All information possesses certain qualities. The assessment of pleasure or discomfort is not only made based on these qualities but also on how these qualities interact with other qualities. This is remembered and used to leverage advantageous qualities to gain benefits or avoid dangers in different situations.
In other words, when a specific quality is embedded in advantageous conditions, an organism will seek that quality. This mechanism can be conveniently referred to as “utilitarian thinking.”
To put it simply, all living beings, including humans, do not operate within the constraints of human concepts like “good and evil” or “common sense.” To achieve their goals (securing benefits or avoiding dangers), they will use the environment, objects, other organisms, and any other available resources. They aim to employ the best possible strategies based on their own experiences.
This means that biological thinking (information-based rational conclusions) lacks rigid rules and will use any means necessary, including utilizing others, to act on the best strategies derived from past experiences.
Information-based rational conclusions lead to cognitively rational behavior, which are actions taken as a result of more rational pursuit of benefits.
The attempt to use the qualities or characteristics of something else is referred to as “utilitarian thinking” within the framework of “information-based rational conclusions.”
For example, chimpanzees form groups to secure territories with food to prevent other chimpanzees from taking their food or mates. In human terms, these group members might be considered “companions,” but the human concept of “companions” as those who help each other selflessly (accepting cost and risks without any benefit) does not exist among chimpanzees. Instead, the group members are seen as “partners to be used for one’s own benefit” (aiming to enhance one’s own advantage or reduce cost and risks by using other individuals).
There are no “companions” (selfless helpers) in any living beings, including humans; rather, relationships are fundamentally utilitarian.
Humans make judgments based on “morality” and “common sense” because they have acquired these concepts through their life experiences and believe that adhering to them is beneficial (or that failing to adhere to them would cause harm). Actions based on morality and common sense are similar to differences in eating habits; they are influenced by the information one has acquired, which shapes their experiential conditions.
(Thus, the concept and standards of morality and common sense vary from individual to individual.)
Utilitarian Behavior
All living creatures, in their pursuit of survival and the continuation of their species, employ the characteristics of things other than themselves for their benefit.
For instance, as an example of utilizing the characteristics of objects:
Hermit crabs use shells for protection.
Otters use stones to break open shells and eat sea urchins.
Squirrels utilize tree hollows as nests.
Crocodiles use branches to lure birds.
Chimpanzees use wood and leaves to create sleeping nests.
Mimicry involves utilizing the characteristics of the surroundings, plants, or animals to make it difficult for predators or prey to detect.
| ・Additional Explanation: Differences in Utilitarian Behavior (Scope of Recognitional Rational Thinking) If something possesses the same characteristics (and can be used similarly) and can be recognized as such, it generally doesn’t have to be the representative example (mentioned earlier) that is commonly recognized. For instance, a hermit crab uses a shell for protection, but it doesn’t have to be specifically a shell – it could be any object with the desired characteristics of a shell. However, if something isn’t recognizable, then it can’t be understood as something that can be utilized. Using the example of the hermit crab, if something is of a size and shape that can serve as a dwelling substitute and possesses the relevant characteristics, then it’s suitable. On the other hand, if something is of an unrecognizable size or shape and lacks the characteristics of a suitable dwelling, it won’t be utilized (or can’t be utilized). |
・Utilization of Intraspecies Traits
As an example of utilizing traits within the same species:
Sparrows call other sparrows when they discover a large amount of food, reducing the risk of being attacked by predators. This calling behavior is a way of using other sparrows to lower the risk. (They don’t call others when they have just enough for themselves, as they fear losing it to other sparrows.)
Penguins follow other penguins as a way to detect danger. This behavior involves utilizing other penguins to enhance their awareness.
Female gorillas accompany male gorillas to decrease the risk of predator attacks. This is an example of using male gorillas to mitigate the danger.
Ostriches let other ostriches incubate their eggs, utilizing other ostriches for this purpose.
・Utilization of Traits from Different Species
As examples of utilizing traits from different species:
Some flowers rely on insects to carry their pollen for pollination. This is a way of using insects to achieve pollination.
