On human Motivation
A common question posed in philosophical discussions is that of human morality: Are humans inherently good or bad? The question, while elementary in and of itself, really asks two difficult questions: What actually is ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ and which do we trend towards?
To avoid being unnecessarily contemplative, we will suffice it to say that ‘good’ can be defined as any action or belief that helps the individual or the collective achieve goals that promote civility, happiness, well-being, and prosperity. ‘Bad,’ therefore, is the antithesis; it is what either prevents these things or promotes the opposite of them.
In 1806, Lieutenant Zebulon Pike was dispatched to lead an expedition to the newly acquired western territories from the Louisiana Purchase. He was also tasked with mapping the terrain, contacting the Native American peoples, and finding the headwaters of the Red River. On November 15, he spotted what was then called the Great Mountain, a massive mountain towering above all the landscape. Despite the obvious challenges already present to his expedition, he was entirely gripped with the notion that he had to summit the mountain. After spending weeks reaching and summiting the nearby Mount Rosa, winter quickly set in. He and his men were not prepared for a harsh winter and were certainly not prepared to climb a mountain in the heart of what would become Colorado. The attempt to summit the Great Mountain was abandoned after he and his team suffered mild starvation and severe frostbite, many losing fingers and toes. Pike and his men were later captured by the Spanish and the surveying expedition would remain incomplete for some time.
It is theorized that Pike intended to summit this mountain to gain a vantage point with which to survey the surrounding region. As someone who has summitted what is now known as Pikes Peak, the difficulty in doing so surely was not worth the intended reward, and likely would not have happened without some other motivation. Naturally, the catastrophe that followed could have been avoided had Pike not attempted this summit, but great achievements cannot be gained without great risk, and I believe that is the mentality that drove Pike to attempt to summit this mountain. This is the same mentality that pushes many men today to accomplish great feats of achievement: The persistent desire for man to conquer that which is deemed unconquerable.
Pike’s Peak from a distance.
Pike’s intentions, or perhaps his inherent nature, are neither good nor bad, the same way in which those who risk their lives to climb mount Everest, K2, or any other dangerous mountain are neither morally good nor bad. In reality, it is often the outcome of the decision, rather than the decision itself, that determines how we view the action. When people die on Everest, they are called arrogant, foolish, and headstrong. Those who facilitated the climb, like local sherpas or the government, are blamed for allowing the attempt in the first place. However, when somebody successfully summits one of these mountains, they are lauded as a hero who overcame unbelievable adversity to conquer the unconquerable. One may say that the outcome of the attempt is far more important in determining whether something is viewed good or evil than the intent behind the action itself. When viewed through this lens, we find that human motivations not intentionally good nor evil; what they really are, in practice, is self-interested, and self-interest can be used for numerous types of good and evil.
We see anecdotes of this reality in our everyday life. I posit this question to the reader: What inspires a doctor or nurse to pursue their profession? It is often said that they do so because they possess a burning desire help others, but this contradicts our experiences. Doctors and nurses are well-known to be cold, unfeeling, and callous towards patients. It likely isn’t money either – doctors often go into significant amounts of debt and suffer for decades before turning a profit. Many nurses are underpaid for the work they do. The reason people pursue these professions is most likely out of pure interest; the unraveling of the mysteries of the human body is akin to unraveling the mysteries of God and the universe. In a world plagued by disease, malady, cancers, and more, finding cures to catastrophic and timeless problems is tantamount to being God. In other words, it allows mere humans to conquer the seemingly unconquerable in the same way we are consumed with climbing mountains.
