Morality without god

I do not know the rationalization process going through person A's head.I do not know the nature of how he gave his life or under what circumstance.I do not know person A's past experience and if he is acting in conformity with some sort of training.I do not know if person A actually believes he will die from this course of action.There are many factors that I do not know, but I can rationally conclude that some of them are selfish considerations.Since I have never seen any real world examples I will deny that selfless acts HAVE occurred. I highly doubt that they do occur, except by the most superficial examination.

A child is going to die if he doesn't act. He's part of a relief team in a foreign country giving out food and providing medical aid etc. etc. He sees a live grenade and dives on top of it. He's a doctor with no military training. He does. Like? That is because you are still failing to understand that genuinely selfless behaviour at the individual human level can evolve as a result of facilitating the propagation of replicas of genes in the ancestral environment in which we evolved.You are so engrossed in your own conflation of selfish genes with selfish individuals that you just cannot see the wood for the trees.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is not person A's rationalization process. That is a circumstance. The rationalization process includes giving reasons to act and not to act. 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)This is part of going from self realization tto self actualization.I can go further to assume that he must act in order to preserve his own identity, even if that means giving up his life. Sacrificing one's own human life to preserve one's own identity is not selfless. I can only understand that which I can observe. From my perspective, I have not been the least bit interested in selfish genes in the role of individuals and how they behave, so I am conflating nothing.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.As of now, I am not even clear on what that means or how self replicating genes serve to function what you would call "selfless acts."But I am interested in hearing you explain it.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

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. It doesn't have to be that complicated if you could only allow yourself to accept that he simply acted selflessly. Here's an article to start with:'Selfish' Gene Verified, Says Study | Science 2.0

Taq writesBertot writes: If genocide is immoral, always and in every circumstance, then why is it NOT immoral when you exterminate a colony of ants, with chocking and blinding agents.?What inside of you, makes it non-obligatory, to feel any sense of right or wrong when conducting such actions?Why is it immoral for God to exterminate, but not immoral for you when you set out poison for rats and mice, to get them out of your house?Why is it NOT murder or genocide on your part, but it becomes genocide on Gods part?My bet is that you cant answer these question with any simlitude rational. Were you able to do it, you would have already done it.Its only "Not that hard to figure out", when you are
not trying to employ any kind of common sense or reason.So lets see how hard this is for you to figure out. Especially question no. 3Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You are asking me to make conclusions and then only accept evidence that supports those conclusions.I will do anything for love, but I won't do that.

No, I'm asking you to stop insisting that it cannot be selfless and instead to actually look at it.

I am looking at it.You are asking me to pretend that humans don't reason whatsoever when they act to help others.Part of that includes pretending that some of those reasons are not self-serving.The only thing I insist is that humans don't act without reason.

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

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.

---

. 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. Well, one example would be reflexes. They're involuntary.Reflex - Wikipedia

Then altruism could never evolve.The whole point of the selfish gene explanation for altruism is that the above is not true.When genes shared by both you and your kin lead to altruism, your sacrifice for the life of your kin causes those genes to be carried on.

The trait evolved because 99.999% of the time the behaviour is not actual fatal but rather beneficial to the individual.

Exteriminating a colony of ants is not genocide. Genocide is the act of trying to exterminate a group of humans, not ants. It is immoral for God to command or participate in the extermination of humans just as it is for humans.

How so? Can you give an example?ABE: Oh, fatal. Yeah, sharing food with your brother isn't going to kill you, but its still sacrificing something from your self. And if that helps him reproduce, then the genes you share will be propogated, regardless of whether or not you reproduce.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Well I think you are starting to see your extreme delima. Classifying genocide as pertaining to humans only is a clear dodge in any kind of rational discussion concerning what is valid as right and wrong. You are purposely and deliberately killing a life form, when there is no valid reasonBut that is not what interest me concerning the concept of a morality from your perspective. What does interest me, is, that you have no remorse when you act in such a mannerAsk yourself why you feel no guilt, shame, or sense of obligatory responsibility when you do exterminate a colony of antsYou must have a reason or standard that says it is ok to act in such a way. What is it inside of you that makes you think it is ok? You havent shown what the standard for morality is or is not. Until you can do this you have no right or wrong, muchless morality or moralsDawn Bertot