Posted on 04/06/2010 7:07:19 AM PDT by truthfinder9
Of course.
Perhaps it's an atavistic genetic trait that serves no other purpose but to preserve the species.
A logical assumption. However, now that you know that, you, conscious beings, humans, can overrule it, as you can choose not to eat when you're hungry, etc.
I haven't had any problem with this "news" throughout this discussion. Taken in isolation. But there can be a "rather than." X may choose to be fired, rather than...
We do not have to, unlike other organisms, always choose what feels best to us.
A goal can also be the happiness or success of another, and we can sacrifice our own "feels good" for that goal.
They can but not on their own will [choose something for no reward whatsoever.]
This seems an extremely limited view of "will." A very limited will that is a slave to reward? It seems not conscious at all.
Are your goals to fail, be fired, starve, go broke..
Again, in isolation, no. But rather than what? Will you do absolutely anything rather than go broke?
Part of my problem is defining "feels good". I don't conflate it, automatically, with feels right.
I believe that doing what we believe is right can, sometimes, bring a world of hurt to us personally. It's then that we discover how much we really value a particular right. We can choose here something higher (of more value) than our personal pleasure.
I believe you would define this scenario this as choosing between two "feels goods". I don't define it that way. Pleasure and feels good are different than "right" although they can concur.
Of course there are societal pressures. And our culture influences what we believe is "true" and "right".
But you know this now, so you can choose not to believe it, correct? Whatever the societal pressure, you could choose to go against it. Virginity, religion, whatever the society rewards you for, you can choose otherwise - now.
Whatever the prejudices of culture, whatever the appetites of biology, humans as conscious beings have the potential to over-ride them for another choice.
And, please, again, I'm not saying my goal is to starve, be celibate, poor, socially ostracized etc.
Up to a point. Try holding your breath. If you are thirsty and hungry enough your ability to override the nature becomes progressively difficult. Eventually, nature prevails unless it is otherwise blocked by external factors.
But there can be a "rather than." X may choose to be fired, rather than...
But we do not choose to be fired unless we have some "feel good" reason for it to happen.
We do not have to, unlike other organisms, always choose what feels best to us.
Other organisms have to make choices they would normally never make. A deer running from wolves may decide to jump into a ravine rather than be caught. Under ordinary circumstances, a deer does not jump into a ravine.
A goal can also be the happiness or success of another, and we can sacrifice our own "feels good" for that goal
Because seeing someone else succeed gives us greater "feel good." Normally, most people will not wish to be passed over for a promotion, but there may be a situation where a coworker is struggling and needs the promotion more than you.
Under those circumstances, you may be happier if that person gets promoted and you don't, because you don't really need it or because you feel that you have not really deserved it.
Spouses and parents often choose to be the ones to perish so their loved ones may live, not because they enjoy dying but because the thought of their loved ones surviving is a greater "feel good" than if they perish and you survive. The reasons for that feeling may be numerous and vary form individual to individual.
You may say "I have lived a good life, let my children live." Or you may say "I am sick and unlikely to live much longer and my wife is healthy and younger than I. She will benefit form living more than I will."
Again the object of our sacrifice is a "feel good" and the vicarious satisfaction derived from seeing them saved or succeed is a greater feel good than if it were you. many of these values are cultural, religious, family-specific, etc. but they all have a common denominator; the desired outcome is the feeling of satisfaction, not disappointment, success, not failure, health, not sickness, prosperity and not poverty, gain and not loss. In other words, it is till a "feel good."
This seems an extremely limited view of "will." A very limited will that is a slave to reward? It seems not conscious at all.
We are very much conscious that what we freely desire is that which "feels good," that which in our mind will result in satisfaction, justice, success, prosperity, health, happiness, etc. These are all rewards seen in recognition of our act aimed at achieving these goals.
Will you do absolutely anything rather than go broke?
Depends. If going broke means losing your home, car, and your family living in poverty, some people may feel desperate enough to even do what they would never do to come up with income—steal, lie, rob, burglarize, cheat, you name it. They may not like it, but they may feel it's "justified." The sense of "justification" is a form of "feel good."
Part of my problem is defining "feels good". I don't conflate it, automatically, with feels right.
Both are subjective perceptions of "good," or "desirable," or "necessary," or "beneficial," or "just," etc.
I believe that doing what we believe is right can, sometimes, bring a world of hurt to us personally. It's then that we discover how much we really value a particular right. We can choose here something higher (of more value) than our personal pleasure.
