|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Religion Give Birth to Morals? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
prisoner's dilemma:
two people are caught by the cops. their only evidence rests on the people ratting the other person out. here's the set-up: you rat: 5 yearsyou don't rat: 10 years if the other person rats on you you don't rat: 0 years if neither rat's the other out you can't rely on the other person to keep quiet, so your best option is to rat the other out. do you feel lucky? I prefer to stay safe. however, in the real world, you don't stop all interaction with this person after this event. in other words, you two will end up in this situation again. it's in this situation that tit-for-tat is the best strategy. Do unto others as they have done unto you. In the next iteration, if you ratted me out, I will rat you out. And then you'll rat me out. not exactly a happy picture, but then, in the real world in diplomacy, you can generally talk to your prisonmate. (oh, and I quite possibly screwed up the numbers in the game, but the outcome is unaffected) ABE:just remembered this, but if you know that the game will have multiple iterations, the best opening strategy is to co-op--in this case, not ratting the other person out. you can get royally screwed in the short run (serving 10 versus 5 years), but in the long run, you'll win by then following with tit-for-tat. also, it doesn't hurt to establish a reputation for having blind trust in the other (and them knowing that you'll repeat their action in the next round) Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Think about the parable of the sheep and the goats; Lord, when did I do this for you? Whenever you did it for the least of my brothers, you did it for me. This implies that altruism, based on a belief of its value, is a very good thing even when the motivation is not 'god'. BUT, it can not be based on hypocrisy, as in loving others to gain reward for yourself...it is clear that people can 'bluff' love of men, to gain prestige. I'm curious about something. Let me wend a tangential question your way. Take a religious person who operates on the assumption that God is in his heaven watching everything we do and preparing to reward or punish. That person's life then becomes a performance, doesn't it? The person acts in full awareness that, out in the dark, an audience watches, and a Critic out there is going to reward the show with a positive or negative review that will make or break any further career for the performer. What does 'performing for God' do to the idea of sincerity? Or altruism?
Very funny to me, that sometimes the more people look for things in nature, the more they over-look the obvious. City kids will do that. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: What does 'performing for God' do to the idea of sincerity? Or altruism? There are probably many possible answers to this. Let us think of the alternative between performing for God and performing for a man; if you believe that God is the Critic most worthy of impressing, your performance will be better, or at least it will revolve more around what you believe he expects, and to hell with what men expect. If you think of performing with God watching and no one else, your performance will be the same. If you think about no one watching, it will be sloppy, at least, after repetition, without a thorough enjoyment of performing. The thing is, you will be your only critic, and thus unable to tell if your performance was good or not. If you think about men alone watching, you will be as good as you think the best man expects, and even if you have great talent, you could be lazy if the critics are not discriminating. It may be that you will cease 'performing' altruism at all when you are off-stage, so to speak. That is actually the hardest time to be 'good'; when no one is watching. I think however that you are emphasizing 'performance'. Here, again, the Bible sort of has this covered. The idea is that the performance must not be entertainment, but that life itself is the stage. The answer still comes down to whether you perform/live, for yourself, for others, or for God. In the Bible, you will see that Jesus has little tolerence for people who claim to perform for God, but are really performing for men. He despises those who keep the letter of the law without the spirit, the Pharisees, the Philistines, the hypocrites of any name. In our time, without the notion of living for God, their seems to be a toss-up between hedonistic pleasure and living for oneself, or a less selfish motive of living for others to further our own immortality through survival of the species or of our own legend. I think that living for God can further both of these and also a real immortality. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Thats cool, I see your point, now
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Without a religion, the motives for altruism are much harder to pinpoint on an individual level. Not so. I've already explain how altruism on an individual level is explained by a general, social benefit for altruism. Obviously, society can't be altruistic, because society isn't a thing. Individuals are altruistic because they're the only ones who can be.
