Morality without god

Consider some action that is amoral in nature. Say an artist painting a picture. Is the good feeling that the artist enjoys from their creation not caused by the same mechanism that causes the good feeling that you get from helping someone who is in need? When they get the picture just right they are rewarded with some sense of satisfaction. We feel good when we do the right thing because that is the way that the mind works in all situations and not just in a moral dilemma.I concede that there is no way that I can prove that God did not instil our sense of morality as it is an unfalsifiable idea. I am a self employed contractor and do work for a lot of different people. I often do more for my customers than is required of me. I bring in their papers, I scoop up the dog shit in their yard, I fix things that are not related to what I was hired to do, I am constantly talking people out of paying me to do work that is not necessary. I decide to do these things in the moment because I would appreciate having them done for me. I do these things 'at my expense' because, in the end, it makes ME feel good.Here is a selflessness challenge. The next time that you are going to send $100 to Uganda send it anonymously to Donald Trump instead. Tell him to enjoy a nice cup of coffee.

Our brains have evolved in such a way that when we behave in such a way that increases our likelihood of survival we are rewarded with a sense of satisfaction. I don't know exactly what those mechanisms are, dopamine receptors I guess.From wikipedia

quote:

---

Dopamine plays a major role in the brain system that is responsible for reward-driven learning. Every type of reward that has been studied increases the level of dopamine transmission in the brain, and a variety of highly addictive drugs, including stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine, act directly on the dopamine system

---

...... If you could show that what we call moral behaviour was actually detrimental to our survival then you could falsify the 'theory'. So I disagree. I don't think that our positions are equal in that regard. Of course you will and rightfully so and that is my point. I am willing to bet* that you can not bring yourself to do it. Even though the impact on your resources would be exactly the same the returns would be different.*The bet or the winning of the point in our discussion would count as a return.

So let me get this right. In a war time situation where millions of people are actively trying to kill each other you are pointing to the 9 or 12 people who sacrificed themselves as evidence that our morality is detrimental to our survival as a species? I would suggest that the millions of dead people are stronger evidence that being completely selfish is much more detrimental to our survival.It seems that you agree, at least subconsciously, that my position is falsifiable even though, in my opinion, you are unable to falsify it.If there is a God then it created us as selfish creatures. What we call moral behaviour is selfishness veiled by what appears to be sacrifice. It is simple economics and you have to spend a little capital to make a little profit.

From this really interesting article

quote:

---

Only 15 to 20 percent of the American riflemen in combat during World War II would fire at the enemy. Those who would not fire did not run or hidein many cases they were willing to risk greater danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages. They simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges.

---

quote:

---

By the time a soldier does kill in combat, he has rehearsed the process so many times that he is able to, at one level, deny to himself that he is actually killing another human being.

---

You have to remember that with these war scenarios everybody is going out of their fucking mind. We are kind by nature.edit Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

No CS. What I have said and maintain is that at the root of all action is some self serving motivation. When I use the word selfless I mean zero benefit for the actor.The study shows that we are inclined to be kind instinctively. Instincts develop because they increase our chances of survival. This looks like evidence that actions which appear selfless are actually beneficial to the actor.

Even the slightest examination of a completely selfish behaviour model shows immediately that this would be a failing strategy.You never answered how a selfish gene benefits from destroying it's carrier.

Fine. Will you concede then that my position is falsifiable while yours is not?

A pair of complex entities do not share the same relationship to each other that one complex entity shares with it's constituent parts.If the twins were absolutely identical then they would occupy the same space at the same time. Could you tell their person-hoods apart then? If they were absolutely identical would they not overlap at every conceivable point.Consider the parts of a car and the car itself. The car has a function or ability that the parts do not have on their own. At what point during assembly does the car begin to exist? After the car exists, how many parts do you have to take away to make the car not exist? Action and benefit are like cause and effect where the effect begins to influence the cause. This seems to happen when you get consciousness.I am questioning the possibility of selfless acts because of the reasons that we do everything else.

I am the sum of my parts and nothing more. What 'more' are you talking about? Do you mean your personal history and experience? You are saying that my clone is not the same person as me. I agree because my clone is not the same person as me. As a thought experiment, if you ran my genetic recipe twice by going back in time so that everything was identical, don't you think that you would get the same results?So how much of me is me and how much of me is my selfish genes?

I understand the point that the genes that lead to altruistic behaviour have become fixed in the population because they have proven beneficial.I don't understand why you make the separation between the genes and the gene carrier. Take, for example, my instinct to protect my children. Do I do that for my benefit or is it just for the benefit of my genes? What about my instinct to breath? Is that my genes manipulating me into serving their purposes or do I actually get something out of breathing? Or my instinct to breed. Is that just my genes making me do something that I don't really want to do?So how much of me is me and how much of me is my selfish genes? And how do you tell the two apart?

The clone example is bogus for reasons previously stated. Let's stick with one individual and it's constituent genes.Say that my selfish genes are urging me to have an affair in an effort to further propagate themselves. Presumably a different bunch of genes is telling me that having an affair is actually a bad idea. Isn't the self just a product of that equation? The self doesn't exist without all of the specific inputs to the equation.

Because it is like you are saying 'I am innocent because my finger pulled the trigger, it wasn't actually me that pulled the trigger.'I appreciate that we can identify a specific gene that is responsible for causing us to behave in a certain way. I don't understand how you can separate the gene from the carrier. Neither one functions without the other. The person requires all of it's genes to be that person. A gene in a petri dish is not capable of much at all.If my genes are selfish then I am selfish.

You are saying that altruistic behaviour persists in the species because it is beneficial to the species.I am saying that it persists in the species because it is beneficial to the individual.How can you benefit the species without benefiting the individual?

I see that altruistic behaviour persists because the individual benefits from its presence in others. The cost of that benefit is being prone to the behaviour yourself. As an organism, we behave like this because it helps the individual survive long enough to breed. (abe; not only to breed but long enough to care for the offspring.) The result is that the species thrives.You are presently the result of your genetic recipe exposed to the environment over time, I agree. That doesn't make you more than your recipe. It is just the result of your recipe running it's course. You have not shown, to my satisfaction, that the self is something more than the product of it's recipe.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

Your selfish gene and it's expressed behaviour can only be preserved in the population if it benefits the individual to the point where they can reproduce (or else is benign). The individual only exists because his genetic formula is successful at reproduction. Identifying individual bits as being selfish apart from the whole is nonsense. The whole only exists because of it's parts. All of them.If the behaviour can be said to be beneficial to a quintessential part of the organism then the behaviour can be said to be beneficial to the organism.The dualistic nature of your position is exposed by the assumption that 'you' can have a goal that is somehow separate from the 'goals' of your constituent parts.All those things that you think are you are only the result of your genes being successful at reproduction. There is no 'you' beyond that.Edited by Dogmafood, : get it rightEdited by Dogmafood, : get it righter