In another thread, Carleas asked:
To which Karpal Tunnel replied:
What explains this? How is it even fathomable that a human could value a particular perception of herself more than untold riches?
That really is what we are talking about, isn’t it?
Shouldn’t this aspect of human behavior/experience be the ‘mystery’ that captures philosophers’ attention? …and prods them into conceptualizations of ‘features of the mind’ that would allow for such outcomes/choices as KP’s? And maybe even confirm them as abidingly rational?
I argue that this aspect of human moral choices {as well as many others} can be explained as a product of certain fundamental and intrinsic mental needs that are imposed on all Minds as a condition of their existence.
Mental needs, when deprived of satisfaction, are not associated with any tissue damage, but yet they nevertheless generate a form of ‘pain’ that is experienced by the mind. When satisfied, they generate a form of mental pleasure, or satisfaction.
Of these mental needs, one stands out for the key role it plays in motivating individuals to turn down riches in order to preserve their sense of moral integrity and that is our fundamental and intrinsic need for the Approval of other human beings.
If not for this powerful mental/emotional need, I argue, it would never occur to a human mind to ever turn down an offer of riches to perform some immoral act (that you feel quite certain you could get away with).
At the moment of truth, when an individual with a ‘moral identity’ decides to turn down an opportunity to carry out some immoral action, it is because she values the mental pleasure/satisfaction she receives from maintaining her moral identify more than she values the ‘payoff’ that a situation might have offered her.
That is how much human beings come to value the satisfaction of their fundamental need for the approval of others within a ‘moral context.’ It does have a price, and sometimes it exceeds any price that any third party could offer.
And understand, it’s not even the promise/hope of hearing expressions of approval from an audience of witnesses that dissuades us from acting immorally when opportunities present themselves; we are willing to walk away from temptations to compromise our ‘moral integrity’ merely to make ourselves worthy of the approval of others, whether or not that approval is ever experienced.
What this means is that we understand the difference between hearing approval expressed that we were not actually deserving of and hearing approval expressed that we actually were worthy of because we did act in a way that is deserving of moral praise.
We cannot control the {voluntary} responses of others to our actions in any direct way, so we concern ourselves mostly with that which we can control, which is our own actions, and therefore our worthiness of either the reproval or approval of others.
Why have philosophers since Descartes not given much attention to this aspect of moral incentives?
I argue that it is missing from their analysis because {mostly male} thinkers in most civilizations have nurtured a mythological belief amongst themselves that their need for approval either does not actually exist, or can be otherwise dismissed from the Mind via acts of Will, simply because they wish they had such an ability…as a way to protect themselves from the pain of disapproval of others.
The rationale is simple: if I do not have a need for your approval, then you cannot hurt me by depriving me of it. I argue that this has never been anything other than self-delusion, wishful thinking, an investment in fantasized solutions to an otherwise vexing problem.
Young males learn to pretend that they have such a power at an early age, quickly discovering that many are actually fooled by such performances.
I suggest that recognizing the truth of this fundamental and intrinsic emotional need for the Approval of other human beings offers a portal to a completely new understanding of moral motivation, human psychology, and sociological analysis…