is equated with "the groups benefit")

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 04:39 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2014 04:47 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Firstly I can not prove & neither can you that an action is 100% selfish or altruistic - because there can be unconscious motivations - so lets get that clear.
Yes, we both agree on this. This is a philosophical discussion and will not have an empirically proven conclusion.

(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Even the most selfish action might have unconscious unselfish motivations because as a species we are social and want to cooperate & benefit others
I don't necessarily agree with this assertion.
Yes we are a social species, we do tend to want to live in the company of others rather than in isolation. Yes we deem improving society is a desired thing but...

But, I think we want to improve society because it ultimately benefits us, because we live within that society.

(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Secondly - the title of the thread is EVERYTHING we do is for our own benefit - and I think this is seriously wrong and irrational
It is rational to do things to benefit yourself.
What would be rational about doing things to benefit others?

(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  If the title was there is SOME benefit to our selves in everything we do - then the discussion would be more rational and your challenge more worthy.
I am arguing for "The main rational and considered cause, the push to action, is self motivated"
But I don't disagree that" conditioning and beliefs can be the main irrational and unconsidered cause, the push to action, which is not necessarily self motivated"

So our disagreement is with regards to whether there can be a rational cause to altruism which doesn't have conditioning and beliefs as its foundation.

(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Like I previously stated it is possible that there is a very tiny personal benefit (a moment of satisfaction) and massive benefit to the other person (save their lives or whatever)
I agree, but what do I care about the massive benefit to the other person?
If I am the one to take action, I want at lease some personal benefit (albeit very tiny) otherwise my action could be considered irrational from my own perspective.


(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Person X perceives a need from person Y and decides to give the sandwich - that is the cause.
I don't see this as a rational or valid cause.
So what if person y has a need.
Why does it become rational for person x to fill person y's need?
We are talking about two different people here.
We are talking about the motivation of person X to perform action A.
What does the plight of person Y have to do with the equation? All I see in the equation is X and A, how does Y come into the equation? Where is the link?

(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
Quote:- That person X has a belief that a starving person is something that is bad
I am glad you used bad and not "evil." ( a loaded moral term)
Yes, I assume starving, when someone desires food (not a voluntary fast) is undesirable and hence "bad".
It's undesirable for person Y but why do we assume it is undesirable for person X?
Why do we assume that the bad is an objective bad or an objective undesirable?
Why would person X see person Y's hunger as undesirable?

(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
Quote:But I consider this "rational thinking" of yours to be based on some irrational underlying beliefs
You have not specified any irrational underlying beliefs of mine. I explained the causal link does not require by necessity feelings of empathy or satisfaction.
I don't feel that you have established a causal link. We have two equations
i) Person X is capable of doing Action A
ii) Person Y will benefit from Action A
But you haven't shown what would cause Person X to do Action A.
You have asserted it is because Person Y needs A
But I question why does Person X care what Person Y needs?
What is the relationship between Person X and Person Y's needs?

Sure, person X can fulfil Person Y's needs but that is a potential link, not a causal one.

(20-03-2014 03:45 PM)Baruch Wrote:  You also didn't consider my previous posts about groups working together who strongly identify with each other - were the boundaries of the self include the group as a whole. In such cases the group as a whole may gain/benefit and not an isolated individual. (this would be compatible with group selection and the benefits to the "in group" as a whole vs competition with the "out-group" hence "my own benefit" is equated with "the groups benefit")
I see it like this.
If the Person X sees benefit in belonging to the group then person X will be motivated to shape the group according to the benefits Person X can get from the group.
If there are no benefits then person X would see no incentive to belong to the group. Would lose interest and abandon it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 08:43 PM
RE: Everything we do is for our own benefit
Stevil:
I believe your basic starting premise can be summed up from Jeremy Benthams utilitarianism psychology/philosophy:

“Nature has placed mankind under the government of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure - they govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm”
- Jeremy Bentham


Basically you are saying that all action - including any benefit to others boils down to pain/pleasure stimuli which benefit the individual X and not the other person Y. All causes of action are the pain/pleasure stimuli as they impact the individual - either action from pain (guilt, shame, threats of God, fear etc) or pleasure (satisfaction, happiness, recognition & social approval, love)

Firstly this misses the point of quantifying the benefit to the other person - it is definitely not a linear relationship between the giver X and receiver Y.
Person X can have a tiny amount of pleasure giving to Y and Y a vast benefit. Looks like you agree on this as per:

Quote: Baruch Wrote: Like I previously stated it is possible that there is a very tiny personal benefit (a moment of satisfaction) and massive benefit to the other person (save their lives or whatever)

I agree, but what do I care about the massive benefit to the other person?
If I am the one to take action, I want at lease some personal benefit (albeit very tiny) otherwise my action could be considered irrational from my own perspective.

