Giving without expecting anything in return.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 11:12 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;166260 wrote:
Human beings do not have instincts. Read up on Dr. A. Maslow, the psychologist-anthropologist. He does say we have some instinctoid behavior, but it's bees and ants that have instincts, not primates.



Hi Dt

Sorry for butting in.........

Sir, If Dr Maslow suggests that than he may be, (most probably, is) wrong. He was a great experimenter no doubt, but no one can be right at all times. Instinct is seen in primates like chimps, gorilla, gibbons and orangutans. Refer Dr Goodall's study on chimpanzees.

And according to me, i humbly say, i have my instincts, in whatever form it may presently be. As salima says, a mothers instinct is a mother's instinct, please do not deny her, her instinctive love for her child.

And, 'instinctoid behaviour', may just be a jargon. rgds

ps: I am reading your latest work on pdf, your labour in formalising ethics is simply praiseworthy.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 11:19 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;166280 wrote:
So is The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein.

Well yes, but a poem and a sociological treatise are two different types of things.
 
salima
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 08:28 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;166305 wrote:
Hi Dt

Sorry for butting in.........

Sir, If Dr Maslow suggests that than he may be, (most probably, is) wrong. He was a great experimenter no doubt, but no one can be right at all times. Instinct is seen in primates like chimps, gorilla, gibbons and orangutans. Refer Dr Goodall's study on chimpanzees.

And according to me, i humbly say, i have my instincts, in whatever form it may presently be. As salima says, a mothers instinct is a mother's instinct, please do not deny her, her instinctive love for her child.

And, 'instinctoid behaviour', may just be a jargon. rgds

ps: I am reading your latest work on pdf, your labour in formalising ethics is simply praiseworthy.


hi jack!
dont worry, it doesnt matter what you call it, it is the thing i have found to be the most altruistic-call it mother's love then if not instinct, maybe that was the wrong word. maybe it is instinct in lower creatures and love in primates-doesnt matter the name given, it is the thing that demonstrates doing something for someone else without wanting anything in return.

of course we can go either way, there are some mothers who dont have it in the animal world as well as the human-i remember a woman who put her four kids in a car and drove it off the edge of a bridge into the water trying to drown them-maybe they died, i dont remember. i knew a woman who wanted to send her three sons to Boys Town because she wanted to have fun with her new boy friend and he didnt want children.

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 08:00 PM ----------

deepthot;166260 wrote:
Human beings do not have instincts. Read up on Dr. A. Maslow, the psychologist-anthropologist. He does say we have some instinctoid behavior, but it's bees and ants that have instincts, not primates.

Hi, Salima

I just finished another book. I know you will gain something out of reading it because you have a healthy aptitude for learning, and for searching for truth. So just click on the end of the link for some ethical explorations and adventures.

Happy reading !!


hi dr marvin!
i just downloaded the book, it looks like it is something i was just searching for...after i readc it i will get back to you with a specific question if the answer doesnt come to me out of the book.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 01:26 pm
@salima,
salima;166460 wrote:
hi jack!
dont worry, it doesnt matter what you call it, it is the thing i have found to be the most altruistic-call it mother's love then if not instinct, maybe that was the wrong word. maybe it is instinct in lower creatures and love in primates-doesnt matter the name given, it is the thing that demonstrates doing something for someone else without wanting anything in return.

of course we can go either way, there are some mothers who dont have it in the animal world as well as the human-i remember a woman who put her four kids in a car and drove it off the edge of a bridge into the water trying to drown them-maybe they died, i dont remember. i knew a woman who wanted to send her three sons to Boys Town because she wanted to have fun with her new boy friend and he didnt want children.



Very interesting. I understand your moderation. But my issue is not with you but with deepthots proposition - which i thought, although innocous and obscure as a matter of observation, yet i note from my readings of his remarkable works on ethics, a sense of denial about natural instincts, and propounding virtuousness in human emotions of love, as if it is unnatural for a love bird to fall in love (his argument is that it is their instinct to pair up in love), but perfectly natural for humans to express love by doing a french kiss. So, they say 'Humans have this something called 'Love', but those birds cannot have 'love' but this something called instinct'.

Why deny calling a mothers love an instinct? Why put biblical words such as 'Love' into an exalted revered emotion of sorts, as if it is only found in the human world? Or as found in the bible, and arguably put into material terms by a supernatural force. or perhaps, by evolutionary processes. I don't know the foundation of those arguments as to what caused 'love' as a worthy quality of human beings only.

