Social conventions demand we do not offer up deep psychological reasons for our actions. If our selfish motivations were always on show it would break social life.
So society is no more than an elaborate lie built on self-deception on a massive scale?
Many would disagree and argue that rational, nonviolent self-interest actually holds societies together through facilitation of commerce and mutually-beneficial human interactions. Is an Hobbesian war of all against all in anyone's self-interest? Surely not.
Yes, I'm aware utilitarianism is not perfect. My problem is that you seem to be pathologizing it rather than merely critiquing it.
That would be empathy not utilitarianism. There are still problems with empathy.
Empathy and utilitarianism are philosophically quite well intertwined (the British Empiricist philosophical tradition combined both utilitarianism with moral sentimentalism (i.e. empathy), see Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments for more. It is empathy that changes the utilitarian analysis into one of natural human benevolence due to the fact that people prefer more utility to less, and the utility of others is part of our own utility.
Ah right yes. But this depends on what kind of knowledge. Moral truth?
Many philosophers would argue that moral truths can be discovered by reason. Not only that, but the simple fact is that people often have very different emotional responses to the same phenomena - this would undermine the argument that moral truths can be discovered through emotions.
It's hard though to live with transactional interpretation of social life without seeing people as commodities.
I've never had this problem. Are you sure you're not conflating seeing people as commodities with seeing the benefits of interacting with people as commodities? They're quite separate things.
I didn't mean it that way. I meant people were strategically looked at in terms of their value. "What can this person do for me?"
Does "the pleasure of someone's company" factor into someone's "value"? Because I wouldn't want a friendship with someone who's company was unpleasant.
OK so that sounds more like fair trade. I think this progress in our understanding.
We perhaps feel bad if one person takes too much in a relationship?
We would be even more critical if a person planned that out no?
Of course, but it isn't the fact that we feel bad which makes these things bad. Its the fact that these things are bad which makes us feel bad about them.
Where else does morality come from? Indeed where else do human motivations come from but desires, emotions, passions?
Are you saying that there can be no rational motivations or rational goals?