The fact you dont care about the massive benefit to the other is great - its precisely my point, it means the other can have a massive benefit with your little gain - without you caring too much for your ego to explode.
I can think of many examples in the empirical sense were this would take place - eg if person X has surplus resources and gives food to some starving children anonymously - without following up what happens to the children, person X might get some satisfaction but be contributing vastly a disproportionate amount of benefit to many Y receivers. The benefit to X maybe miniscule compared to the benefit to many Y receivers in such scenarios.
If this is the case the original thread title would be "everything we do is for our benefit" - not my benefit only.

As an amoralist - the benefit to X is even less because they dont believe they are accumulating good moral brownie points.


Secondly - if Jeremy Bentham is right then much of this pain/pleasure stimuli may be unconscious. Its not like I am aware of every motivation and stimulus in my nervous system. (we are unaware of the full scope of subconscious activities)
However it is not clear that if it is an unconscious motivation that X benefits from giving to Y.
X may have a rational reason for giving to Y such as alleviating Y's suffering and the motivating driver may be unconscious and perhaps manifest later (eg X feels satisfaction later on)
However X may end up suffering or regretting giving to Y later on and in totality X may have diminished benefit. (what if X gets hit by a bus and never gets to feel the satisfaction or if X simply forgets they gave to Y ! )

Again it is not clear that X must benefit from giving to Y - also due to the fact that if the benefits are unconscious they are not in X's conscious awareness. If X isn't aware of the self benefit (because it is unconscious) then is it a benefit ?

I mention this due to an insight much earlier in the thread about the "selfish gene" - from a molecular perspective it may well be that the action undertaken benefits the organism X - however from persons X's experience (the phenotype psychological phenomenological perspective if you like) the actions may be benevolent without any conscious benefits to X.


Thirdly:
You also need to account for the temporal benefits over time to X & Y.
X may have benefited for a few seconds whilst feeling a spark of satisfaction when giving something to Y, whilst Y may benefit cumulatively over decades due to the benevolent action of X.
Hence something quite insignificant to X has very significant benefit to Y.


Fourthly - similar to the temporal but defining the cumulative benefits to X & Y can be vague and tricky - what do we mean by self benefit ? when the totality of pain/pleasure is added up perhaps there is personal loss !!!.
Eg if X was to give a blood transfusion to Y then Y benefits very greatly (saved life) - however X has a mixture of pain/pleasure, gain/loss due to on the one hand benefiting by some satisfaction but on the other may become anemic for a month giving dissatisfaction/distress/loss/pain. Cumulatively person X could easily lack any benefit once you add up the pains & pleasures together (satisfaction of giving blood + suffering, anemia, blood loss side effects) whilst person Y just gets benefit (blood & hence vitality, well being, life).


I have done this myself - When I gave blood there was some satisfaction but a price to pay from pain, time & lack of energy - and the satisfaction is somewhat limited because it is anonymous and the giver X may forget or not think about it too much after the event. Perhaps the blood I gave saved a child from near death, perhaps wasted as it expired or accidentally killed someone ? Who knows.
In all likelihood - statistically it is likely that person Y benefited completely disproportionately from the blood compared to my benefit or loss.
This can change - I can go about blogs and boost my reputation by claiming I give loads of blood and get an ego trip basking in the light of benevolence.
As it happens I am happy enough to not care too much about social approval and not need to go around showing off - so this isn't a motivating factor for self benefit.

So for a supreme conclusion:

Quote:Why does it become rational for person x to fill person y's need?

Because for a tiny benefit (and potential loss) person X has the ability to overwhelmingly benefit Y.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: