3 ms·
I think if you really get down to it, there are only three motivations for people to do things: 1) they benefit from it somehow, even if it just flatters their
by Pet_Ant 1y ago
I think if you really get down to it, there are only three motivations for people to do things:
1) they benefit from it somehow, even if it just flatters their sense of justice
2) they did it unquestioningly because someone told them to, it didn't occur to them that they even had a choice
3) they did something reflexively and may not even have realise they did anything.
So I find criticising people for "they did it because there was something in it for them" such a lacklustre criticism, because that applies to almost everything. It's what was in it for them and how much they gave up for it that makes it laudable or contemptible.
- soupfordummies 1y agoAnd as the old adage goes "doing good is its own reward", it's kind of impossible NOT to do it because of personal rewards since they're sort of inherent in the good deed anyway. Besides, why does it matter anyway? A good thing happened regardless of the motivation.
- Pet_Ant 1y agoI mean it is one of the oldest areas of human study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
- fc417fc802 1y ago> I find criticising people for "they did it because there was something in it for them" such a lacklustre criticism Agreed! However. > there are only three motivations for people to do things Cooperative behavior arises on its own via evolution in otherwise fairly primitive species. The benefit to the individual in such cases is extremely indirect but the game theory on a collective level is clear enough. Which is to say, you could just genuinely want to help others. I suppose one could argue that doing so benefits you emotionally but I feel that would be getting a bit reductionist.