Anemonefish use sea anemones as shelter. They utilize the anemones for protection.
The cleaner wrasse uses cleaner shrimp and cleaner gobies to remove parasites. This is a case of using different species of fish and shrimp for parasite cleaning.
Cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, such as reed warblers, for them to raise. This involves using different bird species for raising their offspring.
Trap-jaw ants make worker ants of other species, such as the bullet ant and the turtle ant, perform tasks for them. This is an example of utilizing other species of ants.
Swallows build their nests on human structures to protect their chicks from predators. They are using humans as a form of protection.
Animal babies often try to utilize nearby animals as caregivers or protectors.
(Supplementary note: The common belief that aphids provide honeydew to ants in exchange for protection from predators is actually incorrect. In reality, Aphids produce honeydew to prevent ants from eating them, and ants protect aphids to safeguard their access to honeydew. In essence, they are not cooperating but rather mutually benefiting from each other’s presence. Therefore, if aphids were to stop providing honeydew or if the honeydew loses its sweetness, ants might start preying on aphids.)
Human Utilitarian Behavior
This nature is present in humans as well. In order to achieve their goals (gain benefits or avoid dangers), humans exhibit utilitarian behavior by utilizing various aspects of their environment, objects, other living beings, and individuals.
For instance, when it comes to acquiring milk, a baby’s optimal action is to prompt its mother to provide it.
The baby achieves this by crying, a behavior that signals hunger and prompts the mother to respond and provide nourishment.
This interaction illustrates how humans, even from a young age, naturally engage in behaviors that allow them to maximize their benefits by utilizing others, such as caregivers, to meet their needs.
Furthermore, since increasing the chances of survival for an infant often relies on monopolizing the resources (efforts) of the mother, infants may exhibit behaviors such as crying during the night to disrupt their parents’ reproductive activities and prevent them from having another child.
In essence, to enhance their own survival prospects, infants maximize their utilization of the mother’s resources.
They employ various tactics to monopolize (secure) and utilize the mother’s attention and care.
This behavior underscores the inherent nature of utilizing available resources to optimize one’s chances of survival and well-being.
Examples of Utilitarian Behavior in Humans
Seeking shade on a hot day -> Utilizing the shade’s properties
Cooking food with fire to prevent food poisoning -> Utilizing heat (fire)
Crossing a river by using a bridge -> Utilizing a bridge
Asking for help from others -> Utilizing others
Placing food on a plate -> Utilizing a plate
Watching television -> Utilizing a television
Borrowing a game from a friend -> Utilizing a friend
Following someone (being behind) -> Utilizing the person in front to protect oneself from danger
Running a restaurant -> Utilizing others’ appetite and money
Collaborating with others -> Utilizing others’ skills and influence
Acquiring luxury items like brand-name products or expensive cars to impress others -> Utilizing luxury items
Dating an attractive person to appear impressive -> Utilizing an attractive person
Women asking men to pay for the date expenses -> Utilizing men for one’s own benefit and risk reduction
Men seeking sexual intercourse with women -> Utilizing women for personal pleasure and reproduction
Emergence of Utilitarian Thinking
When one perceives a potential benefit or a threat to be avoided (beneficial conditions or threatening conditions), the desire to obtain that benefit or avoid that threat arises (desire to acquire benefits or desire to avoid dangers). It is often easier to achieve these objectives or to minimize cost and risks by utilizing the characteristics of the environment or others, rather than trying to achieve them entirely on one’s own. This tendency leads to what can be termed “utilitarian thinking.”
For instance, when a person feels hungry and their mother is nearby, they are more likely to feel, “I want my mother to prepare food for me,” rather than thinking, “I will cook (or procure food) myself.” This is because having their mother prepare the food is easier, more delicious, and free, offering greater benefits and reduced cost or risks compared to preparing it themselves.
Similarly, if someone desires money and there is a wealthy person nearby, they are more likely to feel, “It would be great if the wealthy person gave me money,” rather than thinking, “I will earn money by working.”
Likewise, if someone wants protection from danger and there is a strong person nearby, they are more likely to feel, “I hope the strong person will protect me from danger,” rather than thinking, “I will deal with the danger on my own.”
