NationStates Jolt Archive

I couldn't think of a better title, so sue me. :)

Anyway, I would like to share some thoughts on various things. It could be considered philosophy, but unlike most philosophers, I'm not going to get too abstract, hopefully. If you would like to discuss anything with me, feel free. I'd just like to see if I am not too crazy for thinking of such ideas.

Let's begin, shall we? I'll keep it simple for now.

Human Behavior

Humans are governed by four cardinal desires:

Survival, through any act that ensures one’s existence such as eating or self-defense. Everyone will fight to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can.

The pursuit of pleasure, whether simple things like the taste of your favorite food or overwhelming sensations like an orgasm. It is not enough to simply exist and maintain that existence. A person will always attempt to make their life increase in pleasure or to maintain sources of pleasure.

The avoidance of suffering, as no one wants pain or suffering. Even those who do enjoy pain derive their pleasure from their own pain, thus it is the end of pleasure they desire.

A sense of belonging and connection to an identity, whether cultural, national, religious, etc. Even those who reject traditional identities ironically create their own identity of being outsiders, and may seek or be sought by others who share similar ideals. Thus, a human always wishes to belong to something greater than oneself, even if it is as simple as a club or as expansive as an organized religion.

These are the three basic instincts in a human, and they govern everything in the realm of human morality and behavior. If any of these are overcome, it is always one of the instincts taking priority over another that causes this.

So, what do you think?

I think You've created a weird hybrid of Epicurean philosophy and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You should probably read up a summary on both of those before continuing down this line of thought.

Maybe i'm reading this wrong but you said "four cardinal desires" then later say "three instincts".
Interesting, might i add your idea of people move away from pain towards pleasure is very similar to the Act utilitarian idea of the GHP(Greatest Happiness principle).
So you argue people are determined by their instincts? I think that's similar again to how David Hume thought too.
So you argue in essence for Determinism?
Ah that's pretty hard to beat in philosophy anyway, there are ways though.
Keep going.. more thoughts.

I couldn't think of a better title, so sue me. :)

Anyway, I would like to share some thoughts on various things. It could be considered philosophy, but unlike most philosophers, I'm not going to get too abstract, hopefully. If you would like to discuss anything with me, feel free. I'd just like to see if I am not too crazy for thinking of such ideas.

Let's begin, shall we? I'll keep it simple for now.

Human Behavior

Humans are governed by four cardinal desires:

Survival, through any act that ensures one’s existence such as eating or self-defense. Everyone will fight to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can.

The pursuit of pleasure, whether simple things like the taste of your favorite food or overwhelming sensations like an orgasm. It is not enough to simply exist and maintain that existence. A person will always attempt to make their life increase in pleasure or to maintain sources of pleasure.

The avoidance of suffering, as no one wants pain or suffering. Even those who do enjoy pain derive their pleasure from their own pain, thus it is the end of pleasure they desire.

A sense of belonging and connection to an identity, whether cultural, national, religious, etc. Even those who reject traditional identities ironically create their own identity of being outsiders, and may seek or be sought by others who share similar ideals. Thus, a human always wishes to belong to something greater than oneself, even if it is as simple as a club or as expansive as an organized religion.

These are the three basic instincts in a human, and they govern everything in the realm of human morality and behavior. If any of these are overcome, it is always one of the instincts taking priority over another that causes this.

So, what do you think?

EDIT: Disclaimer, I am a psychologist not a philosopher, so I'm afraid I do tend approach questions of human behaviour from a highly scientific viewpoint

Does read a bit like a bastardised version of Freud (which I don't recommend). I do recommend looking up basic behavioural and evolutionary psychology though. Evidence from psychology tells us that pain and pleasure aren't drives in themselves, they are reinforcer's for the end goal of either personal survival or procreation (thus genetic survival). Things that bring you pleasure are generally because they are good for survival (be it personal or genetic), so food, water, shelter, sex, or things associated with them (ie money). Pain will condition us to avoid whatever causes us pain, because it is bad for our survival.

Similarly, social groups help our survival and the survival of our genetic relations, thus increasing both our personal and genetic survivability and fitness. So I wouldn't call a drive although human interaction is fundamental to our development, our personality and our world view.

Hmm... Interesting.

What about someone who's suicidal? Doesn't that contradict all of the desires that are supposed to govern his behaviour?

Maybe i'm reading this wrong but you said "four cardinal desires" then later say "three instincts".
Interesting, might i add your idea of people move away from pain towards pleasure is very similar to the Act utilitarian idea of the GHP(Greatest Happiness principle).
So you argue people are determined by their instincts? I think that's similar again to how David Hume thought too.
So you argue in essence for Determinism?
Ah that's pretty hard to beat in philosophy anyway, there are ways though.
Keep going.. more thoughts.

Whoops, typo. I'm using instincts and desires interchangeably, though. If you really want to get picky, let's call them motivating principles.

Not necessarily determinism, as I can't tell you why a person will want to belong to a certain religion more than to another based on this particular diagram, but I can tell you that all human behavior falls under one of these categories, and also how this impacts ethics and the nature of suffering, as I see it.

EDIT: Disclaimer, I am a psychologist not a philosopher, so I'm afraid I do tend approach questions of human behaviour from a highly scientific viewpoint

Does read a bit like a bastardised version of Freud (which I don't recommend). I do recommend looking up basic behavioural and evolutionary psychology though. Evidence from psychology tells us that pain and pleasure aren't drives in themselves, they are reinforcer's for the end goal of either personal survival or procreation (thus genetic survival). Things that bring you pleasure are generally because they are good for survival (be it personal or genetic), so food, water, shelter, sex, or things associated with them (ie money). Pain will condition us to avoid whatever causes us pain, because it is bad for our survival.

Similarly, social groups help our survival and the survival of our genetic relations, thus increasing both our personal and genetic survivability and fitness. So I wouldn't call a drive although human interaction is fundamental to our development, our personality and our world view.

I agree with the fact that the instincts can tend to help survival by acting as reinforcing rewards and punishments, but let's look at something that is pleasurable but harmful at the same time. Alcohol is a good example. It serves no benefit to a person's health yet we tend to pursue drinking it because of either pleasure or the need to belong to a group. Sometimes, it can be somewhat painful as well, if you are an unseasoned drinker.

I think You've created a weird hybrid of Epicurean philosophy and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You should probably read up a summary on both of those before continuing down this line of thought.

I've read Epicurean philosophy before, but I have not heard of Maslow. I shoud look into that.

Thank you very much. :)

Hmm... Interesting.

What about someone who's suicidal? Doesn't that contradict all of the desires that are supposed to govern his behaviour?

Oddballs never count in a discussion of general tendencies. It is perfectly acceptable to describe dogs as quadrupeds even if some are born with more or less.

The fact is, a suicide who has not yet had children doesn't count at all, from the evolution point of view, and neither does one who can no longer meaningfully contribute to the well being of children. So right there, the vast majority of suicides, minors and isolated senior citizens, simply don't count in any discussion bearing on evolution- such as Human instinct.

Hmm... Interesting.

What about someone who's suicidal? Doesn't that contradict all of the desires that are supposed to govern his behaviour?

Ah, yes. That is a case I can solve, however troublesome it is.

Let us examine the motivation behind a suicide. Could it be a cultural matter, such as the Samurai tradition of Seppuku after a loss of honor, or even the modern trend of Goths glorifying suicide to such a point a member of the style does commit it? Then it would move into the instinct of belonging, which has overpowered the instinct of survival.

If it is motivated by depression, which is probably severe if it warrant suicide, then it is the avoidance of suffering overpowering the survival instinct. This is the same instinct in a case of a inevitable painful death, such as with cancer.

Any instinct can overpower the other, but only with sufficient pressure on that particular instinct to 'kick in'.

Ah of course! So really, even suicide is governed by these cardinal desires. It's simply another case of one desire being prioritised over another, in your examples avoidance of pain (mental and/or physical) or identity being prioritised over survival.

For some reason or another, my reply to Eofaerwic still hasn't been approved. I suppose they're reading the entire quote or something.:p

Ah of course! So really, even suicide is governed by these cardinal desires. It's simply another case of one desire being prioritised over another, in your examples avoidance of pain (mental and/or physical) or identity being prioritised over survival.

Yes, you have it there. :D

I suppose if no-one else wishes to discuss anything else, I can move on.

Ethics

There are three types of morality: Primal, Social and Virtuous. Primal morality tends to be favored in persons whose interests are under threat constantly, social for those who are primarily interested in engaging in pleasurable activities and virtuous for those who seek to something higher than the immediate world.

Primal morality is the mode of behavior of basic creatures and base characters. Hedonism and Selfishness are the key characteristics of primal morality, in which there is no remorse other than for one and all actions are taken to benefit oneself or one’s interests. All one’s actions are taken to further one’s interests directly or indirectly. The being using primal morality will only benefit in achieving what they wish, at the expense of social acceptance. While it will benefit one and anyone under one’s interests, others, especially the opposition, will necessarily suffer. In turn, this suffering will return in different forms as a result of the damage caused by primal morality to hurt one and will cause one’s own suffering unless one can find a way to impede it. Even it is suppressed, once one is unable to continue the suppression, such as in death, one’s memory is tarnished and can become immortally demonized.

Social morality is the ethics of compromise and tolerance, which most civilizations started out employing. While one does not necessarily follow primal morality, there is no real personal conviction about adhering to the ideals of brotherhood, justice and peace. Instead, they are conventions set for which one can avoid all rationally possible forms of inflictions of pain and suffering caused by others. As such, it is essentially hollow, as while the rules are followed, the effect of fostering unity and happiness among others who follow such morality is not included. Instead, it simply attempts to avoid all possible evil that could be imposed on one by others by creating a sort of social responsibility. In such a system, stability is ensured, but the hedonism of primal morality endures in that the system limits the evils but does not extend the riches for every member of the society. Basically, indifference and convenience is the main mode of behavior.

Virtuous morality is the idealized code of ethics that few truly follow. It is viewed that being moral is a benefit to its own end, and not necessarily simply a means to avoid suffering. This type of morality suggests that somehow, the virtuous benefit by simply being virtuous, either by divine recognition and reward, a karmic guarantee of avoided suffering or a personal felicity. However, since such a standard of ethics is terribly difficult to follow thoroughly, especially with a temptingly corrupt society, the fragility of such morality can be exploited by primal or social morality. It is also the hardest to maintain during a moral dilemma.

I will also post on Moral Dilemmas later if you like.

I suppose if no-one else wishes to discuss anything else, I can move on.

Ethics

There are three types of morality: Primal, Social and Virtuous. Primal morality tends to be favored in persons whose interests are under threat constantly, social for those who are primarily interested in engaging in pleasurable activities and virtuous for those who seek to

Primal morality is the mode of behavior of basic creatures and base characters. Hedonism and Selfishness are the key characteristics of primal morality, in which there is no remorse other than for one and all actions are taken to benefit oneself or one’s interests. All one’s actions are taken to further one’s interests directly or indirectly. The being using primal morality will only benefit in achieving what they wish, at the expense of social acceptance. While it will benefit one and anyone under one’s interests, others, especially the opposition, will necessarily suffer. In turn, this suffering will return in different forms as a result of the damage caused by primal morality to hurt one and will cause one’s own suffering unless one can find a way to impede it. Even it is suppressed, once one is unable to continue the suppression, such as in death, one’s memory is tarnished and can become immortally demonized.

Social morality is the ethics of compromise and tolerance, which most civilizations started out employing. While one does not necessarily follow primal morality, there is no real personal conviction about adhering to the ideals of brotherhood, justice and peace. Instead, they are conventions set for which one can avoid all rationally possible forms of inflictions of pain and suffering caused by others. As such, it is essentially hollow, as while the rules are followed, the effect of fostering unity and happiness among others who follow such morality is not included. Instead, it simply attempts to avoid all possible evil that could be imposed on one by others by creating a sort of social responsibility. In such a system, stability is ensured, but the hedonism of primal morality endures in that the system limits the evils but does not extend the riches for every member of the society. Basically, indifference and convenience is the main mode of behavior.

Virtuous morality is the idealized code of ethics that few truly follow. It is viewed that being moral is a benefit to its own end, and not necessarily simply a means to avoid suffering. This type of morality suggests that somehow, the virtuous benefit by simply being virtuous, either by divine recognition and reward, a karmic guarantee of avoided suffering or a personal felicity. However, since such a standard of ethics is terribly difficult to follow thoroughly, especially with a temptingly corrupt society, the fragility of such morality can be exploited by primal or social morality. It is also the hardest to maintain during a moral dilemma.

I will also post on Moral Dilemmas later if you like.

You could post one as a seperate thread, then keep them going on that thread. Like a sort of pilot study, oh that reminds me i should be revising.
Go for it.
Oh couldn't Primal morality be a part of Social morality? As the two sound similar, because in social morality you're trying to help society, but you still do it to feel good, in a sense you've only changed your Primal morality to function for a different cause.
Virtuous morality, how can it be an ideal if few people can follow it? surely a better morality is one all people can follow while still allowed to be human, because Virtuous morality asks you to be "good" for the sake of being good not necessarily helping others in the same instance.
Is it true the only way to be moral is to be virtuous? What about love?(i know it sounds soppy but the point is still there) can't that be moral too?

The great philosopher Scott Adams said that human behavior can usually be defined by "stupidity" and "horniness." I have yet to see anyone disprove his theories.

You could post one as a seperate thread, then keep them going on that thread. Like a sort of pilot study, oh that reminds me i should be revising.
Go for it.
Oh couldn't Primal morality be a part of Social morality? As the two sound similar, because in social morality you're trying to help society, but you still do it to feel good, in a sense you've only changed your Primal morality to function for a different cause.
Virtuous morality, how can it be an ideal if few people can follow it? surely a better morality is one all people can follow while still allowed to be human, because Virtuous morality asks you to be "good" for the sake of being good not necessarily helping others in the same instance.
Is it true the only way to be moral is to be virtuous? What about love?(i know it sounds soppy but the point is still there) can't that be moral too?


I suppose they lead into each other, but there is a key difference between them. Primal morality basically does not give any importance to harming others, while social morality does so, but only to avoid one's own possibility of being hurt back.

That is an interesting point, but I beleive you may be confusing what I am saying. Helping others is part of virtuous morality, because you are doing it because you want to be a moral person. Otherwise, what is your motivation for helping others?

In a sense, yes, you must be virtuous to be moral. Because, are you really moral when you're only following the rules just to not be punished, and not because you are convinced they are right?

There is no problem with love. In fact, love can be a great part of virtue, because it is quite helpful(most of the time :)) rather than harmful. I believe you are associating the use of the word 'virtuous' with traditional Abrahamic morality. Only the harming of others is immoral, which is usually not the case in an amorous relationship.

The great philosopher Scott Adams said that human behavior can usually be defined by "stupidity" and "horniness." I have yet to see anyone disprove his theories.

:D I agree, but if we were to take this claim seriously, I could how it could fit...

Pleasure fits into sexual drive.

Stupidity is rather general, but I'll attempt it. All such actions are caused by misconceptions, mostly motivated by illogical identity motivators or the pursuit of pleasure but to a degree of rsik, such as Female Genital Mutilation in some African societies or deaths in extreme sports, as I don't think a person would do something illogical just for the sake of doing it.

However, it doesn't account as to why people do certain things. Why do people compose music or create music? I don't think it is stupid to do either of those two activities and I don't see how horniness could play into it (at least, not for all musicians and artists). You have to include the pursuit of pleasure in there. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

It's not that it's not right, it's just that it's only a part of the whole thing.

For some reason or another, my reply to Eofaerwic still hasn't been approved. I suppose they're reading the entire quote or something.:p

No, it was simply mods having a go at RL for a change, which led to a buildup in the approvals queue. You can help avoid that in future by not re-posting, though now you're reached 10 posts, the problem should soon disappear. Here's what causes it: Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849).

These are the three basic instincts in a human, and they govern everything in the realm of human morality and behavior.

Prove it.

More constructively--what about duty? Can't we do something because we recognize it as right, independent of the pleasure we derive from it, or the benefit it has for our survival, or its role in group membership?

No, it was simply mods having a go at RL for a change, which led to a buildup in the approvals queue. You can help avoid that in future by not re-posting, though now you're reached 10 posts, the problem should soon disappear. Here's what causes it: Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849).

Oh, thanks. I did not know that, honestly.

I haven't posted on here in about two years, so I suppose some new things have appeared.

Prove it.

More constructively--what about duty? Can't we do something because we recognize it as right, independent of the pleasure we derive from it, or the benefit it has for our survival, or its role in group membership?

Well, that's the thing. I don't have to prove it, because I'm not trying to impose what I beleive on anyone. If your expierence hasn't led you to see a basis for any of these claims, then don't beleive me. I honestly don't mind. If you want to change my opinion, however, then prove me otherwise by giving me an example.

As for duty, that is rather general. What kind of duty? patriotic, filial, legal?

I'll take in the patriotic sense, because that is usually the main connotation of the word. Let us say you go to fight in a war because you beleive the cause is just. If you beleive in a cause, you identify with its morality and therefore belong to that group/identity. Therefore, whether or not you are correct in your assumption that you are justified in your duty and that it is the right thing to do, it is caused by belonging to that identity. Because, otherwise, where do you get your conception that you are in the right by acting in your duty?

I hope that wasn't too confusing. :)

I'm tired. I need to go to bed now, so I'll just reply to any posts tomorrow if I can. Feel free to add anything if you like.

Anyways, good night, people.

As for duty, that is rather general. What kind of duty? patriotic, filial, legal?

Moral.

Let us say you go to fight in a war because you beleive the cause is just.

That works.

If you beleive in a cause, you identify with its morality

No, you don't. You recognize the cause as moral. You don't necessarily "identify" with anything.

I "identify" with certain struggles for justice because I am a member of the groups demanding justice, or because I am a member of another group that is comparable. But I can accept as moral a cause that I don't identify with. (For instance, I don't really "identify" with immigrants in any sense--I was born here, and so were my parents--but I strongly support immigrant rights.)

and therefore belong to that group/identity.

Not at all.

Therefore, whether or not you are correct in your assumption that you are justified in your duty and that it is the right thing to do, it is caused by belonging to that identity.

But it's independent of my identity.

I can accept as morally legitimate a cause I don't identify with (again, immigrant rights.)

I can deny the moral legitimacy of a cause I might in a sense identify with.

Because, otherwise, where do you get your conception that you are in the right by acting in your duty?

From an understanding of right and wrong that need not have anything to do with "identity."

Perhaps I have heard a convincing philosophical argument. Perhaps I have strong moral intuitions about something. And so on.

Humans are governed by four cardinal desires
So, ultimately, you believe humans/human behaviour is governed by desire?

Everyone will fight to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can.
That's clearly not the case.

Suicide and self-sacrifice, although not prevalent, exist. Therefore, we humans aren't governed by a desire to prolong life.

A person will always attempt to make their life increase in pleasure or to maintain sources of pleasure.
Again, this simply isn't true.

Think of ascetics and others who deliberately avoid certain pleasures.

Thus, a human always wishes to belong to something greater than oneself, even if it is as simple as a club or as expansive as an organized religion.
Then what about hermits?

These are the three basic instincts in a human, and they govern everything in the realm of human morality and behavior.
Evidence would say otherwise.

So, what do you think?
I think you need to be less deterministic. It may well be true that the things you mentioned above play a large part in human behaviour, but stating that they determine behaviour seems a bit strong.

I agree with the fact that the instincts can tend to help survival by acting as reinforcing rewards and punishments, but let's look at something that is pleasurable but harmful at the same time. Alcohol is a good example. It serves no benefit to a person's health yet we tend to pursue drinking it because of either pleasure or the need to belong to a group. Sometimes, it can be somewhat painful as well, if you are an unseasoned drinker.

Yes and no. Arguably early on in our history, alcohol did serve to help survival significantly, since alcohol was safer to drink than the average well water (why do you think most peasents drank ale). Also, alcohol is a drug, it causes a chemical reaction in the brain, one part of which is to release dopamine in the reward centre of the brain, in a similar way to that primary reinforcers (ie those directly related to our survival) do. This reinforces the behaviour, makes it liable to be repeated. It is why drugs are psychologically addicitive, they fool our brains into thinking they are directly relevant to our survival.

Well, that's the thing. I don't have to prove it, because I'm not trying to impose what I beleive on anyone. If your expierence hasn't led you to see a basis for any of these claims, then don't beleive me. I honestly don't mind. If you want to change my opinion, however, then prove me otherwise by giving me an example.


You are making sweeping statements about human nature and behaviour, even from a philosophical point of view, I'm pretty sure you have to back up statements with logical arguments. You have every right to believe the sky is purple, but don't expect people to take you seriously unless you can at least give a decent logical argument, I'm afraid the burden of proof rests with you.

If (as you appear to be) you are literally arguing that these instincts/drives are the root cause of human behaviour then you are straying in the realm of psychology and frankly Freud has walked this ground before and been disproved. A theory is all very well, but theories need to generate hypothesis, which need to be proven by more than just anecdotal evidence, and account for all the previous evidence that has gone before.

Suicide and self-sacrifice, although not prevalent, exist. Therefore, we humans aren't governed by a desire to prolong life.
He addressed this earlier. When someone commits suicide, they are trying to avoid suffering, and one could even say trying to achieve pleasure.



I think you need to be less deterministic. It may well be true that the things you mentioned above play a large part in human behaviour, but stating that they determine behaviour seems a bit strong.
Chumblywumbly is right. What you say in the "Ethics" section addresses this somewhat, but doesn't really connect with the "Human Behavior" bit. I'm interested to see how you link them.

There are three types of morality: Primal, Social and Virtuous. Primal morality tends to be favored in persons whose interests are under threat constantly, social for those who are primarily interested in engaging in pleasurable activities and virtuous for those who seek to something higher than the immediate world.
I'd highly recommend, if you haven't already (it appears that you haven't) studying Virtue and Duty Ethics, and perhaps the respective 'fathers' of the two, Aristotle and Kant.

He addressed this earlier. When someone commits suicide, they are trying to avoid suffering, and one could even say trying to achieve pleasure.
Yet s/he claimed that 'everyone will fight to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can', which simply isn't supported by the examples of suicide and self-sacrifice.

I couldn't think of a better title, so sue me. :)

Anyway, I would like to share some thoughts on various things. It could be considered philosophy, but unlike most philosophers, I'm not going to get too abstract, hopefully. If you would like to discuss anything with me, feel free. I'd just like to see if I am not too crazy for thinking of such ideas.

Let's begin, shall we? I'll keep it simple for now.

Human Behavior

Humans are governed by four cardinal desires:

Survival, through any act that ensures one’s existence such as eating or self-defense. Everyone will fight to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can.

The pursuit of pleasure, whether simple things like the taste of your favorite food or overwhelming sensations like an orgasm. It is not enough to simply exist and maintain that existence. A person will always attempt to make their life increase in pleasure or to maintain sources of pleasure.

The avoidance of suffering, as no one wants pain or suffering. Even those who do enjoy pain derive their pleasure from their own pain, thus it is the end of pleasure they desire.

A sense of belonging and connection to an identity, whether cultural, national, religious, etc. Even those who reject traditional identities ironically create their own identity of being outsiders, and may seek or be sought by others who share similar ideals. Thus, a human always wishes to belong to something greater than oneself, even if it is as simple as a club or as expansive as an organized religion.

These are the three basic instincts in a human, and they govern everything in the realm of human morality and behavior. If any of these are overcome, it is always one of the instincts taking priority over another that causes this.

So, what do you think?
I think you could reduce all of those to the pursuit of pleasure and leave it at that.

You allow for people to seek out suffering should they enjoy it, so clearly pleasure is the driving factor there.

People often eat to excess because they like it, or eat foods that make them feel good, even if they might be harmful to survival. Much drug use works like this as well.

And the sense of belonging happens because most people like to feel like they belong (and if some people liked to feel like they didn't, they would flee society). So you seek that out (or avoid it) based on pleasure-seeking.

It's all pleasure.

Yet s/he claimed that 'everyone will fight to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can', which simply isn't supported by the examples of suicide and self-sacrifice.

Yes, "maximum extent they can." I guess suicides feel that they've gone beyond the maximum extent, and as much as they would like to live, they can't.

I'm not the poster, so I don't know exactly what he means. That's just how I interpreted it.

Yes, “maximum extent they can.” I guess suicides feel that they’ve gone beyond the maximum extent, and as much as they would like to live, they can’t.

I’m not the poster, so I don’t know exactly what he means. That’s just how I interpreted it.
Ahh, I see what you mean. I obviously interpreted it differently.

Still, this doesn’t cut the mustard with self-sacrifice, but as you say, you're not the poster. We’ll wait and see.

Ahh, I see what you mean. I obviously interpreted it differently.

Still, this doesn’t cut the mustard with self-sacrifice, but as you say, you're not the poster. We’ll wait and see.

Self-sacrifice? Hmm, well, I suppose that your need to belong to an identity (if that's the kind of self sacrifice you imply) is the motivator for that. If you're a freedom fighter, you fight and die for that cause because you belong to that cause because you believe it is right. Why you believe in that cause, though, I can't say.

Otherwise, let's say, in terms of a family. A member of your family is being forced to undergo something ardous and you attempt to help them in a self-sacrificing way. Why? Possibly, it is the avoidance of suffering, because you might feel guilty for not having done anything, or that your identification with the idea of 'family' caused you to fulfill that familial duty to them.

I hope that answered it.

No, you don't. You recognize the cause as moral. You don't necessarily "identify" with anything.

I "identify" with certain struggles for justice because I am a member of the groups demanding justice, or because I am a member of another group that is comparable. But I can accept as moral a cause that I don't identify with. (For instance, I don't really "identify" with immigrants in any sense--I was born here, and so were my parents--but I strongly support immigrant rights.)

I can accept as morally legitimate a cause I don't identify with (again, immigrant rights.)

I can deny the moral legitimacy of a cause I might in a sense identify with.

Yes, but I am using the example of when you actually do something to help the cause, rather than simply agreeing with it. To belong to a group is to actually participate in it as a member.

I suppose its the use of 'identity' that's causing this little misconception. I can't think of a better word, but when I use it, I don't mean just to agree that a group is right, but to actually be a part of that group.

In terms of a duty, if you don't actually do anything with the group, then what does it matter? You only agree that the cause is right and that's it. However, when you actually get involved and help, let's say, illegal immigrants, then you become a part of the group that believes that they deserve certain rights.

Everyone gets their sense of right and wrong from some group or another. The only reason you might believe the consumption of meat is right is because you were raised in a society that allows it, and vice versa. After a while, you might change your ideals, but that is because you've been exposed to new ideas probably or to a moral dilemma. It's very rare for a person to just decide to oppose the conventions of society just for doing it.

So, ultimately, you believe humans/human behaviour is governed by desire?


That's clearly not the case.

Suicide and self-sacrifice, although not prevalent, exist. Therefore, we humans aren't governed by a desire to prolong life.


Again, this simply isn't true.

Think of ascetics and others who deliberately avoid certain pleasures.


Then what about hermits?


Evidence would say otherwise.


I think you need to be less deterministic. It may well be true that the things you mentioned above play a large part in human behaviour, but stating that they determine behaviour seems a bit strong.

Suicide, I've adressed. I think I should go back and post everything in one reply so it can read by new people.

Ascetics are motivated by morality, which is determined by what group they choose to identify with. Ascetics almost always follow some of kind of philosophical or spiritual tradition.

A hermit always has a reason for becoming a hermit. If they're are unsatisfied with society, then it's the avoidance of pleasure and possibly the identification with a certain identity/ morality (like if you've heard Rousseau 's arguement of the Noble Savage and decided to be that noble savage.)

I'm not saying that people will be competely predictable, because I can't know why someone did something until they do it. However, the motives behind that behavior can be clearly shown within this theory

I think also you might not have looked at how each of the instincts can be overpowered by the others.

You are making sweeping statements about human nature and behaviour, even from a philosophical point of view, I'm pretty sure you have to back up statements with logical arguments. You have every right to believe the sky is purple, but don't expect people to take you seriously unless you can at least give a decent logical argument, I'm afraid the burden of proof rests with you.

If (as you appear to be) you are literally arguing that these instincts/drives are the root cause of human behaviour then you are straying in the realm of psychology and frankly Freud has walked this ground before and been disproved. A theory is all very well, but theories need to generate hypothesis, which need to be proven by more than just anecdotal evidence, and account for all the previous evidence that has gone before.

Yes, but one can go out and clearly see the sky is not purple. I doubt you can find an example that does not fit into the theory. I can provide examples for any of the instincts, but otherwise, you have to go out in the real world to see if it's true.

I'm not really trying to tell you that everything you do will be determined by the behavior, in terms of why you will enjoy a certain food better than another. I'm just trying to show why people are willing to die for a cause or to commit some fairly terrible acts, such as embezzling.

Yes and no. Arguably early on in our history, alcohol did serve to help survival significantly, since alcohol was safer to drink than the average well water (why do you think most peasents drank ale). Also, alcohol is a drug, it causes a chemical reaction in the brain, one part of which is to release dopamine in the reward centre of the brain, in a similar way to that primary reinforcers (ie those directly related to our survival) do. This reinforces the behaviour, makes it liable to be repeated. It is why drugs are psychologically addicitive, they fool our brains into thinking they are directly relevant to our survival.

It could be cleaner than drinking water in ancient times, but what cost to the body? and why do we continue to drink it today? I doubt you could say we've evolved with it and crave it(especially since evolution takes a long time and alcohol been around for a relatively short period of time), because there are socieities where it is not even a part of their culture, such as Islamic societies. It's either because it's part of culture or we like it.

Saying that it gives us pleasure proves my point. It's something harmful that we gain pleasure from. We don't get pain from it, which would be against your claim that all things helpful are reinforced by pleasure, yet it harms us.

Besides, we could go the inverse and talk about medicines. There's plenty of medicine that is not pleasurable to drink due to its taste, yet the medicine helps us. I'm sure you've had some once in your life.

I couldn't think of a better title, so sue me. :)

Anyway, I would like to share some thoughts on various things. It could be considered philosophy, but unlike most philosophers, I'm not going to get too abstract, hopefully. If you would like to discuss anything with me, feel free. I'd just like to see if I am not too crazy for thinking of such ideas.

Let's begin, shall we? I'll keep it simple for now.

Human Behavior

*snip*

So, what do you think?

I disagree.
I think we act with the indirect intention to produce the highest quality and quantity of offspring.
This is no conscious process, often we don't really know the real reason why we're doing something. Instead this is because doing certain things (eating, having sex) stimulates certain area's in our brain to give us some kind of reward. In the process of evolution it has been made sure that actions which are beneficial to the production of the highest quality and quantity of offspring result in the stimulation of these areas and things that are detrimental to this ultimate goal reduce stimulation of these parts of our brain.
An example of such an area would be the nucleus accumbens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_accumbens). Certain things, eating and having sex for instance, will release dopamine to certain cells located in the NA, which gives us a sense of reward, which is why we do these things.
There was an experiment in which an electrode was connected to the NA of a rat which could stimulate dopamine release when the rat pushed a lever, the researchers soon observed that the rats didn't do anything else than pushing the lever they didn't want to eat or have sex. The same is true for humans, certain substances do the same as pushing the lever (cocaine for instance) which explains amongst other things why it's so addictive.
The nucleus accumbens is only a part of a much larger system which rewards wanted behaviour and makes us avoid unwanted behaviour. (wanted and unwanted from an evolutionary pov) This system isn't fool proof though which is why some people do stuff which are very stupid from this point of view but do result in a reward (drugs/continuously pushing the lever for instance).

So basically: our behavior is the result of our need to receive rewards which have a material (the cells of our body and the various ways in which they communicate are material) basis in our body, this basis was formed during evolution.


It's a little bit more complicated than that but I have limited time and I think people who know more about neurology/psychology/etc will probably be able to explain it better, but I hope I wasn't to confusing.

I disagree.
I think we act with the indirect intention to produce the highest quality and quantity of offspring.
This is no conscious process, often we don't really know the real reason why we're doing something. Instead this is because doing certain things (eating, having sex) stimulates certain area's in our brain to give us some kind of reward. In the process of evolution it has been made sure that actions which are beneficial to the production of the highest quality and quantity of offspring result in the stimulation of these areas and things that are detrimental to this ultimate goal reduce stimulation of these parts of our brain.
An example of such an area would be the nucleus accumbens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_accumbens). Certain things, eating and having sex for instance, will release dopamine to certain cells located in the NA, which gives us a sense of reward, which is why we do these things.
There was an experiment in which an electrode was connected to the NA of a rat which could stimulate dopamine release when the rat pushed a lever, the researchers soon observed that the rats didn't do anything else than pushing the lever they didn't want to eat or have sex. The same is true for humans, certain substances do the same as pushing the lever (cocaine for instance) which explains amongst other things why it's so addictive.
The nucleus accumbens is only a part of a much larger system which rewards wanted behaviour and makes us avoid unwanted behaviour. (wanted and unwanted from an evolutionary pov) This system isn't fool proof though which is why some people do stuff which are very stupid from this point of view but do result in a reward (drugs/continuously pushing the lever for instance).

So basically: our behavior is the result of our need to receive rewards which have a material (the cells of our body and the various ways in which they communicate are material) basis in our body, this basis was formed during evolution.


It's a little bit more complicated than that but I have limited time and I think people who know more about neurology/psychology/etc will probably be able to explain it better, but I hope I wasn't to confusing.

So, you're saying that we like pleasure and that there are certain actions that tend to give us pleasure as a possible reward for furthering the human population. I agree. It don't see how it goes against anything I've said so far.

I think you could reduce all of those to the pursuit of pleasure and leave it at that.

You allow for people to seek out suffering should they enjoy it, so clearly pleasure is the driving factor there.

People often eat to excess because they like it, or eat foods that make them feel good, even if they might be harmful to survival. Much drug use works like this as well.

And the sense of belonging happens because most people like to feel like they belong (and if some people liked to feel like they didn't, they would flee society). So you seek that out (or avoid it) based on pleasure-seeking.

It's all pleasure.

Well, partially. Yet, is there pleasure in fighting for your life? Pleasure can't cover the width of human behavior.

So, you're saying that we like pleasure and that there are certain actions that tend to give us pleasure as a possible reward for furthering the human population. I agree. It don't see how it goes against anything I've said so far.

I'm saying that we basically only do actions that give us some kind of reward in our brain and tend to avoid actions which cause a punishment (pain, feeling sad) and this because we are hardwired to feel a reward when we do something that is good from an evolutionary point of view, those are the only thing that motivate us.
So the two things you said about fighting for our existence and belonging to a group are not separate motivations. Fighting for existence is pretty obvious, it is rewarded because if we didn't fight for existence we would be a pretty lousy species from an evolutionary pov. Belonging to a group is just a result of the fact that we have to work together in order to survive, we are social animals, and without working together we would probably have been extinct. So wanting to belong to a group, wanting to have sex/eat (seek pleasure), avoiding harm (avoiding pain) and wanting to survive are all evolutionary very favorable traits that's why they are rewarded, that's why they motivate us.

In reality I believe things to be a little bit more complicated, but I don't have that much time because in a week I have exams about the nervous system and the senses, which is kind of how I came to this opinion :p

EDIT: you also didn't really explain why humans are governed by those four desires I think. And what about ascetics (the guys sitting in a cave, meditating till they die) , they don't seek pleasure, they don't avoid pain, they don't want to belong to a group and don't fight for their survival. I agree that these are very rare and that they don't fit into my thoughts either, but still, how would you explain their behaviour?

So, you're saying that we like pleasure and that there are certain actions that tend to give us pleasure as a possible reward for furthering the human population. I agree. It don't see how it goes against anything I've said so far.

No, they and I previously have been saying that pleasure does not DRIVE these actions, as you claim. We're not motivated by a pleasure-seeking instinct and more than we are motivated by a pain-avoidance instinct. The subjective experience of pleasure is merely an affective by-product of a reward system which influences our behaviour towards those things which will ultimately increase our survival or result in procreation, thus genetic survival. The system is imperfect however and certain substances will cause a chemical reaction fooling this system into believing it is good for it's survival, when in reality it's not.

Saying that it gives us pleasure proves my point. It's something harmful that we gain pleasure from. We don't get pain from it, which would be against your claim that all things helpful are reinforced by pleasure, yet it harms us.

Besides, we could go the inverse and talk about medicines. There's plenty of medicine that is not pleasurable to drink due to its taste, yet the medicine helps us. I'm sure you've had some once in your life.

You appear to be missing our point. Drugs (and yes, alcohol is a drug), fool the brain into thinking it's directly related to our survival when it's not. If it causes pleasure or not is entirely besides the point . Arguably, medicine is a case of cognition (intellectual knowledge it will help us) over-riding minor negative reinforcement (ugh, this tastes nasty, it's probably bad for me).

Yes, but one can go out and clearly see the sky is not purple. I doubt you can find an example that does not fit into the theory. I can provide examples for any of the instincts, but otherwise, you have to go out in the real world to see if it's true.

I'm not really trying to tell you that everything you do will be determined by the behavior, in terms of why you will enjoy a certain food better than another. I'm just trying to show why people are willing to die for a cause or to commit some fairly terrible acts, such as embezzling.

It's a drastic over-simplification of human behaviour, and, like a lot of such theories, is so nebulous that it can never truly be tested or falsified, since it can be twisted to fit any situation, without actually telling us anything about the underlying 'whys' and 'hows' of human behaviour. Please go and read Freud who argued something very similar to you a lot more eloquently, then go and read any introduction to psychology textbook published since (more recent the better) for a good explanation of why his theories are for the most part completely wrong.

I'm saying that we basically only do actions that give us some kind of reward in our brain and tend to avoid actions which cause a punishment (pain, feeling sad) and this because we are hardwired to feel a reward when we do something that is good from an evolutionary point of view, those are the only thing that motivate us.
So the two things you said about fighting for our existence and belonging to a group are not separate motivations. Fighting for existence is pretty obvious, it is rewarded because if we didn't fight for existence we would be a pretty lousy species from an evolutionary pov. Belonging to a group is just a result of the fact that we have to work together in order to survive, we are social animals, and without working together we would probably have been extinct. So wanting to belong to a group, wanting to have sex/eat (seek pleasure), avoiding harm (avoiding pain) and wanting to survive are all evolutionary very favorable traits that's why they are rewarded, that's why they motivate us.

In reality I believe things to be a little bit more complicated, but I don't have that much time because in a week I have exams about the nervous system and the senses, which is kind of how I came to this opinion :p

EDIT: you also didn't really explain why humans are governed by those four desires I think. And what about ascetics (the guys sitting in a cave, meditating till they die) , they don't seek pleasure, they don't avoid pain, they don't want to belong to a group and don't fight for their survival. I agree that these are very rare and that they don't fit into my thoughts either, but still, how would you explain their behaviour?

Yes, ok. I agree. It may be that evolution has brought these traits. I don't know. All I'm saying is that we have these instincts, whether or not they have been caused by evolution.

Anyway, I have some qualms about accepting the theory of evolution whole-heartedly, but that's for another discussion. :)

Ascetics tend to actually want suffering, actually. It depends on the kind, though, most them tend to fast and do other things that don't tend to be too much fun. But, as for a person who doesn't have any of these instincts, I don't think the claim is true. An ascetic has the concept of a God that they wish to be closer to. Where did they get that concept? From an organized religon, which is an identity.

Perhaps I should define identity. In my little theory, identity is the group of ideas that belong to certain group of people that you define yourself as. If you identify with a certain religion, you say you are a Christian or Hindu. Because by accepting that idea, you become a part of that group and you begin to view yourself as a member of that identity. I hope that wasn't too confusing.

Anyway, an ascetic belong to that ascetic identity, but their instinct to belong has become so powerful, their other instincts are overpowered. Like I said, ascetics tend to be outsiders of society, and being outsider of society is an identity. Sometimes, even ascetics will congregate and meditate/ worship together. Think of monasteries. Also, as I said before, some of them beleive society is a hurtful, evil institution and do what they do to get closer to God, either to avoid suffering or to gain pleasure, or both. Pleasure can simply the inner calm of a monk, rather than the more visceral pleasures out there.

I think the other problem that many people are critical of in this theory is the seeming lack of human involvement, since most people aren't going around thinking, "Well, now, I'm going to Sunday church because I need to belong."

I suppose that I haven't mentioned the more conscious and creative side of the human being, which I will later in ethics, once I think all possible criticisms of my thought are answered before moving on.

No, they and I previously have been saying that pleasure does not DRIVE these actions, as you claim. We're not motivated by a pleasure-seeking instinct and more than we are motivated by a pain-avoidance instinct. The subjective experience of pleasure is merely an affective by-product of a reward system which influences our behaviour towards those things which will ultimately increase our survival or result in procreation, thus genetic survival. The system is imperfect however and certain substances will cause a chemical reaction fooling this system into believing it is good for it's survival, when in reality it's not.



You appear to be missing our point. Drugs (and yes, alcohol is a drug), fool the brain into thinking it's directly related to our survival when it's not. If it causes pleasure or not is entirely besides the point . Arguably, medicine is a case of cognition (intellectual knowledge it will help us) over-riding minor negative reinforcement (ugh, this tastes nasty, it's probably bad for me).



It's a drastic over-simplification of human behaviour, and, like a lot of such theories, is so nebulous that it can never truly be tested or falsified, since it can be twisted to fit any situation, without actually telling us anything about the underlying 'whys' and 'hows' of human behaviour. Please go and read Freud who argued something very similar to you a lot more eloquently, then go and read any introduction to psychology textbook published since (more recent the better) for a good explanation of why his theories are for the most part completely wrong.

Ah, yes, I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that the reward and punishment system can influence, but doesn't necessarily determine our behavior, unlike the instincts. Am I correct?

If I am, like I said, I don't think that these instincts work so mechanically that we are walking around all day thinking things like, "I need to survive. Let's eat. Let me add some sugar in my food so it tastes nice. Mmm, now I have pleasure. Let me go to my group of friends and socialize. Now I am a part of a group. Yay, I am happy now."

It really isn't deterministic, it's just pointing out basically the motivation behind the average human being's actions. I can't tell you why a certain person will overcome a depression to live, while another will not and commit suicide. All I know is that these instincts were there, and in each one, one instinct overpowered the other.

I don't see how it's being twisted to fit the cases. I'm simply looking at the logical intentions of an action and suggesting how it fits into the theory. It's not meant to be a scientific theory, by the way, because it doesn't predict anything. It simply looks at what does exist in the world and tries to explain as simply as possible. It's just a thought, like I said. If you don't believe in it, either give me a specific counter example or just don't believe me.

Erm, well, I have read a little bit of Freud, but I actually don't think I'm arguing his ideas. From what I understand though, a few of his ideas are still accepted, but I could be wrong. I'm not psychology professor or anything. You don't have to belittle the ideas or how I've argued them in the process, by the way. It's supposed to be just a friendly discussion, people.:fluffle:

In the end, I think if you're really want to, you can argue with someone endlessly about something, so I probably can't convince everyone. :)

I'm going on a trip for about a week now. (Yes, I know, rather stupid of me to post this at a time like this, but oh well...) Anyway, when I get back, I'll attempt to resurrect this discussion.

Yes, ok. I agree. It may be that evolution has brought these traits. I don't know. All I'm saying is that we have these instincts, whether or not they have been caused by evolution.

You're ignoring the fact that at least two of your distinct desires are superfluous. You also still didn't say why those four are the basic desires. Why not for instance a desire for spirituality for instance, or social success?


Anyway, I have some qualms about accepting the theory of evolution whole-heartedly, but that's for another discussion. :)

I think we're going to disagree a lot :)

Ascetics tend to actually want suffering, actually.

wouldn't that go against the "avoiding pain" desire? I also don't think they actually gain pleasure from pain, like people who like SM or sports.

It depends on the kind, though, most them tend to fast and do other things that don't tend to be too much fun. But, as for a person who doesn't have any of these instincts, I don't think the claim is true. An ascetic has the concept of a God that they wish to be closer to. Where did they get that concept? From an organized religon, which is an identity.

Perhaps I should define identity. In my little theory, identity is the group of ideas that belong to certain group of people that you define yourself as. If you identify with a certain religion, you say you are a Christian or Hindu. Because by accepting that idea, you become a part of that group and you begin to view yourself as a member of that identity. I hope that wasn't too confusing.

Anyway, an ascetic belong to that ascetic identity, but their instinct to belong has become so powerful, their other instincts are overpowered. Like I said, ascetics tend to be outsiders of society, and being outsider of society is an identity. Sometimes, even ascetics will congregate and meditate/ worship together. Think of monasteries. Also, as I said before, some of them beleive society is a hurtful, evil institution and do what they do to get closer to God, either to avoid suffering or to gain pleasure, or both. Pleasure can simply the inner calm of a monk, rather than the more visceral pleasures out there.

I think you're using such broad definitions of the words identity and pleasure that they basically become useless.

I think the other problem that many people are critical of in this theory is the seeming lack of human involvement, since most people aren't going around thinking, "Well, now, I'm going to Sunday church because I need to belong."

I suppose that I haven't mentioned the more conscious and creative side of the human being, which I will later in ethics, once I think all possible criticisms of my thought are answered before moving on.

Personally I don't have anything against determinism, and recently have become more and more deterministic, even though I don't really like it. I think human behaviour is much more the result of our biology and possibly other factors, mostly upbringing, than we think it is.

I'm not psychology professor or anything. You don't have to belittle the ideas or how I've argued them in the process, by the way. It's supposed to be just a friendly discussion, people.:fluffle:

I think we're very friendly, you're obviously new to the internet :p and it's certainly not my point to belittle you, I just like to argue and test my own beliefs in a debate. And besides, we can disagree, can't we?

In the end, I think if you're really want to, you can argue with someone endlessly about something, so I probably can't convince everyone. :)

Yes, it's called NSG

Ah, yes, I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that the reward and punishment system can influence, but doesn't necessarily determine our behavior, unlike the instincts. Am I correct?

If I am, like I said, I don't think that these instincts work so mechanically that we are walking around all day thinking things like, "I need to survive. Let's eat. Let me add some sugar in my food so it tastes nice. Mmm, now I have pleasure. Let me go to my group of friends and socialize. Now I am a part of a group. Yay, I am happy now."

It really isn't deterministic, it's just pointing out basically the motivation behind the average human being's actions. I can't tell you why a certain person will overcome a depression to live, while another will not and commit suicide. All I know is that these instincts were there, and in each one, one instinct overpowered the other.

Not quite. I didn't assume you meant the instincts are deterministic, however, I am saying current evidence points that reward and punishment systems work together to shape learning underlying the ultimate instinct which is survival. Social interaction is also related to this as it helps survival and so is reinforced. They don't act as seperate instincts in competition with each other.

I don't see how it's being twisted to fit the cases. I'm simply looking at the logical intentions of an action and suggesting how it fits into the theory. It's not meant to be a scientific theory, by the way, because it doesn't predict anything. It simply looks at what does exist in the world and tries to explain as simply as possible. It's just a thought, like I said. If you don't believe in it, either give me a specific counter example or just don't believe me.

Twisted to fit the cases is possible the wrong term. It would be more accurate to say that it is overly vague explanation for human nature. As such, all human behaviour can probably be explained by it, this doesn't mean that's what the underlying processes are, because most of the evidence indicates it's not.

Erm, well, I have read a little bit of Freud, but I actually don't think I'm arguing his ideas. From what I understand though, a few of his ideas are still accepted, but I could be wrong. I'm not psychology professor or anything. You don't have to belittle the ideas or how I've argued them in the process, by the way. It's supposed to be just a friendly discussion, people.:fluffle:

Sorry, I get a little impassioned, since I am a psychologist, although you do seem to take criticism as belittlement when I can assure you it wasn't meant that way. If you are looking to explain the underlying causes of human behaviour from a psychological viewpoint (ie how our minds work), your arguments don't really stand up to any sort of scientific standard. Arguing a more philosophical point of view (as you appear to be saying you are) obviously uses different standards. I still disagree with you, because all I have learnt so far would appear to indicate differently (see top paragraph), but then I am considering your arguments by scientific standards.

Well, partially. Yet, is there pleasure in fighting for your life? Pleasure can't cover the width of human behavior.
There you're seeking future pleasure.

Personally I don't have anything against determinism, and recently have become more and more deterministic, even though I don't really like it. I think human behaviour is much more the result of our biology and possibly other factors, mostly upbringing, than we think it is.


Yes... to a point. There are so many factors involved that there will never be an all encompassing equation to determine how someone is going to act given a certain situation/input. But biological factors, not just genetics and neurophysiology but also dependant on how our environment is affecting our biology at any particular time. Our past experiences, of which of course the most important is our upbringing, but not the only one, play a role too, both in interacting with our in-born predispositions (known as temperament) to affect our personality, but also in terms of affecting our beliefs, our expectations and even how we see the world. These are interactive, psychological experiences and learning can and do modify brain physiology. Finally, this will interact with the environment we are in both in how we affect our environment and how our environemnt affects us and our behaviour.

So yes, in a way it's deterministic, in that there probably is not such thing as 'true' free will, but there are so many thousands of factors all interacting at any one time that arguably you can't really call it deterministic either.

Yes... to a point. There are so many factors involved that there will never be an all encompassing equation to determine how someone is going to act given a certain situation/input. But biological factors, not just genetics and neurophysiology but also dependant on how our environment is affecting our biology at any particular time. Our past experiences, of which of course the most important is our upbringing, but not the only one, play a role too, both in interacting with our in-born predispositions (known as temperament) to affect our personality, but also in terms of affecting our beliefs, our expectations and even how we see the world. These are interactive, psychological experiences and learning can and do modify brain physiology. Finally, this will interact with the environment we are in both in how we affect our environment and how our environemnt affects us and our behaviour.

So yes, in a way it's deterministic, in that there probably is not such thing as 'true' free will, but there are so many thousands of factors all interacting at any one time that arguably you can't really call it deterministic either.

I agree, but how many of those thousand factors do we really control ourselves? We don't control our genes, upbringing, our past experiences also influenced a lot by others, so what do we really control?
And if you give a certain stimulus to a person, can we really choose how we respond? or do we act as in a reflex?

Maybe most of my arguments are based on the wrong definition of what free-will encompasses but I can't help but think that people seriously overestimate the extent of their own free will.

I'm not saying that people will be competely predictable, because I can't know why someone did something until they do it. However, the motives behind that behavior can be clearly shown within this theory

I think also you might not have looked at how each of the instincts can be overpowered by the others.
So when you say "humans are governed by four cardinal desires", you are implying that at any one time, one of these cardinal desires can overpower the others?

This seems to contradict your statements that "everyone will fight to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can", "a person will always attempt to make their life increase in pleasure or to maintain sources of pleasure" and "a human always wishes to belong to something greater than oneself" (my emphasis).

I can see where you're coming from, and it's an interesting position, but once again you seem to be far too drastic in your pronouncements of the motivations of human behaviour. At the very least, you'll need to either tone down the above statements or change your thesis that at any one time one of the cardinal desires can overpower the others.

The two are incompatable.

Self-sacrifice? Hmm, well, I suppose that your need to belong to an identity (if that's the kind of self sacrifice you imply) is the motivator for that.
A parent or sibling sacrificing themselves for a child, or an individual sacrificing themselves for their lover or friend don't seem to fall under the category of 'belonging to an identity' (you may argue that 'family' is an identity, but see below). Nor are they trying to prolong their lives to the maximum extent that they can.

You could perhaps argue that sacrifice for a loved one is maintaining a source of pleasure, but this seems on rather shaky ground. How is a lover, child or friend (certainly a source of pleasure during life) a source of pleaure to a corpse? Surely a corpse can't feel pleasure, and thus self-acrifice seems to contradict your position. Alternatively, if you want to argue that self-sacrifice for a family member or lover is part of belonging "to something greater than oneself" (presumeably this grouping is 'family' or 'our relationship'), I fail to see how a corpse can belong to a grouping larger than itself. If I want to always be part of my familial grouping, why would I want to kill myself for them?

You're on an interesting tack, and perhaps minor adjustments to your theory, rather than a wholesale re-writing, is what's needed.

Yes, but I am using the example of when you actually do something to help the cause, rather than simply agreeing with it. To belong to a group is to actually participate in it as a member.

I can actively support a cause without identifying with it.

However, when you actually get involved and help, let's say, illegal immigrants, then you become a part of the group that believes that they deserve certain rights.

Maybe, but so what? Why do I choose to support them in the first place? It's not because I identify with their cause, because I don't.

Everyone gets their sense of right and wrong from some group or another. The only reason you might believe the consumption of meat is right is because you were raised in a society that allows it, and vice versa.

I was raised in a meat-eating society by a meat-eating family. Yet I'm a vegetarian.

After a while, you might change your ideals, but that is because you've been exposed to new ideas probably or to a moral dilemma.

But why do these new ideas convince me? Why do moral dilemmas bother me? Because they appeal to my pleasure? No--I was perfectly happy eating meat. Because they somehow affirm my survival? No--eating meat is in no way connected to my survival. Because they affirm my group membership? No--like I said, like pretty much everyone I live in a meat-eating society, and if anything not eating meat is a net loss socially, not a benefit. I've only gradually come to identify with other vegetarians, and only after I made the choice to become one.

It's very rare for a person to just decide to oppose the conventions of society just for doing it.

Well, we don't do it on a whim. But the reasons we do it--like a concern for moral duty independent of groups, survival instincts, and pleasure--do not fit within your framework.