|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: For the umpteenth time, ana, "Love thy neighbor" IS A PART OF SURVIVAL BEHABIOR, TOO!!!!!!!!!!!. Groups are far safer in a dangerous existence than individuals. "Love thy neighbor" is a way for groups to remain cohesive by facilitating cooperation. "Do unto others", in other words. For the umpteenth time, why are those promoting 'survival' here, so full of 'hate thy neighbor', make fun of thy neighbor, talk down to thy neighbor, mock thy neighbor, ridicule, get revenge on, accuse of ignorance, and feel superior to thy God-fearing neighbor? I thought love was a 'natural' instinctual and/or learned behavior? Please do not continue to ignore the fact that we have the ability to HATE, and please do not make HATRED out to be another acceptable survival tactic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
To experience this sense of power one must 'know' that the victim is powerless. This requires empathy. This doesn't require empathy! All the rapist needs to concern him/herself with is whether or not there is resistance. When an animal of prey goes after the helpless injured deer before trying to take down the healthy and strong one, do you think that's empathy? The animal (like the rapist) is looking for the path to their goal (food for the animal, power for the rapist) that will offer the least resistance. If the animal attempts the deer likely to put up the greater amount of resistance and it gets away, the animal doesn't get its meal. If the rapist attempts to rape the individual which is puting up the greatest amount of resistance, he/she doesn't get his/her power (or at least not as much). The only real difference here is that the rapist can't decide which individual will put up the greater amount of resistance until he/she has already begun the act--though this can be true of the animal as well. J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
I agree that for a topic entitled 'Morals Without God or Darwin, Just Empathy'...calling rape a product of this same empathy that is supposed to be so 'moral' is confusing at least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
anastasia writes: I agree that for a topic entitled 'Morals Without God or Darwin, Just Empathy'...calling rape a product of this same empathy that is supposed to be so 'moral' is confusing at least. Empathy is not good or bad.Empathy is simply the ability of one creature to read the feelings of another, and feel what they think the other creature is feeling. Empathy can be about good feelings -> seeing someone smile and laugh.Empathy can be about bad feelings -> seeing someone wince in pain. Empathy is not a synonym for good or for moral. It is a tool, an ability which can be used to help discern good from bad, moral from immoral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Yes, sorry, I was planning to re-write and my connection went down so it got through anyway.
Empathy IS a tool. Empathy alone does not cause morality. Our ability to empathize is not always used, and at other times it is used to help us enjoy immoral actions. The rape case is easy to dismiss; most of us can not relate to this enjoyment of another's pain. Ha, but we have all had our sweet revenge, which is a natural selfish survival tendency based on imagining our enemy's discomfort. It does seem that morality does not stem from empathy. What I see is that loving ourselves is natural; then, loving our family, then, others like us, with loving our enemies and our neighbor in general last on the list. This tells me that whatever our survival mechanisms are, they are still geared to the small tribe. People don't write books reminding us to survive by stealing, lying, or murdering when we have to. We end up asking and reminding each other to be better than 'natural' with love for those outside of our tribe. Many political movements ask us to be better by looking to the global community, etc. Yet we are remaining the same by and large, waking today with the same old urge to yell at the kids and the dog, make fun of someone online, lust after someone on tv, etc. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Empathy is not a synonym for good or for moral. It is a tool, an ability which can be used to help discern good from bad, moral from immoral. But then you must show us how "moral" = "doing what is good for others." I believe that "moral" = "doing what we think is best," and how we arrive at that conclusion may be by taking a number of things into consideration, but not just the feelings of others. J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Jon writes: believe that "moral" = "doing what we think is best," and how we arrive at that conclusion may be by taking a number of things into consideration, but not just the feelings of others. Very much so. Often the moral choice (the one that most people consider is the right course of action), isn't the best for others. There is a well-known 'trolley dilemma' that indicates this.
quote: "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Jon writes: This doesn't require empathy! Yes it does. Take sadistic rape for example: My bolding.
Article writes: Sadistic Rape: In this case, physical force (anger and power) becomes an erotic stimulant for the rapist. He takes intense pleasure in her torment and suffering (Groth and Birnbaum, p. 44). The offender is usually intensely excited; excitement is directly connected to the pain which he is inflicting upon his victim (Groth and Birnbaum, p. 45). http://www.rapecrisisonline.com/articles.htm To recognise the torment one needs empathy. The rest of your post is about animals and not relevant to people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Ana writes: What I see is that loving ourselves is natural; then, loving our family, then, others like us, with loving our enemies and our neighbor in general last on the list. This tells me that whatever our survival mechanisms are, they are still geared to the small tribe. People don't write books reminding us to survive by stealing, lying, or murdering when we have to. We end up asking and reminding each other to be better than 'natural' with love for those outside of our tribe. Many political movements ask us to be better by looking to the global community, etc. Yet we are remaining the same by and large, waking today with the same old urge to yell at the kids and the dog, make fun of someone online, lust after someone on tv, etc. Damnit! I agree with you....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Jon writes: But then you must show us how "moral" = "doing what is good for others." Well this is not true so it does not follow that it has to be shown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Jon writes:
Why? That is not what I think moral means, and it is not what I intended it to mean, and I don't think I even said that anywhere. But then you must show us how "moral" = "doing what is good for others." To me, moral = "doing what is good", which can include simply "not doing what is bad" as well. And "good" is just as subjective as it's always been. Which, of course, makes "moral" just as subjective. However, I don't see how anything affects my original statement:
quote: I do not think this is a complicated or involved idea. I think it's rather obvious, actually. Is there anything specific you think I'm glossing over?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
To be entirely honest, I seem to have misinterpreted the point you were trying to make. This said, I seem to have no problem with what you've used to define moral.