Why do people and specially ethicists deny natural instincts from humans, as if it is not available in the free world? They tend to adorn words like 'Love' with all kinds of supelative's and create an 'aura' around it, specially by theologists and poets having obvious talents for using good attractive speeches, and make 'love' as the sole property of - bestowed, blessed, given and ordained, on the human kind only.

Now, as far as those examples of mothers you mentioned, demonstrates the ambiguity of human actions and emotions. The natural world is live and alive, real-time laboratory or stage where all things happen between two extremes of a given concept. On oneside is 'selfless love without expecting returns, on other hand there is selfish love, and still further on the otherside is pure selfishness without a trace of love. Perhaps, therfore life is interesting, and mind-baffling.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 04:09 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;166308 wrote:
Well yes, but a poem and a sociological treatise are two different types of things.


Correction: The Giving Tree is a children's book, not a poem. Wink
 
salima
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 07:10 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;166560 wrote:
Very interesting. I understand your moderation. But my issue is not with you but with deepthots proposition - which i thought, although innocous and obscure as a matter of observation, yet i note from my readings of his remarkable works on ethics, a sense of denial about natural instincts, and propounding virtuousness in human emotions of love, as if it is unnatural for a love bird to fall in love (his argument is that it is their instinct to pair up in love), but perfectly natural for humans to express love by doing a french kiss. So, they say 'Humans have this something called 'Love', but those birds cannot have 'love' but this something called instinct'.

Why deny calling a mothers love an instinct? Why put biblical words such as 'Love' into an exalted revered emotion of sorts, as if it is only found in the human world? Or as found in the bible, and arguably put into material terms by a supernatural force. or perhaps, by evolutionary processes. I don't know the foundation of those arguments as to what caused 'love' as a worthy quality of human beings only.

Why do people and specially ethicists deny natural instincts from humans, as if it is not available in the free world? They tend to adorn words like 'Love' with all kinds of supelative's and create an 'aura' around it, specially by theologists and poets having obvious talents for using good attractive speeches, and make 'love' as the sole property of - bestowed, blessed, given and ordained, on the human kind only.

Now, as far as those examples of mothers you mentioned, demonstrates the ambiguity of human actions and emotions. The natural world is live and alive, real-time laboratory or stage where all things happen between two extremes of a given concept. On oneside is 'selfless love without expecting returns, on other hand there is selfish love, and still further on the otherside is pure selfishness without a trace of love. Perhaps, therfore life is interesting, and mind-baffling.


actually i think you are concurring with what i said-it is only a matter of semantics. one can go against instinct-for instance, we are wearing shoes and clothes and it must certainly be un-natural. so that thing happening whether we want to call it instinct or love and whether we are referring to the animal world or human world (if there is in fact any difference in the two) if the two were examined might be the same. a seal can play a song, a bear can learn to dance and monkeys also wear clothes...whether we are on the higher end of the scale or the lower is another question entirely.

but that is one of the reasons why i find value in the theory of using logic as a tool to develop a universal theory of ethics.

hmm...is there animal ethics? is sacrificing oneself for others always ethical? language is a major problem...if love and instinct have the same root cause maybe ethics is also builtin to the concept, and evolves along with it...maybe ethics in reality is a symptom of love/instinct?

i try to return to the central question in the OP and that is why the issue of motherhood seems to be the correct answer. there are some mothers who want their children to be rich because they would feel proud to say 'my son, the doctor' and that is an ego thing-but there are some mothers who want their child to be happy and peaceful and i dont think that would give them anything in return other than happiness-but it is not a way of seeking happiness for one's own self.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 01:25 am
@salima,
salima;166688 wrote:
actually i think you are concurring with what i said-it is only a matter of semantics. one can go against instinct-for instance, we are wearing shoes and clothes and it must certainly be un-natural..............


There are several reasons for humans to wear footwear and clothes and that perfectly natural. .......... I will provide those reasons based on evolutionary events and processes, if interested, but thats not the topic of the day.

salima;166688 wrote:
but that is one of the reasons why i find value in the theory of using logic as a tool to develop a universal theory of ethics.


I think deepthought has done it excellently, using axiology and formal ethics ......... i only differ on some of the premises.

salima;166688 wrote:
hmm...is there animal ethics? is sacrificing oneself for others always ethical? language is a major problem...if love and instinct have the same root cause maybe ethics is also builtin to the concept, and evolves along with it...maybe ethics in reality is a symptom of love/instinct?


Ofcourse there is animal ethics. The laws of nature is indiscrimnate, it applies to all and sundry. You have hit the nail, herein above, ethics evolves, and that was one of my submissions in one other thread where i discussed with reasoninglogic and deepthot, that ethics throughout has been in a state of flux, but is present in one form or another.