We make that mistake all the time. Just because something subjectively feels right or good doesn't mean it is objectively right or good for us. People enjoy smoking. "I enjoy smoking" or "Everyone has a vice" is a common rationalization to continue doing something we know is hurting us. Unfortunately, some will continue until it's too late to do something about it. Then they say "man's gotta die from something. I might as well enjoy it"
We constantly equate "feels good" with "is good." That's not always the case, but we follow the subjective (feels good) more than the objective (is good). We see this daily in our eating habits, living habits, drinking habits, driving habits, etc. the feels good trumps everything, sometimes for the good and sometimes for not so good.
Whatever the societal pressure, you could choose to go against it. Virginity, religion, whatever the society rewards you for, you can choose otherwise - now.
We can, but going against the grain doesn't feel so good. :) Most people will go with the flow and avoid any social controversy. Some not only avoid making waves, they don't even like ripples.
Whatever the prejudices of culture, whatever the appetites of biology, humans as conscious beings have the potential to over-ride them for another choice.
But that potential is realized under two different circumstances: "feels good" is a free choice; "feels bad" is forced. The real world forces us to make choices we would normally not make if left to our own devices.
We are very much conscious that what we freely desire is that which "feels good," that which in our mind will result in satisfaction, justice, success, prosperity, health, happiness, etc.
and
Both ["feels good" and "right"]are subjective perceptions of "good," or "desirable," or "necessary," or "beneficial," or "just," etc.
I disagree, and in my experience realizing what is the "right" thing to do is sometimes most definitely not a good feeling - and does not "feel good."
Your experience may be different, but if you are putting doing what's just, right, and justice, necessary, even desirable under the same definition as "feels good" then you've defined away my differences in this argument.
Definitions here don't change the choice or the ability to choose, so I have the same argument while disagreeing with your definition of what feels good.
We can, but going against the grain doesn't feel so good. :)
That's it. And some will choose not to go against the grain, some will choose to go against it (for something they value more) and not feel so good.
It is not the means by which we achieve the result but the results that motivate us. The means may be quite unpleasant, but unless there is a shiny beacon of "feels good" as a reward, the "light at the end of the the tunnel" for our suffering and pain, there would be no point in going though suffering and pain.
unless there is a shiny beacon of "feels good" as a reward … there would be no point in going though suffering and pain.
Sometimes the only point is it's the right thing. The only point. Maybe we're different, but we're both old enough… I remember past and recent, thankfully only a very few, nothing felt or feels good about it.
Hate to switch points here, but logically even if there is a feel good for doing what's "right," whether we choose what's right because it feels good or whether it feels good because it's right solely depends on how you look at it, whatever prejudice (in the larger sense) or worldview you have.
Give me an example. I think in that case we are forced to make the choice, but if it were up to our own devices we would not.
I am thinking of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night he was arrested. He submits to the will of the Father, but that's not his will. It's not his choice.
whether we choose what's right because it feels good or whether it feels good because it's right solely depends on how you look at it, whatever prejudice (in the larger sense) or worldview you have.
Well, yes, I agree.
Jesus in the garden is an ok example. I think it might work, but would take more thought. Worth coming back to, but I’d like a brief side-tour, if it’s ok.
One I’ve been thinking of:
A guy goes off to fight for an “Ideal”. Months later, he ends up face to face with it: He can fight and surely die (assume no guarantee of success in the battle, or even certain failure).
He can run, safely. Or he can stay, fight and die. Some just like him, do each.
Now the twist: In your view, are each “equal”? Are each making the only choice each can make? And therefore, in your view, acting on the same choice, on the same criteria (feels good), and that choice neither objectively better?
In a fashion I’m asking: A) Is it all hardwired and predetermined; B) Does either really have a “choice”?
D, the way I see it has to do with the level of certainty. Hope is a powerful feel-good biological motivator. I say biological because it appears to be irrational. When we are cornered, reason seems to break down; yet hope persists.
Going back to Jesus in the garden, we can say that in his humanity, for a brief moment, he hoped against all hopes that maybe he could avoid the unavoidable, or else he wouldn't have asked.
In the example of a man torn between fighting or running is no different than the example of a deer opting to jump into a ravine to avoid being caught by the wolves. The decision is forced, but the decisive factor is still the one that offers more "feel good," strangely as it sounds.
Is it better to be torn to pieces slowly by the wolves while still alive or being smashed against the rocks at the bottom of a ravine. Even when we choose between two evils, we pick the lesser evil, the lesser "feel-bad." Even then we pick the "best" way to go.
I think each is making the choice that is perceived as lesser evil in this case, which by necessity is greater "good."
In a fashion I’m asking: A) Is it all hardwired and predetermined; B) Does either really have a “choice”?
I would say A) yes and B) yes, except that the if we do have a choice we will pick the one that offers more hope or comfort, i.e. more "feel good."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.