Utilitarian Thinking Arising from Beneficial Conditions
Utilitarian thinking, as described in the examples above, is not limited to temporary situations. It can also include constant scenarios, such as a baby’s reliance on its mother. This type of thinking can occur in any situation where a person perceives a potential benefit or a desire to avoid a specific threat.
For instance, desires like “I want someone to do something for me,” “It’s helpful to have someone around,” “It’s enjoyable to be with someone,” “I want to be with someone,” or “I want someone to like me” all fall under utilitarian thinking. These desires arise because the individual believes that they can gain pleasure by utilizing the presence or actions of others.
Similarly, feelings such as “I wish others would listen to me,” “I want others to act according to my convenience,” “I want others to protect me,” “I wish others would provide for me,” or “I want others to cooperate with me” are also examples of utilitarian thinking. Even desires like “I want to be liked,” “I want to be needed,” “I want to be respected,” or “I want to be recognized” all stem from the underlying utilitarian desire to enhance one’s survival chances by leveraging the actions or attitudes of others.
Examples of Utilitarian Thinking
- Wanting to acquire something that everyone desires to be admired by others.
- Aspiring to get good grades in school to be respected by classmates.
- Feeling the urge to join a prestigious company.
- Desiring to become famous.
- Wanting to increase likes and followers on social media.
Balancing Utilitarian Behavior with “Beneficial Conditions: Return (Benefits)” and “Risky Conditions: Cost and Risks”
In biological terms, everything revolves around personal advantage. Therefore, organisms strive to utilize everything available to them. However, when cost and risks are involved in such utilization, organisms evaluate whether the return (benefits) outweighs these cost and risks. If they perceive that the return exceeds the cost and risks, they will engage in the utilization. Conversely, if they perceive that the return is less than the cost and risks, they will refrain from utilization. This process reflects a form of cognitive rationality.
For example, when feeling hungry and with the mother nearby, one might be more inclined to think, “I want my mother to prepare food for me,” rather than “I’ll prepare it myself.” However, if it seems more difficult for the mother to prepare the food, or if the food she makes is unappetizing, or if it’s costly to have her prepare it, one might not desire her assistance.
Determining Factors for Utilitarian Behavior:
The decision to engage in utilitarian behavior depends on the calculation of:
“Return (Benefits) of having the mother prepare the food – Benefits of preparing it myself” – “Cost and Risks of having the mother prepare the food – Cost and Risks of preparing it myself”
⇒ If the outcome is positive, one might prefer to have the mother prepare the food; if negative, one might choose to prepare it oneself.
Another Example: Utilitarian Behavior and Its Balancing with Cost and Risks
When riding a train, if there are empty seats, one might choose to sit in them (utilizing the seats). However, if the seats are all occupied, one generally wouldn’t ask someone to give up their seat (not utilizing others or the seats). This is because one might perceive a high likelihood of rejection when asking for a seat (“wasting time and cost”) or fear negative judgment from others (“risk”).
For instance, if one has a broken leg and sees that only one seat is occupied with the other being occupied by the person’s belongings, the decision to ask, “Excuse me, is this seat taken?” might arise when the perceived benefits outweigh the cost and risks of asking:
(*The cost and risks of asking may vary depending on the individuals involved. For example, women might perceive higher risks than men, making them less likely to approach strangers. Similarly, intimidating-looking men might be perceived as higher risk, making others less likely to approach them.)
Likewise, while a man may desire to have sex with an attractive woman (with the intention of having children), he might not pursue it if he knows that each sexual encounter guarantees childbirth and that he would have to raise the child alone:
If he chooses to have sex: One-time sexual encounter (+20) + Raising the child (-1000) If he chooses not to have sex: No sexual encounter (-20) ⇒ He would choose not to have sex.
The reason people might engage in sexual intercourse in real life is often because they don’t fully recognize the risks involved.
