Proofs of God

The important thing about my own experience is that I did not think at all about it at the time. Literally not a moment of reflection - I just did it.This kind of thing does have some evolutionary advantage. This specific incident does not increase the probability of my genese being passed on - but think of the altruistic instinct as variable quantity. Statistically there will be outliers - from the callously indifferent, to unthinking rescue of another's child. The stronger the average instinct, the more extreme the high-end altrustic acts will be too.I was just a statistical oddity.BTW, don't think I am brave. Two years ago we were on a picnic in the countryside. My own son was climbing a tree when a branch broke leaving him dangerously stranded on an unsafe limb. I am afraid of heights. He was in danger. I was unable to help him - rooted with fear. He fell - I broke his fall as best I could, but he still badly hurt his ankle. I am still profoundly ashamed of my cowardice - I could have helped him to complete safety.

I don't think this was necessarily a statistical oddity. I don't know how many people would have acted as you did, but I expect the percentage would not be insignificant.The fact is that most human beings have sympathy and compassion in certain situations, even when the person in danger is a stranger. It might *feel* like instinct, but there are underlying reasons and I think they stem from the fact that humans are social beings. We can automatically put ourselves in someone else's position (eg. child in burning car) and act accordingly.Humans act in many, many ways that are not advantageous from an evolutionary perspective. It's not very useful to try and fit our more complex behaviour patterns into an evolution framework. Evolution only controls organisms that cannot control their own environment.------------------
o--greyline--o

You seem reluctant to see altruism as an instinct. Your phrase "we automatically put ourselves in someone else's position" suggests that it is indeed instinctive - what else would "automatically" mean in this context?

Well now we are getting into an area where there really HAS been a change in morality.The biggest change in morality over the centuries is the expansion of "us". In the past it was usually the case that outsiders were not considered to be "us" and that they did not have the full protection of the moral code. Genocide, while extreme, could often be acceptable because it was directed against "others". Thus we have the Book of Joshua glorifying genocide against the Canaanites - and asserting that God demanded this genocide.However if "us" is extended - as it has been - to include all humans this cannnot be acceptable. There are no "others" to direct genocide against.

That is an easy one. The whole point of a society is mutual help. So members of any social species will be motivated to assist each other.There need not be any direct reward so long as there is an overall benefit to the group as a whole.

Mister Pamboli,
You've made some good points. Morality does behave like an instinct sometimes. In fact, most of the time. I don't think this contradicts my position, I would say it's an instinct to some extent. How else can you explain the lack of racism found in children, even though their parents are KKK (rhetorical question)?You see, it's not really a question of whether it's an instinct or not. It's what kind of instinct, physical or metaphysical. The question is whether a physical instinct or a metaphysical instinct explains the data better.I'm a little confused by the statistical altruism. If we operate from merely physical instincts, why should you be unselfish? Wouldn't you expect people like you to be phased out of the species pretty quickly? And yet, there are millions of people in the world who would do exactly the same thing, even when they know they might die in the attempt.Evan

quote:

---

I'm at a loss to explain the advantages of this brand of morality. In all probability, the child you have saved will never repay you. This is not helping your own survival, only his.

---

For most of our history we lived in small bands. Most of the people in those bands were closely related. Thus, helping any of those people would be helping to pass along some of your genes. You are likely helping a sister, cousin, aunt, nephew... whatever. Natural selection can work on this sort of behavior. There need be no conscious thought involved. Over a great enough time frame the behavior becomes ingrained in the species.Also, for most of our history, you would have lived closely with the same groups for all of you life as a rule. Thus, anyone you help would likely be around to help you later.We no longer live so strongly under these conditions, so Mr. P's behavior has a slight chance of conferring advantage. But under the circumstances which created the behavior-- and we are talking about the origins of morality-- the chances are good that it would have been advantageous.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

By "automatically" I meant, as in the situation described, the person doesn't stop to think about it. However, there are still reasons why the person acted that way, and why perhaps other people would not act that way. It doesn't mean one is more moral than the other. There are all sorts of factors at play.The word "instinct" means something different to me. It means specifically something that is innate - you're born with it because it confers a survival advantage. I don't think this has much to do with morality.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

However, there are still reasons why the person acted that way, and why perhaps other people would not act that way.

