Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 67 of 203 (668548)
07-22-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Modulous
07-22-2012 5:13 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Hi Modulous,
I can follow the analysis that any action, however altruisitc and selfless it can seem, can be viewed as a selfish action, given a certain perspective, and certain conditions (very often, one of the conditions is that the action be acknowledged or observed, of course).
This analysis is ultimately quite a cold and destructive way of viewing things, though, isn't it ? It reduces motives to robotic analyses of effort and reward - it suggests that our free will is an illusion, and that everything we do is a simple product of circumstance impacting upon pre-determined responses - and it discourages our aspirations, as human beings, to become more than simply moist robots.
Perhaps we are just moist robots - perhaps all of our altruistic behaviour can be mechanistically explained by effort and personal reward - but I don't think that this in an analysis which will be a helpful one.
I try to act in a way which I feel is the right way to behave, because I feel that this is right and important. I prefer to encourage my children to think the same way too, rather than to think that they are in fact behaving selfishly in doing the right thing. If selfishness is the motivator, then hell with anyone else - I'm gonna be really selfish !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 5:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 5:57 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 81 of 203 (668562)
07-22-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
07-22-2012 5:57 PM


Re: moist robots
Read Unweaving the Rainbow, which is more or less a whole book designed to refute this conclusion.
I haven't read the book, but the quotation you have given doesn't refute what I am trying to say. I am an enthusiastic participant in the enlightenment - I hope that every post I have made here shows that - and I am not arguing against opening our eyes to the way the world actually works. I am suggesting that in this particular circumstance, I find the analysis of human altruism as a simple function of selfishness an unimportant and potentially damaging one.
I could spend time studying why the frequency of sunlight reaching my eyes makes the sky appear blue to me, but whilst that is interesting, it isn't a study which takes things very far forward. In the same way, I can accept that it is perfectly valid to analyse human altruism as selfishly motivated. I find that analysis, however, dry and academic, and when it comes to my own morality, very empty. It encourages us to be static, accepting and non-aspirational.
If we're going to understand human behaviour, so that we can account for it in our social policies, we have to face the reality of the human creature and not hide behind comforting way in which we would like to be.
You seem to be suggesting that the human creature is simply a creature of pre-programmed responses - pre-programmed selfishly to promote its own survival and that of the species. We can't ever choose to act in a way which is contrary to that programming, because every single choice we could make can be analysed as a selfish choice, from a certain perspective, and in certain circumstances. We think we can choose to be truly altruistic, but we're fooling ourselves - our altruism is delusional - our desire to better ourselves is delusional. We're just robotic products of our genetic and sub-conscious selfish prgramming.
I find that analysis rather nihilistic. I believe that it is a thought process which demeans what we call altruism, and teaches that selfishness is inevitable and at the heart of the human condition.
I can understand the analysis - and I do not believe that I am hiding behind a comforting view of what I would like human behaviour to be. I do think that if people think of themselves as something more than moist robots - who out of a sense of rightness, religious duty, or humanism, can feel that there is some value to altruism outside of selfishness - then we are a better society for that.
But we might not in fact be behaving selfishly. We may actually be behaving selflessly. It's just that our genes are acting selfishly. Or our memes or whatever.
As I've mentioned above, I think that this is an academically interesting and coherent analysis - I just don't think it gets us anywhere (particulary when it comes to accounting for human behaviour in our social policies), to say that behaviour can result from our genes acting selfishly. We can account for behaviour in social policies by accounting for the behaviour - we do not need to work out whether that behaviour is due to selfish genes or memes or whatever.
You're free to try that, but a reasonable examination of the situation would reveal that it is in your self interest to not be (perceived as) a selfish asshole. So even if you are acting purely selfishly, you'll act selflessly.
I agree with that, but there is a repetitive, corrosive and pervasive danger in constantly analysing behaviour in terms of selfishness, and it is that which I was trying to capture with my sentence. If we continually tell people, in a rather detached and academic way, that their whole being, down to their very genes, is selfish, and continually point out to them that even their proudest, most altruistic moment can be explained in terms of selfishness, then we should not be surprised if society gradually becomes more truly selfish and less altruistic over time. Arguably, we are seeing that already. Perhaps merchant bankers might ultimately become our role models

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:23 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 98 of 203 (668615)
07-23-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Modulous
07-22-2012 7:23 PM


Re: moist robots
Hi Modulous,
I had to get some sleep last night, and am coming back to your post a little late.
I've been reading through your points, and this statement in particular interested me:
Again, the individual may be acting selflessly. But that doesn't mean that selfish entities have not had their influence on that selfless behaviour at the individual level.
I haven't read the source material I'm afraid (would that I had the time !), but can you give me a thumbnail sketch as to how, from a neurological perspective, our DNA influences our conscious thoughts (for example, our decision to do an apparently selfless act) ? If I can get a grasp of that, then I can come back more meaningfully on your other points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:25 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 103 of 203 (668620)
07-23-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Modulous
07-23-2012 8:25 AM


Re: how genes influence behaviour
Thanks - I'll try to find some time to look this over.
I think that where I would have difficulty is if the theory attributes all of conscious thought and/or motivation to our genetic make-up. I can accept that genetics may account for a general tendency, on average, amongst a group of people, to behave in a certain manner. I would find it harder to accept if the theory suggests that we are unable to make decisions which are anything other than a direct result of that genetic make-up.
However, I haven't read the paper yet, so I will suspend any conclusions until I have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:25 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:46 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024