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.

So is The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein.

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.

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 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.

Well yes, but a poem and a sociological treatise are two different types of things.

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..............

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.

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!

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.

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?