This is true of many scientists and engineers. The microwave, an invention credited with saving millions of lives through cheap food safety, was discovered by accident in 1945 by Percy Spencer who was studying magnetrons. He did not set out to revolutionize the world with his invention, but he did so regardless. Likewise, Henry Ford did not set out to change the entire globe with the Model T car and the assembly line. What he wanted was to make money, which he did. In the process of doing so, he accidentally revolutionized the entire globe’s infrastructure, life expectancy, trade, and travel. Nikola Tesla, widely regarded as the father of electricity, is credited for creating the nation’s grid system, which runs on alternating current. He has hundreds of patents, however, which all pale in comparison to the AC system. Tesla’s endeavors were statistically mostly failures, as many inventors’ are. His perseverance and obsession with electricity was predicated on his desire to unwind the mysteries of the universe rather than create practical inventions that would create ‘good’ for people. These fundamental aspects of nature – medicine, locomotion, and energy – represent difficulties that plagued humanity since the dawn of time. The incredible dedication it took to master them was not fueled by a desire to do or be ‘good,’ but rather a desire to understand the apocryphal. Because these inventions generally created ‘good,’ we call them so, but this isn’t necessarily true.
Robert J. Oppenheimer, creator of the nuclear bomb, was tasked with a simple, age-old question: How does one kill a lot of people effectively? By pursuing the cosmic mystery that is molecular physics, he was able to answer this question with terrifying results. However, fascination with nuclear technology had begun long before him. Otto Hahn and Fritz Strausmann, two German physicists, discovered uranium fission in 1939 while experimenting with Uranium. They discovered that when bombarding Uranium with neutrons, some molecules would actually lose mass instead of gaining it. They correctly hypothesized that the Uranium atoms were undergoing fission. What is interesting is that Hahn and Strausmann weren’t attempting to create fission. Uranium is the heaviest, naturally occurring element on earth. The experiment was simply intended to see whether or not these scientists could artificially create an element heavier than Uranium. For what purpose this experiment would serve is unknown, but it is also irrelevant. The reality is that nuclear fission was discovered simply by men simply trying to unravel and understand the fundamental building blocks of the universe. In other words, they did it because they could, not in a pursuit of good or evil.
This process is still happening today. The unprecedented rise in Artificial Intelligence has already shown negative ramifications – it has quantifiably lowered students assessment scores, lowered American’s reading comprehension, led to more distrust of news articles, and requires significant amounts of energy that is not currently being produced. Likewise, AI threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs in the same way that automation killed manual labor jobs. Despite these risks, research into AI plows forward at a breakneck pace. Some will argue, despite the risks, that it is a net benefit to society, with which we at American Philosophy strongly disagree. They argue that it will lower labor costs and lead to faster information dissemination. In reality, the reason AI is pursued so heavily is simply because it is fascinating and mankind has an insatiable desire to pursue the unknown.
In reality, people are neither ‘good’ no ‘bad.’ Instead, what they are is self-interested. Being self-interested carries no moral leaning, it simply is what it is. It can be used for ‘good’ by, for example, cutting toxic or harmful people out of one’s life. It can also be used for ‘bad’ by hoarding resources or manipulating others. At our core, humans are far more interested in unraveling natural mysteries than we are with the moral implications of doing so. The outcome of these actions often determines which moral label we attach to them.
It is well-documented that the most charitable (i.e., ‘good’) people are those who have their own basic needs already met. The demographic which donates the most money are adult Americans who own a home and have a stable income. Those who donate the most of their time are retirees and women who don’t work. In both cases, the most altruistic people are those who have met their own basic needs first. On the flip side, the people who are easily identified as ‘bad’ typically haven’t had (what they perceive as) their basic needs met. Bullies in school often torment children because their own home life is difficult. People who physically assault others or create violent conflict often do so because they perceive themselves as being a victim. In either case, people often act in ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ways simply out of self-interest and have little inclination as to the morality of the action in general.
Humans have an insatiable desire to pursue the unknown. This is what makes us climb mountains, explore the unexplored, create, design, and experiment. To conquer the unconquerable is perhaps the greatest unifying trait between all cultures, religions, and nations. How it is used, however, is what earns these exploits their moral reputation. At our core, humans are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad.’ We simply are self-interested, and this can manifest in a myriad of ways.
Men will always explore; we will always conquer; we will always study, dissect, climb. It is an inexorable trait of our species. It is in our self-interest to do so, to understand our universe, our creator, and ourselves. We are not ‘good,’ nor are we ‘bad.’ We are simply insatiable pursuers and creators, and being content with this acknowledgement goes a long way in understanding what motivates people to do what they do.
