|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On Reward and Punishment | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Whether we are Thiests, Atheists, or Agnostics all of our actions are based on the principle of maximum return. This ignores the behavior that is based on human instincts, especially those that relate to humans as social animals. Instinctive behavior is non-rational, and people will often refer to it as a "gut feeling" and admit that it is not rational. Some people are more prone to this than others. One of these instinctive behaviors is the need to belong to a group, and to show that belonging by certain rituals, initiations and common behavior, behavior that defies rational explanation. Sport team fans are a case in point. So are members of certain clubs or organisations (shriners, daughters of the nile, etc) and, of course, religions. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tudwell Member (Idle past 6005 days) Posts: 172 From: KCMO Joined: |
If you can give me a scenario where you think one is not motivated by this principle of maximum return we will have a starting point to debate this issue. Well, I no longer have my psychology textbook available to me and I can't remember all the different theories there are, but one scenario off the top of my head that doesn't follow the principle of maximum return would be reflexes. One is not motivated by the principle of maximum return when their leg kicks after the doctor hits it with his little hammer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Reason, however is never the motivator. Are you saying that it cannot be, or that it just isn't? Dontcha know how to do quote boxes?
Reason only acts as a guiding princple - a way to pick and choose among possible actions that will lead to the greatest benefit.
I see what you're saying. Reason determines the motivation but it isn't the motication itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4940 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Grizz writes: God appears to all believers and states the gates of Heaven have been permanently closed. When one's life expires there is neither pain nor bliss - only anihilation. From this point on regardless of how one chooses to live their lives there will be no punishment or reward in the next world. To show the Love man has for him God asks his followers to commit to keeping all his Commandments and laws as stated in the scriptures. I think this is a very interesting OP because this is essentially the view I have of the world (regarding lack of eternal damnation/bliss). Personally I doubt that if you pulled the rug out from under a Christian society that extreme individualistic hedonism would result*, but I'm very interested to see what the Christian perspective is on this. * I think this because I don't think that the 'maximum return' lies in individualism (at least not for the average person). If everyone is competing there can only be relatively few winners, so the majority of people would lose out. If there is a cohesive society where one person is supported by another and vice versa then the average return will be higher. It may be the case that it isn't as high as the 'winners' in the individualistic society, but it's certainly higher than the losers from that society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5497 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
This ignores the behavior that is based on human instincts, especially those that relate to humans as social animals. Instinctive behavior is non-rational, and people will often refer to it as a "gut feeling" and admit that it is not rational. Some people are more prone to this than others. One of these instinctive behaviors is the need to belong to a group, and to show that belonging by certain rituals, initiations and common behavior, behavior that defies rational explanation. Sport team fans are a case in point. So are members of certain clubs or organisations (shriners, daughters of the nile, etc) and, of course, religions.
Hi RAZD, Thanks for replying. You bring up a very good point but I am still inclined to believe ones' actions are ultimately based on the need to maximize the benfit and minimise distress. I am not a psychologist but I would assume if one has a gut feeling that one should select or perform a particular action over another then not giving into that feeling may create anxiety and a feeling of distress or perhaps fear. For many the result of not giving in and acting on the feeling would create more anxiety and perhaps even a sense of fear. For others the reverse may be true. Obviously we cannot tell what an individual is thinking or feeling but my opinion is regardless of the situation the indidivual either consciously or subconsciously weighs the possible decision and then acts as to minimize distress -whether emotional or physical. As far as the group dynamic that we all share I believe this is partly driven by a desire for acceptance, comfort, safety , and purpose. We all have a desire to feel part of something greater than ourselves and to belong and fit in. Why we have these feelings or what the ultimate origin or purpose of these feelings are I am not debating. I just believe that we act on these feelings simply because to not do so would create distress and unhappiness - we would receive a negative emotional return. We are driven ultimately by our desire for happiness and pleasure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5497 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
Well, I no longer have my psychology textbook available to me and I can't remember all the different theories there are, but one scenario off the top of my head that doesn't follow the principle of maximum return would be reflexes. One is not motivated by the principle of maximum return when their leg kicks after the doctor hits it with his little hammer. Hello tudwell. That is a good point but I am referring to actions of volition - the one's the indidivual has conscious control over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5497 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
Maybe the nit I pick here isn't relevant or has already been covered, but I shall anyway. I'd revise this to: we must BELIEVE THAT WE SHALL receive some type of beneficial return. I think this is an interesting topic, thanks. Hi Tusko, You certainly are right. Thanks for the correction. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6150 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
Party on, Wayne!
