|
Author
|
Topic: Morality without god
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 267 of 1221 (681883)
11-28-2012 12:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 265 by Dogmafood
11-27-2012 6:40 AM
|
|
Re: Selflessness Test
How about the traditional throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies? There are countless other examples. 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? Not that, but it does show that people are capable of selfless actions after a rational reflection - which you've denied is possible.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 265 by Dogmafood, posted 11-27-2012 6:40 AM | | Dogmafood has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 277 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:28 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 268 of 1221 (681884)
11-28-2012 12:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 225 by Dogmafood
11-22-2012 12:14 AM
|
|
Re: New Study
They don't seem to agree with your stance on all action being motivated and thus stemming from desire. I disagree. The simple fact that they allow for a rational reflection as a part of morality contradicts you're claim that this is impossible.
The authors of the study are using the word 'selfish' in the colloquial sense. They are assuming that more generosity equates to less personal benefit. They do not address the issue of hidden benefits at all. They do not address the question of why our instinct is to be cooperative. The answer to which is because it serves our number one motivation of self preservation. Maybe that's because those things aren't necessities like you've made them out to be...
It seems to me that the study completely supports my position. Our tendency to cooperate is instinctive and not based on rational reflective thought. Moral behaviour is not founded on some conscious sense of doing the greater good but on a hard wired instinct to cooperate. In this study, they've identified both - instinct and reflection. A dual mechanism.
If our instinct was to not cooperate and we only cooperated after rational consideration then moral behaviour could be reasonably credited to a conscious awareness of some greater good. Its not one or the other.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 225 by Dogmafood, posted 11-22-2012 12:14 AM | | Dogmafood has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 272 of 1221 (681973)
11-29-2012 10:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 271 by Straggler
11-29-2012 6:44 AM
|
|
Re: Selflessness Test
It's all to do with slefish genes. It's all in the genes man. Sure, for the explanation of how altruism would evolve in a population. But that doesn't necessarily explain an individual's altruistic behavior. I still think that an individual can overcome thier genetic-based intuition and, through rational reflection, act either selflessly or selfishly.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 271 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2012 6:44 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 273 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2012 10:41 AM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 283 of 1221 (682155)
11-30-2012 9:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 277 by Dogmafood
11-30-2012 7:28 AM
|
|
Re: Selflessness Test
Not that, but it does show that people are capable of selfless actions after a rational reflection - which you've denied is possible. No CS. So are people capable of sefless actions or not?
What I have said and maintain is that at the root of all action is some self serving motivation. What self serving motivation caused that soldier to dive on that grenade?
When I use the word selfless I mean zero benefit for the actor. How did the soldier benefit from it?
The study shows that we are inclined to be kind instinctively. Yes, inclined, but not constrained.
Instincts develop because they increase our chances of survival. This looks like evidence that actions which appear selfless are actually beneficial to the actor. Just because something ends up being beneficial to the actor doesn't mean that the benefit is what motivated the action. Too, instincts develop within populations and may or may not be had by an individual. Just because we evolved as a species to behave some way doesn't mean that an individual cannot behave another.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 277 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:28 AM | | Dogmafood has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 284 of 1221 (682157)
11-30-2012 9:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 279 by jar
11-30-2012 7:49 AM
|
|
Re: Selflessness Test
What I have said and maintain is that at the root of all action is some self serving motivation.
I understand that you have made that claim but how can you support that assertion in all cases? His position doesn't look to stem from just the evidence supporting it, but also from a distaste for the perceived alternative (dualism): From Message 75 Straggler writes: Dogma writes: If it is good for our genes then it is good for us. This is where you are going fundamentally wrong. By any coherent definition of 'personhood' our genes result in us sometimes doing things which are personally detrimental at times. No doubt that we do things that are ultimately detrimental to ourselves and our genes are the cause but it is the self that carries out the action. The motivation is still one of perceived personal benefit. That is perceived by the mind or the self either consciously or subconsciously. It sounds like you are describing a symbiotic relationship between our genes and ourselves. A relationship between two cognizant entities. Could you provide a definition of personhood so that I know what you are talking about. It sounds like dualism to me. The idea that you are something other than the sum of your parts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 279 by jar, posted 11-30-2012 7:49 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 289 of 1221 (682219)
11-30-2012 3:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 287 by GDR
11-30-2012 2:44 PM
|
|
Re: Selflessness Test
I just don’t buy it. I understand the argument is that it is about the society and the gene pool so that every act of altruism is fundamentally based on selfishness. To go back to the proverbial guy throwing himself on a hand grenade to save others, he not only dies himself but also any descendants that he might have. He has very effectively not only removed himself from the gene pool and the society but it also means that he is now unable to pass on his genes to the society and the gene pool. You don't have to have every single individual behave that way in order for it to evolve, you just have to have enough to have positive selective pressure. Its a stats game, not something that everyone with the gene has to do. In your scenario, that individual would not be contributing to the propagation of the altruistic gene, but if the other 9 out of 10 people that have it are then it could still get selected for. Make sense?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 287 by GDR, posted 11-30-2012 2:44 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 290 by jar, posted 11-30-2012 3:04 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied | | | Message 296 by GDR, posted 11-30-2012 7:18 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 292 of 1221 (682223)
11-30-2012 3:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 290 by jar
11-30-2012 3:04 PM
|
|
Re: Selflessness Test
In your scenario, that individual would not be contributing to the propagation of the altruistic gene, but if the other 9 out of 10 people that have it are then it could still get selected for.