Mechanism of Utilitarian Thinking
| Fundamental Structure (1) When the other person benefits or avoids danger by “○” with me, it leads to the other person “○” with me. When the other person benefits or avoids danger by “○” to me, it leads to the other person “○” to me. (2) When the other person avoids losing benefits or danger by “○” with me, there is a possibility that the other person “○” with me. When the other person avoids losing benefits or danger by “○” to me, there is a possibility that the other person “○” to me. (3) When the other person experiences loss of benefits or danger by “○” with me, it leads to the other person avoiding “○” with me. When the other person experiences loss of benefits or danger by “○” to me, it leads to the other person avoiding “○” to me. (4) When the other person does not experience losing benefits or danger by “○” with me, there is a possibility that the other person may not “○” with me. When the other person does not experience losing benefits or danger by “○” to me, there is a possibility that the other person may not “○” to me. (5) When the other person avoids benefits or danger by not “○” with me, it leads to the other person not “○” with me. When the other person avoids benefits or danger by not “○” to me, it leads to the other person not “○” to me. (6) When the other person avoids losing benefits or danger by not “○” with me, there is a possibility that the other person may not “○” with me. When the other person avoids losing benefits or danger by not “○” to me, there is a possibility that the other person may not “○” to me. (7) When the other person experiences loss of benefits or danger by not “○” with me, it leads to the other person “○” with me. When the other person experiences loss of benefits or danger by not “○” to me, it leads to the other person “○” to me. (8) When the other person does not experience losing benefits or danger by not “○” with me, there is a possibility that the other person may “○” with me. When the other person does not experience losing benefits or danger by not “○” to me, there is a possibility that the other person may “○” to me. |
For instance,
If she gains “benefit: happiness” by “meeting” with me, she will start “meeting” with me.
If she experiences “risk: wasting time” by “dating” me, she will avoid “dating” me.
If she avoids “risk avoidance: alleviating loneliness” by “meeting” with me, she will start “meeting” with me.
If she incurs “loss of benefit: missing the chance to watch desired TV shows” by “dating” me, she will avoid “dating” me.
The final decision of whether to utilize based on the balance between benefits and risks (cost and risks)
Thoughts and actions are determined by comparing elements from (1) to (8).
For instance, if situations arise such as “(1) being able to go to enjoyable places when meeting with them” and “(3) feeling rejected and upset by conversing with them,” then if “(1) > (3),” one would choose to meet, and if “(1) < (3),” one would choose not to meet.
Utilitative exploration
When it’s deemed advantageous to utilize another entity, there are two basic approaches:
(1) Selfishly attempting to exploit them, regardless of their intentions or considerations.
(2) If direct exploitation is not feasible, seeking alternative ways to utilize and taking actions accordingly.
(1) Examples of the first approach, disregarding the other party’s intentions:
- Ants forcibly attempting to take honeydew from aphids.
- Cuckoos laying their eggs in the nests of other birds without permission.
(2) Examples of the second approach, seeking alternative ways to utilize:
- Aphids produce honeydew to attract ants for protection.
- Flowers produce nectar to attract insects for pollination.
- Animal offspring exhibit vulnerability to appeal for protection.
- Female gorillas engage in mating displays (sexual appeal) to seek protection from male gorillas (attempting to obtain protection through sexual activity).
In a familiar example, when it comes to dogs, after they have learned that they receive food regularly from their owner (a specific individual), if they don’t receive it at a certain expected time,
they appeal for food by looking at their owner’s eyes, barking, or circling around in that moment.
This also applies to humans, and when one cannot unilaterally exploit the other, they seek ways to exploit and act.
This is referred to as “exploitative exploration.”
For instance, when a child wants their mother to buy them a snack (since they cannot force their mother to do so), they may try asking, throwing a tantrum, or sneaking the item into the shopping cart.
Similarly, if a grandparent wants to be liked by their grandchild (since they cannot force it), they might offer sweets, give pocket money, or share interesting stories to attract the child’s attention.
Examples of actions through exploitative exploration include:
Giving orders (forcing), crying, getting angry, throwing tantrums.
Making requests.
Telling lies, trying to deceive, or switching things.
Setting conditions for exchange.
Being kind, giving things.
Guiding or leading.
And so on.