Your words: "ethics in reality is a symptom of love/instinct?" - is profound.

salima;166688 wrote:

i try to return to the central question in the OP and that is why the issue of motherhood seems to be the correct answer. there are some mothers who want their children to be rich because they would feel proud to say 'my son, the doctor' and that is an ego thing-but there are some mothers who want their child to be happy and peaceful and i dont think that would give them anything in return other than happiness-but it is not a way of seeking happiness for one's own self.


I agree, majority of mothers look after their children well, and we have a majority of decent people walking and living around us. Thanks to the good mothers, and fathers also.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:36 am
@deepthot,
Giving with out expecting anything in return may be termed forgiveness?
No, that may be giving with out anything to get?
So if it is with out anything, perhaps forgiveness is unethical? absent of ethics?
Because it is our ethics that actually do expect much in return.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:34 am
@DrFunk,
DrFunk;161800 wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone could help me puzzle out something that I thought of today when being exposed to this kind of situation. What pushes us to make sacrifices for others? As little as they are, why do we force ourselves to do something for someone in order to help them/ make them happy? Does it bring us guaranteed satisfaction? Do we do it expecting something in return? If so, then this would seem very immoral and selfish.

Why do we accept to suffer to make someone's life better? It could just be lending a certain amount of money to a friend like it could be risking your own life for someone... We often make sacrifices because we are scared to be pointed out by others as egocentric. We are scared of what others would think of us if we didn't lend them a hand.

The only real reason I can find is the very selfish one which would consist of waiting for something in return of the favor/ sacrifice we have given.

Do people who give without expecting anything in return really exist? I'd like to know your opinion on this and discuss a bit further on the topic!



Not expect anything? anything?
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 06:45 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;167606 wrote:
Giving with out expecting anything in return may be termed forgiveness?
No, that may be giving with out anything to get?
So if it is with out anything, perhaps forgiveness is unethical? absent of ethics?
Because it is our ethics that actually do expect much in return.



Forgiving is not non-ethical: it is an ethical way to conduct yourself because it adds value to a situation. Forgiveness is one way to respect and honor yourself, to intrinsically value yourself. It does wonders - for all parties concerned. In one of my future books I may have a section on forgiveness and how it fits in with the Unified Theory of Ethics.

As to giving, for the sake of giving, and without expecting any reciiprocity (but maybe feeling it would be nice if some occurred), see these relevant pages in my new mini-treatise, ETHICAL ADVENTURES - a link to which you can click on below: pp. 13-15; and pp. 31-34.

The former apges are on Degrees of Caring. The latter pages are on the topic of Selflessness.
 
exile
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 02:42 pm
@DrFunk,
We do good deeds without expectation of reward at least partly because we feel better when we have done so - would we do it if we felt WORSE?

So - are altruistic acts truly altruistic or done to boost our own egos?
 
deepthot
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 12:08 am
@exile,
exile;168192 wrote:
We do good deeds without expectation of reward at least partly because we feel better when we have done so - would we do it if we felt WORSE?

So - are altruistic acts truly altruistic or done to boost our own egos?


That subject is discussed at length, analyzed and clarified in Chapters 9 and 10 of ETHICS: A College Course; and on pages 31-34 of ETHICAL ADVENTURES, a link to which you will find below. To read Chapters in the Course, a link to that treatise is given in the Preface of the paper, ETHICAL ADVENTURES. You probably will find those passages to be quite interesting, since they deal so directly with your question. Let me know if you believe the issues were handled adequately; Did they dispel confusion? Did they help? Check out the links:
 
monkey20
 
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2012 10:19 pm
@DrFunk,
People in general will give without expecting anything and I can attest to that. I had a volunteer dinner and forget to acknowledge everyone and I want to say I was surprised with some of the reactions. We have over 100 volunteers and I planned a night of music, a humorist and gifts for the top 8 volunteers. I realized when I was about to call the volunteers that I had forgotten my list with the hours they volunteered. There were 15 of them who came up to me and out of the 15 I had about 4 that were so upset they did not get their name mentioned and the hours acknowledged. After a great dinner, a guitarist, a local symphony performance and a humorist, all donated time, they threw in my face that it sucked the way I showed our appreciation. I think that the percentage was about 25% and the others were very gracious about the error. I felt horrible of course but the more I think about it the more I realize, they volunteered there time to have a moment and to me that really isn't what giving of yourself is about. Does that answer your question?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/29/2014 at 12:49:05