But you DO, you get to turn the other cheek even if the outcome is negative. Sure, you can. And the reiterative Prisoner's Dilemma explains why people, in general, don't turn the other cheek - the reiterative outcome is worse than retributive justice. Your religious arguments don't explain that. Evolutionary arguments are so powerful because, at once, they explain both our ideals and our failings. Religion has always struggled to reconcile the two.
Our minds are capable of so much more. But so much of that is not a path to truth. Much of it, like your arguments, are simply sophistry for its own sake.
There is no justification for immoral behaviour even if it means survival. You called it a "win-win" situation, though. Now you've completely reversed yourself.
Not raping her would be a 'win' in morality, but a positive loss in survival. There's no loss, as I explained. Rape or not, the species ends. Two individuals isn't enough to save a species. It's no loss to fail to get what you weren't going to get anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: Sure, you can. And the reiterative Prisoner's Dilemma explains why people, in general, don't turn the other cheek - the reiterative outcome is worse than retributive justice. I have only showed you some idea of why the iterated PD is not useful for understanding morality based on God. Jesus was aware of the 'tit for tat', the 'an eye for an eye' of conventional morality. He emphasized the importance of cooperation, and then, abolished the dilemma and all question of strategy in the face of possible outcome, with the revolutionary idea of 'turning the other cheek'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
anastasia: If you think about no one watching, it will be sloppy, at least, after repetition, without a thorough enjoyment of performing. The thing is, you will be your only critic, and thus unable to tell if your performance was good or not. That's only true of amateurs. Performers who pay attention always are, and have, an audience. They improve with experience. As they do, the audience's expectations grow. In time it expects a lot for its investment. And why not? This audience is an expert on that one performer. It knows when it is being cheated. It knows when the artist is phoning it in. It knows when the show is uninspired. What that audience knows, the performer knows. No escaping those reviews.
It may be that you will cease 'performing' altruism at all when you are off-stage, so to speak. That is actually the hardest time to be 'good'; when no one is watching. But someone is always watching. Hard to say how much altruism figures into it, really. Human motives are always mixed. But that's okay. One works with the material at hand. In time you realize it all comes to mean the same thing anyway. Give a performance you can be proud of. This is the only moment in front of the lights you have. It is not a rehearsal. Your audience needs meaning, structure, story. It wants truth, goodness, beauty. How do you bring that alive? You pay attention. You draw on everything you have learned. You lead, you support. You make the best decisions you can and follow through.
___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: Give me the chance to do my very best. - Isak Dinesen, Babette's Feast And this is all that is asked from God, of all of us; that we do our very best, no matter what we think it means, or where we think it takes us. Life is really not so complicated. I enjoy discussing these things with you very much. You are an unusually perceptive person, a rarity. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I have only showed you some idea of why the iterated PD is not useful for understanding morality based on God. No, what you've proven is that God is not useful for understanding morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: No, what you've proven is that God is not useful for understanding morality. If you choose to ice that half of the cake, so be it. I am looking for the whole cake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Likewise, m'lady.
anastasia: And this is all that is asked from God, of all of us; that we do our very best, no matter what we think it means, or where we think it takes us. Life is really not so complicated.
Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
double post error while editing
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: Likewise, m'lady. Well, we don't want to be too ageeable, and lose the opportunity for debate. Just nice to have someone around who doesn't insist that I choose one half of the cake or the other. Science may have an answer, religion may have an answer, they can be harmonious. It is more challenging to play 'both/and' instead of 'either/or'. I guess there is always a possibility of a Supreme Neither/Nor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
You said that Hitler was a Christian. This does not answer my question. The question was, was Hitler a moral person? Was the entire Germany acting with morals? On a side note, I have another question. Why should "I" not steal if I would not get caught? It is logical why a whole society should not go around stealing. However, I don't think you can give me one good reason why I should not steal something without the fear of getting caught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
You continue to claim that you are a very religious person. I challenge you on that claim. Do you believe in a supernatural being that created the world? You can't claim that your morals are not part of your religion because you don't even have a religion!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024