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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Religion Give Birth to Morals?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 46 of 68 (383741)
02-08-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by anastasia
02-08-2007 10:25 PM


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 years
you 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 10:25 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 47 of 68 (383752)
02-09-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by anastasia
02-08-2007 10:54 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 10:54 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 1:02 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 48 of 68 (383753)
02-09-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Archer Opteryx
02-09-2007 12:35 AM


Re: decisions, decisions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-09-2007 12:35 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-09-2007 1:19 PM anastasia has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 49 of 68 (383773)
02-09-2007 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by anastasia
02-08-2007 2:52 PM


Thats cool, I see your point, now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 2:52 PM anastasia has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 68 (383840)
02-09-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by anastasia
02-08-2007 11:11 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 11:11 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 12:23 PM crashfrog has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 51 of 68 (383865)
02-09-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
02-09-2007 11:21 AM


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'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 11:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 2:51 PM anastasia has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 52 of 68 (383885)
02-09-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by anastasia
02-09-2007 1:02 AM


Re: decisions, decisions
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.

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
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 1:02 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 1:25 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 53 of 68 (383888)
02-09-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Archer Opteryx
02-09-2007 1:19 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-09-2007 1:19 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-10-2007 12:06 PM anastasia has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 68 (383927)
02-09-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by anastasia
02-09-2007 12:23 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 12:23 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 3:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 55 of 68 (383939)
02-09-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
02-09-2007 2:51 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 2:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 56 of 68 (384173)
02-10-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by anastasia
02-09-2007 1:25 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
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.

'I have done my best.' That is about all the philosophy of living that one needs.
- Lin Yutang

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 1:25 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 3:43 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 3:47 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 57 of 68 (384233)
02-10-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Archer Opteryx
02-10-2007 12:06 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
double post error while editing
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-10-2007 12:06 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 58 of 68 (384234)
02-10-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Archer Opteryx
02-10-2007 12:06 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-10-2007 12:06 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 59 of 68 (384284)
02-10-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-07-2007 3:03 PM


Re: The Origin of Morals.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-07-2007 3:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 02-10-2007 7:57 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2007 10:51 AM Open MInd has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 60 of 68 (384288)
02-10-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-07-2007 3:03 PM


Re: The Origin of Morals.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-07-2007 3:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 02-10-2007 8:10 PM Open MInd has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024