Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey…
““Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey 'people.' People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war. If it is held that the instinct for preserving the species should always be obeyed at the expense of other instincts, whence do we derive this rule of precedence? To listen to that instinct speaking in its own case and deciding in its own favour would be rather simple minded. Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of all the rest. By the very act of listening to one rather than to others we have already prejudged the case. If we did not bring to the examination of our instincts a knowledge of their comparative dignity we could never learn it from them. And that knowledge cannot itself be instinctive: the judge cannot be one of the parties judged: or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite.””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
Human instincts conflict; choosing one requires a reflective, non‑instinctive judgment that balances competing drives.
In simple terms: Choosing among competing instincts needs thoughtful judgment.
Key Takeaway
Reflect before acting on any single instinct.
Themes
ethics
psychology
human nature
Mood
thoughtful
serious
Type
philosophical
reflective
When to use this quote
- personal decision making
- leadership
- conflict resolution
- ethical dilemmas
Key Concepts
instinct hierarchy
moral judgment
self‑interest vs species preservation
Questions to Reflect On
- How do you decide which instinct to follow?
- What criteria can guide a fair judgment among competing drives?
A Different Perspective
Instincts alone cannot determine higher moral priorities.