In that example it would seem that Natural Selection is filtering out altruism then? All you have to have to get it to stick is to have slightly more selection for it than filtering out. Let it simmer for a few thousand years and you'll have yourself a nice pot of altruistic behavior. The point was that even if one altruistic behaviors get filtered out, you can still have it evolve because not all of them have to be selected for in order for it to strick, just the majority of them. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 290 by jar, posted 11-30-2012 3:04 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 309 of 1221 (682557)
12-03-2012 4:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 296 by GDR
11-30-2012 7:18 PM
|
|
Re: Selflessness Test
It makes sense although I’m not convinced that there is an altruistic gene. I think it is more likely something like one of Dawkin’s memes. I think that cultural, and particularly parental pressures, spread the altruistic meme so that it has evolved and over the centuries become stronger. I doubt that because altruism was already evolving before we developed enough culture to spread memes. The evidence suggests a genetic component.
I also believe that there is at its root an intelligent and moral first cause. My own personal subjective belief is that that divine first cause continues to be subtly involved through our hearts and minds in the spreading of that altruistic meme. But that root still must have gradually emerged through our evolution, which evidence suggests is a result of selfish genes. Don't get me wrong, a genetic component doesn't eliminate any other causal factors, of which there are probably many given the complexity of the phenomenon. But I see no reason to doubt the role of the genetic factors.
What you are saying though does not negate the point that sacrificing his/her life and future genes is a selfless act. Sure thing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 296 by GDR, posted 11-30-2012 7:18 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Law of Non-contradiction
Dont you find it ironic, that in the first place you require of me to evidence both logically and physically, the actual existence of God, but when i require the same of you concerning the actual existence, of right and wrong and morality actually, you cannot provide this in the least. The best you have done thus far is to suggest that you have a relative morality. Well by simply rules of logic a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, that is it would violate the law of Non-contradiction. So from your position, you cannot even establish the existence of actual right and wrong, muchless define how it can be actual, valid or absolute. Since it is not absolute, it must be relative. If it is relative, that is, it doesnt apply across the board to all species, then it is contradictory as any kind of actual right or wrong. Now since it is not actually right or wrong, it cannot actually exist and not exist at the same time To maintain that it both exists and doesnt exist at the same time, as you do, is a violation of simple logic Have you ever gotten around to explaining why a morality has to be absolute and based on real actual right and wrongs in order for it to be considered a morality? I see you keep asserting that a "relative morality" is a logical contradiction but I haven't seen you explain why that's the case. You never replied to my Message 209, so my points still stand:
quote:
Fifthly i demonstrated that there not actually anything such as right and wrong, without God I don't have a problem accepting that one because a relative morality doesn't depend on actualizing right and wrong. All we have to do is come up with a consensus on what we want to decide is called right and what is called wrong, and then we impliment that as our morality. People are free to disagree with it and it still sits there as our morality.
Sixthly, i demonstrated that, morality cannot be established from a persons, or persons perspective, but that it had to be established from the perspective of reality No, I haven't seen where you've demonstrated that. And its plainly wrong. Morality is a human construct. It requires humans to exist. It can only be established from a persons perspective. Even with your position of it having to stem from God, it still takes a man to write it down and say that it came from god and that's going to be coming from his perspective.
But I'm beginning to think that you're not speakin' my language.... According to the World English Dictionary:
quote:
morality 1. the quality of being moral
2. conformity, or degree of conformity, to conventional standards of moral conduct
3. a system of moral principles
4. an instruction or lesson in morals
5. short for morality play
Emphasis added A morality is a convention developed by people, and they can be relative.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 350 of 1221 (682965)
12-06-2012 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 336 by Dogmafood
12-05-2012 7:11 PM
|
|
Re: Selfless Persons Selfish Genes
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. Wait, doesn't "altruistic" mean that it is beneficial to others at the expense of the individual?
How can you benefit the species without benefiting the individual? When me and my brother share the altruistic gene that causes me to sacrifice myself for his survival.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 336 by Dogmafood, posted 12-05-2012 7:11 PM | | Dogmafood has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 351 by Eli, posted 12-06-2012 11:31 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied | | | Message 354 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:46 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 355 of 1221 (682975)
12-06-2012 11:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 351 by Eli
12-06-2012 11:31 AM
|
|
Re: Selfless Persons Selfish Genes
Your brother is a part of your fitness and is a vehicle for distributing your genes (most of them). My individual fitness?
I'm not sure if altruism has agene, so much as it is a behavior, Well I was over simplifying. It doesn't have "a" gene, but evolved behavior comes from genes.
but from an evolutionary standpoint, it does benefit you to keep him alive, even if it means you die. How does it benefit me individually?