Party on Garth! ... Yeah, I guess that's my answer to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5497 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
I think this is a very interesting OP because this is essentially the view I have of the world (regarding lack of eternal damnation/bliss). Personally I doubt that if you pulled the rug out from under a Christian society that extreme individualistic hedonism would result*, but I'm very interested to see what the Christian perspective is on this. * I think this because I don't think that the 'maximum return' lies in individualism (at least not for the average person). If everyone is competing there can only be relatively few winners, so the majority of people would lose out. If there is a cohesive society where one person is supported by another and vice versa then the average return will be higher. It may be the case that it isn't as high as the 'winners' in the individualistic society, but it's certainly higher than the losers from that society. I aggree. Those who do not appeal to divine revelation as the basis of morality do not feel the desire to go out and rape and kill anymore than a Christian would if they suddenly learned no afterlife awaits them. They would still have feelings of empathy, guilt, shame, and remorse and I assume would not engage in these activities because the result would be emotionally unbearable for the sane person. I aggree with your input on group dynamic - I can certaily think of situations where people work in unison for the common good. How this plays out on the personal level, however, is probably a bit more complex than it first appears to the eye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6150 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
I aggree. Those who do not appeal to divine revelation as the basis of morality do not feel the desire to go out and rape and kill anymore than a Christian would if they suddenly learned no afterlife awaits them
Though I bet a lot of christians would go on getting drunk and using drugs though if your scenario were to happen. You know, something generally accepted with just potential danger to others and no visible bad effects in a short time perioid. Otoh a lot of people might believe that god is just testing them and the afterlife still awaits. And carry on as usual... Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
if one has a gut feeling that one should select or perform a particular action over another then not giving into that feeling may create anxiety and a feeling of distress or perhaps fear. As far as the group dynamic that we all share I believe this is partly driven by a desire for acceptance, comfort, safety , and purpose. That explains the willingness to join a group, but not the group chosen. What is the difference between a red sox fan and a yankee fan ... in japan. This would indicate the instinctual drive is to join a group, and then we rationalize the group choice afterwards (as being beneficial\logical\etc). Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It is we ourselves who give our lives meaning. However concrete meaning is sectioned, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself. In order to assign meaning, meaning would first have to exist in the known universe, otherwise, where is it borrowing from? This is logically inconsistent with a totally secularized theory which states that meaning can exist in a meaningless universe. So, very simply, how can you have meaning in a meaningless universe? "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
NJ writes: So, very simply, how can you have meaning in a meaningless universe? It probably is the inverse of having a meaningless question in a meaningful universe. The individual assigns the fuzzy term meaning just like as they do in the fuzzy case of morality. Please don't confuse your subjective opinions with objective reality. You are not the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5497 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
That explains the willingness to join a group, but not the group chosen. What is the difference between a red sox fan and a yankee fan ... in japan. This would indicate the instinctual drive is to join a group, and then we rationalize the group choice afterwards (as being beneficial\logical\etc). Enjoy. This forum is a social group. Although our opinions and beliefs may vary we all share one thing in common - the desire to understand how we have arrived into our current condition. It is our curioisty and the desire to understand and share our answers that has brought us all here into this group. In this sense our group formation is a result of our collective needs and desires rather than an instinct to gather. I am not saying we do not possess an instinct for social behavior. We certainly do - it gives us comfort and security. We all rely on each other in one way or another. Group formation results from this instinct. Based on what our needs and desires are at the time we meet up with like minded individuals. Just like coins going through a sorter we all end up being sorted into the correct denomination. Social clubs and groups exist for many reasons. One of them I believe is the desire to relieve boredom and escape the mundane. We create sports clubs and softball teams and forums where people talk about creation and evolution hoping those with similar interests will gather. The end result is usually a positive and pleasurable experience.
What is the difference between a red sox fan and a yankee fan? Yankees fans rule of course Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5497 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
However concrete meaning is sectioned, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself. In order to assign meaning, meaning would first have to exist in the known universe, otherwise, where is it borrowing from? This is logically inconsistent with a totally secularized theory which states that meaning can exist in a meaningless universe. So, very simply, how can you have meaning in a meaningless universe?
Hi Nemesis..btw..cool avatar. I guess it boils down to how one defines meaning. I assume most use meaning as synonymous with purpose. To this end I would ask - what meaning or purpose does your reply to my post have(or my reply to yours)? Is there a meaning or purpose to the post and who assigns it? Is the purpose objectively true or subjective?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024