Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
38 online now:
GDR, jar, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric (5 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,068 Year: 19,104/19,786 Month: 1,524/1,705 Week: 330/446 Day: 69/59 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Cedre
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 1 of 6 (504427)
03-28-2009 8:28 AM


It has been quite some time now that I have posted anything on EvC, and I guess one could say that this is my comeback endeavor. So rather than bumming about let me get right at it; for a long time now I have sat down and tried to understand an evolutionary world view against a moral world, that none of us will contend is the case.

I have weighed many efforts by many sincere researchers who have themselves been baffled by this enigma and so have gone out in search for answers, and however I have to say the answers they unearthed had a very stingy impact on the question being considered raising instead other questions.

The question that recurred in my mind was why there is goodness or in other words why righteous men exist who strive day by day to become less selfish and more selfless. Why do folks care about the feelings or welfare of others when it has no bearing on their own welfare? Put in evolutionary terms, why is there such a thing as if you would “unbeneficial humanitarianism” where an individual’ survival success will not be impacted or rather positively impacted directly or indirectly by his or her care giving/taking of others.
Someone once answered this question as follows that perhaps the giver of these seemingly selfless acts is committing them because he too may require them sometime in the future if he also falls into the same position that the current recipients of his love and care have fallen into at the moment. Therefore if one should judge it from this angle it turns out that it was never “unbeneficial humanitarianism” but still the same old selfishness. The problem with this reply is that it is cheap and tacky it hardly answers the question or even describes it well.

Lets for a second analyze what I actually mean by “unbeneficial humanitarianism”; many times when we are good to others almost never do we think about the future much less about our selfish futures we in fact try to concentrate on the present and how we can best help the person who is in need, this is the experience of even the individual who argues from the selfish standpoint that I have given above that is that we do good things to others because we will benefit in the end.

Yes we might benefit such that we will feel good about ourselves for being good to someone else, this brings us yet to another point that I will discuss in a while. Like I was saying we might benefit in some areas but how will this help us to survive, and reproduce, for this selfless acts to be dismissed as your typical selfishness in disguise they should ultimately increase the survival of the giver to be precise and not anyone else apart from the giver. Until that is proved these selfless acts should be regarded as being at odds with Darwin’s model of a cold impersonal selfish world and a solution must be sought.

Now what is that which I was about to get to, it is the feeling that we all get, I don’t care what color your skin is or how tall or short or scientific or unscientific you are, no one will claim that they don’t experience a surge of good feeling just after having been voluntarily kind to a fellow human being. This is a fact it could almost be grounded as a law, that we all feel good when we help others and that when we are bad or mean we feel bad about ourselves and even feel bad, I’m not saying that this is the rule of the day but it is for best part of the day.

Christians have provided one of the most satisfying answers to this enigma. Having been created in the image of God and since he is a good God they apologize we also enjoy doing good as a result but due to our fallen nature can’t help to be bad to the degree that we enjoy being bad in certain areas though not all. Allow me to give an example here. When you someone has wronged you you hate them for a while or in some cases for a long stretch of time, but try me on this when you finally forgive this individual it feels like a great stone has been lifted off of you, and you feel good and proud. The point of my babbling is that we shouldn't strive to be good to others and even worse feel good after being good.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-28-2009 8:43 AM Cedre has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 6 (504428)
03-28-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
03-28-2009 8:28 AM


Hi Cedre,

This is okay as is, but I see two problems, let me know if you want to address them. First one:

Cedre writes:

I have weighed many efforts by many sincere researchers who have themselves been baffled...

The result of the effort of the "many sincere researchers" in the field of altruism is not bafflement. Whether you agree with it or not, it isn't bafflement. Maybe you would like to conduct more research?

Second one:

The point of my babbling is that we shouldn't strive to be good to others and even worse feel good after being good.

This concluding sentence seems to come out of the blue and not have anything to do with what went before. You seem to have forgotten to include the arguments leading up to such a conclusion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 03-28-2009 8:28 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Cedre, posted 03-28-2009 9:05 AM Admin has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 3 of 6 (504433)
03-28-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-28-2009 8:43 AM


This isn't a strange word when it comes to science, to be sure many great discoveries were a result of being baffled by a phenomena, so I don't perceive what your issue is with this word. Perhaps we diverge at the meaning of the word, I mean the normal curiosity that arises as a result of not having a clear understanding of a phenomena. Perhaps this was the confusion.

Now your second point, what i meant here is that if in fact survival of the fittest is the natural order of things and what drives nature and survival than these selfless acts and states of mind should not exist but they do and everyone has them from time to time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-28-2009 8:43 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 03-28-2009 9:36 AM Cedre has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 4 of 6 (504437)
03-28-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Cedre
03-28-2009 9:05 AM


Cedre writes:

This isn't a strange word when it comes to science, to be sure many great discoveries were a result of being baffled by a phenomena, so I don't perceive what your issue is with this word. Perhaps we diverge at the meaning of the word, I mean the normal curiosity that arises as a result of not having a clear understanding of a phenomena. Perhaps this was the confusion.

You misunderstand. The word you chose has nothing to do with it.

The field of altruism is well researched, but you described the researchers as baffled. Other words like mystified, confused, perplexed and so forth are other inaccurate characterizations of researchers who think they understand the phenomenon pretty well.

Since you seem unaware of the current state of altruism research, I thought I'd ask if you wanted to look into a bit before this thread is promoted.

Now your second point, what i meant here is that if in fact survival of the fittest is the natural order of things and what drives nature and survival than these selfless acts and states of mind should not exist but they do and everyone has them from time to time.

If you look into altruism research a bit you'll find the answer to this question. Or I can promote this now and people can explain it to you in the thread. Your choice.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Cedre, posted 03-28-2009 9:05 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Cedre, posted 03-28-2009 9:59 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 5 of 6 (504440)
03-28-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
03-28-2009 9:36 AM


Do post the thread I'm not as ignorant about this subject as the impression you give of me. I'm more than eager to hear what new if there is anything new others have to add to this topic.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 03-28-2009 9:36 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 6 of 6 (504462)
03-28-2009 9:41 PM


Thread copied to the Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019