Hi, I'm Peter Adamson, and you're listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, brought to you with the support of the philosophy department at King's College London and the LM, online at historyof philosophy.net.

Today's episode, Tell the truth while laughing, the French moralists.

There's a widespread of somewhat dispiriting belief that nobody ever does anything unless

there's something in it for them.

Of course, the thieves and the corrupt politicians are motivated by self-interest,

but so in a way are the morally virtuous. The volunteer nurse may seem to be selflessly devoting time and effort to the greater good, but in fact they're doing it

to win admiration from their friends and family. Very occasionally, someone does a good

deed and refrains from telling anyone about it, but even they are just seeking the pleasure

of self-satisfaction, which gets even more pleasant when they congratulate themselves for

staying quiet about how virtuous they are. This is obviously a cynical interpretation of human

behavior, but is it nonetheless a convincing one?

A straightforward argument in its favor would go like this.

Whatever anyone does deliberately is done out of some motivation or desire,

which is satisfied through performing the actions.

So even virtuous actions are carried out for the sake of attaining that satisfaction.

To act successfully, whether for good or for ill, is by definition to get what you wanted.

But this argument doesn't prove that the cynical view is correct.

Maybe what the person acting wants, what motivates them, is that someone else other than themselves

should benefit. The desire

does belong to the volunteer nurse, but the desired result surely belongs, at least in part,

to the patient. So more will be needed to persuade us of the cynical view, in fact, a lot more.

What's really called for is a clear-eyed and penetrating portrayal of human motivation,

...