J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Stile writes: I derived the morals in my life in two stages. First, by accepting what I was told by trusted authority figures (parents, priest, teachers...). And secondly moving on to a basic use of Empathy. If I feel that a certain action is evil, or good; generally by wondering if anyone is being hurt. Then I deem it as being bad, or right. If you are the rapist in question, and you have used empathy to get enjoyment out of your actions, is this because you have had no trusted authority figures? Can I make an excuse for the rapist who has just not learned? I think not, unless he is deemed insane. This is because we are all rapists in a sense; we all love to make people squirm. Fellow debators, fellow employees, next door neighbors, whom soever we feel is our competitor. This IS natural behaviour, and for me, morality is about rising ABOVE natural behaviour and towards something which is just a bit more complicated than what we can express. The choices which you make are based on something more than what you have learned and your ability to empathize. You can see that what you have said in your OP about deriving good morals from empathy is not enough. Some people do not recognize 'hurting another' as evil, and you know as well as I do that there is more to this than learning.
To me, moral = "doing what is good", This is what you say now, but again;
OP writes: sounds more like what Jon wrote;
If I feel that a certain action is evil, or good; generally by wondering if anyone is being hurt. Then I deem it as being bad, or right. Jon writes: moral" = "doing what is good for others." Not that I am picking on you at all, I am just so sure that these natural explanations for morality are most confusing and impossible to articulate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
anastasia writes:
I don't want to be pulled into an arguement I'm not ready for. I do not claim to understand, or know why other people do things. But, to attempt an answer to your question: It could be. The rapist may have had no trusted authority figures, they may have been trusted yet poorly directed, they may have been trusted yet numerous thereby giving confusing signals. It may have not been authority figures, it may have been any other aspect of the rapist's experience. It's all about learning. These feelings and reactions are learnt. Authority figures are one way to learn, they certainly are not the only way.
If you are the rapist in question, and you have used empathy to get enjoyment out of your actions, is this because you have had no trusted authority figures? anastasia writes:
Niether can we assume he "did not learn". It may be a possibility. It may not. Maybe he learnt just fine, but perhaps his particualar learning environment taught him differently from what we and society deem as good.
Can I make an excuse for the rapist who has just not learned? I think not, unless he is deemed insane. anastasia writes:
We are? Are you sure? I don't love to make people squirm. I think you like it, and you don't want to be alone in that fact. You know it's hard to change, or maybe you don't want to change. So the easiest course for you to justify it to yourself is to say "everyone is". This is because we are all rapists in a sense; we all love to make people squirm. I used to like making people squirm. Then, when I was in my early teens, I learnt that making people squirm made me feel horrible. I do not like to make people squirm at all anymore. Not a fellow debator, employee, neighbour, and especially not a fellow competitor. I have the utmost respect for anyone I get the chance to compete with, in anything.
anasasia writes:
I would call it basic behaviour. And that a part of morality is about rising above basic behaviour, towards making a world with as much positive feelings as we possibly can. I think it is complicated, very complicated at times. I very much doubt it is beyond our expression. It is, as far as I can tell, entirely natural.
This IS natural behaviour, and for me, morality is about rising ABOVE natural behaviour and towards something which is just a bit more complicated than what we can express. anastasia continues and writes:
No, kinda. The choices I make are not based on anything more than what I've learned. I admit that they are based on more then my learned ability to empathize. The "more" is my intelligence, it allows me to decide what actions I take. My intelligence allows me to rise above my basic drivers such as survival or my personal needs and wants in order to act in a way my intelligence tells me will most help the given situation. However, the intelligence itself is also learnt, and therefore remains natural.
The choices which you make are based on something more than what you have learned and your ability to empathize. You can see that what you have said in your OP about deriving good morals from empathy is not enough. anastasia's conclusion writes:
No, I don't. In fact, I don't see how it can possibly be anything other than learning. Since that is the only mechanism of doing things I have ever observed in anyone or anything. If you do know about "something more", please explain it to me, I would like to understand if I am indeed missing something.
Some people do not recognize 'hurting another' as evil, and you know as well as I do that there is more to this than learning. quote: Yes, they do sound similar. But if you read my quote is uses the words "generally" and "anyone". Which is not all-encompasing and even I am included in "anyone". So still, if I wanted to shorten my description even more, I'd still say:
quote: anastasia writes:
I am glad for the picking. One of the reasons I started this thread, mentioned in the OP, was that I'd like to understand my own thoughts on the matter. "Picking", yours or anyone elses, helps me to do exactly that, and I thank you for it. However, not only am I even more confident that morality is natural now, I am also beginning to think that it is not impossible to articulate. Although "very difficult" would not be an understatement, for me, anyway.
Not that I am picking on you at all, I am just so sure that these natural explanations for morality are most confusing and impossible to articulate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Larni writes: Damnit! I agree with you.... Larni, when I think about morality, it does me no good to imagine the wonderful workings of some sub-conscious survival of the species factor, when everything that I see and feel around me clearly shows that as a species, we are all for 'survival of the fittest'. This is natural, it is no different from what other animals do. They defend themselves, their offspring, and their social group. We wish at once to make ourselves the same as animals, and yet we ascribe to our nature some nobility of purpose that is belied by our very own consciences. Here again, I say, loving our enemies is not natural. It IS taught, which is to say, that I DO have to invoke a higher power to discover this morality, and to keep it. Btw, I did not mean to say that the threads were boring, but that the thought of morality without God is so empty. It sorta makes all of our sacrifice and all of our heroism just another possible outcome of biological stimulus; a learned behaviour, both replicable and mechanical.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024