Humans Only Do What They Want To

At 2/16/2012 8:02:35 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I see your point.

At 2/16/2012 8:01:17 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Now, I know this is a bit odd topic, but it's something I thought of. Thinking of it, humans actually never do what they don't want.

It's obvious with some things. For instance, if you want to move your left hand, you will do it if you want. However, what if we were forced. Let's say a murderer is about to kill me if I don't give him money.

Now, I don't want to give him money, right? Well, wrong! I actually do want to do that, because, otherwise, he would kill me. It was surely something I wouldn't do under normal circumstances, but in this case, I would.

For another example, let's talk about little children. One bought candies, and now everyone is around him, wanting to take one. What does he do? Well, he certainly wouldn't want to give them his candies, right? But he still does. Would this mean what I mentioned is broken? Well, not really. He gives them candies because if he didn't, others wouldn't like him. His wish to keep his reputation is bigger than his wish to have the candies, so he gives them away.

So, technically, people never do what they don't want to. They do what they like the best, always. This would make some everyday statements quite invalid. So, does anyone oppose this? I would like to hear your comments on this.

At 2/16/2012 8:31:08 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 2/16/2012 8:01:17 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Now, I know this is a bit odd topic, but it's something I thought of. Thinking of it, humans actually never do what they don't want.

It's obvious with some things. For instance, if you want to move your left hand, you will do it if you want. However, what if we were forced. Let's say a murderer is about to kill me if I don't give him money.

Now, I don't want to give him money, right? Well, wrong! I actually do want to do that, because, otherwise, he would kill me. It was surely something I wouldn't do under normal circumstances, but in this case, I would.

For another example, let's talk about little children. One bought candies, and now everyone is around him, wanting to take one. What does he do? Well, he certainly wouldn't want to give them his candies, right? But he still does. Would this mean what I mentioned is broken? Well, not really. He gives them candies because if he didn't, others wouldn't like him. His wish to keep his reputation is bigger than his wish to have the candies, so he gives them away.

So, technically, people never do what they don't want to. They do what they like the best, always. This would make some everyday statements quite invalid. So, does anyone oppose this? I would like to hear your comments on this.

You might want an addendum that humans only do what they want within a set of options constrained by immediate circumstances.

If I "want" to rob a store, and I don't, it is because of deterrents and constraints on how my behavior applies to my want.

I have not achieved my want of robbing the store, all I have achieved is the best option within current constraints (don't rob the store or police will arrest you as deterrence).

At 2/16/2012 8:01:17 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Now, I know this is a bit odd topic, but it's something I thought of. Thinking of it, humans actually never do what they don't want.

It's obvious with some things. For instance, if you want to move your left hand, you will do it if you want. However, what if we were forced. Let's say a murderer is about to kill me if I don't give him money.

Now, I don't want to give him money, right? Well, wrong! I actually do want to do that, because, otherwise, he would kill me. It was surely something I wouldn't do under normal circumstances, but in this case, I would.

For another example, let's talk about little children. One bought candies, and now everyone is around him, wanting to take one. What does he do? Well, he certainly wouldn't want to give them his candies, right? But he still does. Would this mean what I mentioned is broken? Well, not really. He gives them candies because if he didn't, others wouldn't like him. His wish to keep his reputation is bigger than his wish to have the candies, so he gives them away.

So, technically, people never do what they don't want to. They do what they like the best, always. This would make some everyday statements quite invalid. So, does anyone oppose this? I would like to hear your comments on this.

At 2/16/2012 9:02:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would consider altruism an act against desire.

At 2/18/2012 4:57:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You're creating an ought from an is.

At 2/16/2012 8:01:17 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Now, I know this is a bit odd topic, but it's something I thought of. Thinking of it, humans actually never do what they don't want.

It's obvious with some things. For instance, if you want to move your left hand, you will do it if you want. However, what if we were forced. Let's say a murderer is about to kill me if I don't give him money.

Now, I don't want to give him money, right? Well, wrong! I actually do want to do that, because, otherwise, he would kill me. It was surely something I wouldn't do under normal circumstances, but in this case, I would.

For another example, let's talk about little children. One bought candies, and now everyone is around him, wanting to take one. What does he do? Well, he certainly wouldn't want to give them his candies, right? But he still does. Would this mean what I mentioned is broken? Well, not really. He gives them candies because if he didn't, others wouldn't like him. His wish to keep his reputation is bigger than his wish to have the candies, so he gives them away.

So, technically, people never do what they don't want to. They do what they like the best, always. This would make some everyday statements quite invalid. So, does anyone oppose this? I would like to hear your comments on this.

At 2/16/2012 9:02:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would consider altruism an act against desire.

At 2/18/2012 4:57:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 2/18/2012 4:57:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You're creating an ought from an is.

Where is he deriving an ought? He's only stating an is.

At 2/18/2012 7:49:19 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 2/18/2012 4:57:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 2/18/2012 4:57:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You're creating an ought from an is.

Where is he deriving an ought? He's only stating an is.

Sorry, I read only as ought. Fail.

But isn't this a necessary statement based on your empirical form of testing? i.e. Humans do what they want to do. We know this because they choose a certain action over another. So whatever they choose, they do because they want to.

That's like saying whenever you play football, you act. It's a necessity, and there is no way of humans being able to do what they don't want to do.