---

Reasons that may be apparent after the fact - during the episode it may be pure instinct.

quote:

---

It doesn't mean one is more moral than the other.

---

Agreed - because their was no reflection on their part, no consideration of the rights or wrongs of action.

quote:

---

The word "instinct" means something different to me. It means specifically something that is innate - you're born with it because it confers a survival advantage.

---

Quite right, as far I am concerned.

quote:

---

I don't think this has much to do with morality.

---

Of course - to act instinctively is not to act morally. On the other the results of following your instinct may be regarded as moral or immoral - society wishing to encourage the survival of useful traits.In the Seinfeld episode where George discovers a fire in the kitchen at a children's party, he knocks over small children and an old lady to get to safety first. He loses his girlfriend who is shocked by his actions. He admits he was running on pure instinct. It's a little fable of evolutionary ethics.

John,
I think that preserving your genetic material might be an explanation for morality. But your genetic material does not include your sister, cousin, aunt, or nephew. In fact, your wife doesn't contain your genetic material, neither does your mother or father. Only your descendants contain your genetic material.Also, humans may have lived in small bands for a long time, but that doesn't mean they stayed in the same one. Why should prehistoric humans be required to stay in the same group? If one groups rejects a member, couldn't he/she find another group?In conclusion, I think natural selection would weed out those who sacrificed themselves for others. The only sacrifice natural selection could encourage is parent for child.Evan
E=nv2

quote:

---

I think that preserving your genetic material might be an explanation for morality.

---

That is a small victory.

quote:

---

But your genetic material does not include your sister, cousin, aunt, or nephew. In fact, your wife doesn't contain your genetic material, neither does your mother or father. Only your descendants contain your genetic material.

---

Ya gotta think these things through.Sister == 1/2 of my genetic material, assuming at least the same motherCousin == 1/8 of my genetic materialAunt == 1/4 of my genetic material, assuming relation by blood and not marriageNephew == 1/4 of my genetic material, at leastWife == no closely shared genetic material ( probably ) but rather important to my ability to reproduce, yes? ( Taking wife in the broad sense of 'mate' )Mother and Father == each alone contains 1/2 of my genetic material. From where do you think I got my genetic material? Together, they contain 100% of my genetic material, save a mutation or four.I think I got those right

quote:

---

Only your descendants contain your genetic material.

---

This is simply wrong. Why exactly do you think your sister looks like you? Or why does your niece have "your" hair? Answer: its the same genetic material.

quote:

---

Also, humans may have lived in small bands for a long time, but that doesn't mean they stayed in the same one.

---

What is your point? I think it is that morality couldn't have developed as a result of our dependence upon society/culture because people could just up and move around as they please, thus breaking the bonds of reciprocity. Yes?This is wrong, but it may take some time to convince you, because to convince you I have to talk you into studying some, often dry, cultural anthropology. The fact is that hunter/gatherer human cultures are typically quite strictly regulated. Who gets in and who gets out is not up to whim and most people do in fact stay in close proximity to where their relatives. People do not tend to hop group to group as you suggest.

quote:

---

If one groups rejects a member, couldn't he/she find another group?

---

Not likely.

quote:

---

In conclusion, I think natural selection would weed out those who sacrificed themselves for others. The only sacrifice natural selection could encourage is parent for child.

---

That's nice, Evan, but you are way behind the curve on this one. There are studies which directly contradict your assertion, and there are a lot of them. I think some have been posted. Primatology, vor example, is full of such literature. I recommend you search it out and study it. This means that you have to drop this argument. Be a big boy and do so.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com