By extension of shared fitness, you would actually be protecting yourself and your store of genetic material. Throwing yourself in front of a bullet for your brother is not selfless. It doesn't help me as an individual.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 351 by Eli, posted 12-06-2012 11:31 AM | | Eli has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 357 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 12:02 PM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 359 by Eli, posted 12-06-2012 12:29 PM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 356 of 1221 (682980)
12-06-2012 12:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 354 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 11:46 AM
|
|
Re: Selfless Persons Selfish Genes
Its funny that Liberals like these people here will claim that man, by nature is good. The article I linked to in Message 214 says just that:
Scientists Probe Human Natureand Discover We are Good, after All The conservative says the opposite and supports the idea of Original Sin, even if not religious. Original Sin is a doctrine that tricks people into thinking that they really need what the religion is selling.
That conservative believes that we need social and cultural rules that limit person behavior because it can and will lead to hurting others. If humans didn't have some innate goodness, then their success as a species before the invention of social and cultural rules would have never happened. The fact that we evolved far enough to develop social and cultural rules proves that we were capable of surviving without them. Even other non-human primates display innate goodness.
But here, they admit to believing that no such goodness, no altruism actually is a trait in our species. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I don't think I've seen that admitted here. I think you've misunderstood. What are you referring to?
They will argue that people do things to benefit themselves, even if it manages to also benefit others. Everyone should know that. I was taught in Kindergarten that helping others helps yourself.
Christ said that inside us is the seed to the good shepherd, a conscience that could gets to turn the other cheek, or give away our coat.
He said this was inside us, we could have a personal relationship with that side of us, or that archetypal entity that has evolved as part of our psyche. And that goes against the conservative position you state above that we don't have that seed in us but instead need rules to be good.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 354 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:46 AM | | kofh2u has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 394 of 1221 (683711)
12-12-2012 5:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 393 by Eli
12-12-2012 3:48 PM
|
|
Re: Selfless Persons Selfish Genes
Straggler writes: A child is going to die if he doesn't act.
That is not person A's rationalization process. That is a circumstance. The rationalization process includes giving reasons to act and not to act. There doesn't have to be a rationalization process. Sometimes people just react. The study I linked to upthread suggests that people act selflessly more when they don't have time to go through a rationalization process. An instincual drive to behave selflessly suggests a genetic component.
Again, I need this doctor's rationalization process. I can make assumptions about this person given what I know about him to guess how he reasons. One of which is that jumping on top of a live grenade is part of his identity/how he sees himself based on choices he has made in order to substantiate that identity (becoming a doctor, joining a relief team, feeding starving children) It doesn't have to be that complicated if you could only allow yourself to accept that he simply acted selflessly.
If you have evidence instead of hypotheticals that demonstrate that selfless behavior evolves as a "result of facilitating the propagation of replicas of genes in the ancestral environment in which we evolved," I am willing to listen. Here's an article to start with: 'Selfish' Gene Verified, Says Study | Science 2.0
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 393 by Eli, posted 12-12-2012 3:48 PM | | Eli has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 396 by Eli, posted 12-12-2012 5:09 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 397 of 1221 (683718)
12-12-2012 5:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 396 by Eli
12-12-2012 5:09 PM
|
|
Re: Selfless Persons Selfish Genes
It doesn't have to be that complicated if you could only allow yourself to accept that he simply acted selflessly. You are asking me to make conclusions and then only accept evidence that supports those conclusions. No, I'm asking you to stop insisting that it cannot be selfless and instead to actually look at it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 396 by Eli, posted 12-12-2012 5:09 PM | | Eli has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 398 by Eli, posted 12-12-2012 6:36 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 400 of 1221 (683793)
12-13-2012 10:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 398 by Eli
12-12-2012 6:36 PM
|
|
Re: Selfless Persons Selfish Genes
I am looking at it.
You are asking me to pretend that humans don't reason whatsoever when they act to help others. That's not true. Of course people can reason when they act to help others. I'm saying that it isn't necessary for them to reason. Haven't you ever flinched? Something like this:
Note: that isn't actually real. But I don't think there would be any rationalization process in a move like that. He wouldn't have time to think: "Oh, I should catch this so it doesn't hurt this lady. But, its probably going to hurt my hand. Oh well, think about how much everyone will like me more if I save her. That's totally worth a hurt hand, I'm gonna catch it." No, he'd just react, no reasoning, no rationalization process. From the other article I liked to earlier quote:
This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thoughtidentifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action.
There's both intuition and reflection. You're denying that intuition can cause behavior without reflection and that's just not true. Some other quotes:
quote:
this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.
quote:
But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.
.
Part of that includes pretending that some of those reasons are not self-serving. If you can't look at an example of a guy jumping on a grenade to save some other dude as not being self-serving, then I'm afraid your mind is already made up and there's no point in trying.
The only thing I insist is that humans don't act without reason. Well, one example would be reflexes. They're involuntary. Reflex - Wikipedia
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 398 by Eli, posted 12-12-2012 6:36 PM | | Eli has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 408 by Eli, posted 12-13-2012 7:20 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
