humanist moralilty

[a different tim]

OK...well.

1) Studies on iterated game theory have shown that reciprocal altruism is a winning strategy. In this sense griggsy is right.
2) However because of this humans, as social animals, have an evolved instinct for "goodness" in certain circumstances. Even young babies can be demonstrated to have a concept of "fairness". Variations of game theory have shown that humans will "punish" percieved unfairness in other players even when their short term self interest is compromised by so doing.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/p...ust-7-8-99.pdf

Now the point about this is that pursuing fairness is a strategy that has evolved, not because we always expect reciprocal fairness, but because humans have found it beneficial to enforce fairness in their social groups in the past. Simlarly with reciprocal altruism. My hypothesis is therefore that humans in some circumstances naturally act in a way we think is "altruistic" or "fair" not because it is always in our own self interest, but because in our evolutionary past the odds favoured such behaviour. We have evolved so that acting altruistically or fairly makes us feel good. I think, griggsy, you were saying that as well, but I interpret it a bit differently.

In this sense I think PanAtheist is right. Benefaction is not necessarily self centred. Economic models that assume everyone will act as a self centred agent do not, in fact, reflect human behaviour, even when immediate expectations of reciprocal altruism are taken into account, because the behavioural rule we have inherited is not "calculate the odds (consciously or subconsciously) then act accordingly" but "act this way in general".

"Experiments show that only two kinds of people behave like perfect little economists in every arena of life: economists and psychopaths." - Oliver Burkeman.

Rocketman - unless I read you wrong (which is possible) you seem to think knowing where benefaction comes from devalues it. I don't see why. I don't, for example, value sexual pleasure any less because that's an evolved instinct as well.

a different tim wrote

OK...well.

1) Studies on iterated game theory have shown that reciprocal altruism is a winning strategy. In this sense griggsy is right.
2) However because of this humans, as social animals, have an evolved instinct for "goodness" in certain circumstances. Even young babies can be demonstrated to have a concept of "fairness". Variations of game theory have shown that humans will "punish" percieved unfairness in other players even when their short term self interest is compromised by so doing.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/p...ust-7-8-99.pdf

Now the point about this is that pursuing fairness is a strategy that has evolved, not because we always expect reciprocal fairness, but because humans have found it beneficial to enforce fairness in their social groups in the past. Simlarly with reciprocal altruism. My hypothesis is therefore that humans in some circumstances naturally act in a way we think is "altruistic" or "fair" not because it is always in our own self interest, but because in our evolutionary past the odds favoured such behaviour. We have evolved so that acting altruistically or fairly makes us feel good.

In this sense PanAtheist is right. Benefaction is not necessarily self centred. Economic models that assume everyone will act as a self centred agent do not, in fact, reflect human behaviour, even when immediate expectations of reciprocal altruism are taken into account. "Experiments show that only two kinds of people behave like perfect little economists in every arena of life: economists and psychopaths." - Oliver Burkeman.

Renman - unless I read you wrong (which is possible) you seem to think knowing where benefaction comes from devalues it. I don't see why. I don't, for example, value sexual pleasure any less because that's an evolved instinct as well.

I think that is a completely accurate take. And I totally agree with that last point--if we have evolved to be what we are and it has worked--then why look at it as anything less 'good" than something that comes out of the whole cloth.

Part of the way through all of this religious goobledygook may be to accept being human as just fine as it is and start working on being human-evolved sentient animals-- instead of being gods little flawed creations.

[a different tim]

I was still editing! I must stop revising posts after I've made them. I didn't change anything substantial.

Rocketman, sorry, Rocketman. said Renman. Doh.

Yeah, I'm with you. I'm fine being human. I like humans.

[Irreligious]

Man, you're one deep dude, Rocky. I'm impressed.:thumbsup: & :rock:

[skeptic griggsy]

A different Tim, thanks . Evolution gives us the moral sense that we have to develop . See the new thread on Ayn Rand .

Erik wrote

I'm not sure that self-interest is the end of the analysis. It is possible, for example, that the reason you might sacrifice your life for your sibling is not to advance your own self-interest but because your genes are telling you that you are likely to share more genes with your siblings than with anyone else. Your altruism may therefore be advancing the self-interest of your genes, and not necessarily you as an individual organism. This idea could also go through your head next time you are about to do something unselfish.

Absolutely, sounds like someone's been reading The Selfish Gene.

[PanAtheist]

It is very possible for one to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of other people.
This is what sane people call altruism.

It is probably likely that in doing so the "sacrificer" is acting out his/her happiness++ urges.
But we can also be wild and reckless and fey.

And it is ridiculous to call an action which destroys that self and saves others as "self-centred", when clearly the weight of benefit is totally skewed towards those saved, and any benefit the sacrificer gets is rapidly destroyed. The action may not be entirely selfless (thanks to some very temporary happiness) but it certainly rapidly becomes so, as the acting self destroys itself.

Of course this is why "sacrificial" acts are called selfless.

We are not gene machines or meme machines, or economic calculators.
Because we are not machines at all!
We are wild things, and the primeval wildness which began it all courses through everything we do.
And some of that randomness brings about self-destruction (and some helping others!).

We love being alive and we love that other people are alive and enjoying life as well.
We revel in the earth.
We love the children of the earth and are passionate about doing everything we can to help them.
We shall die very soon, and we can indeed be reckless of ourselves to protect the children and their future.

And we can and do act in "self-sacrificing" ways that cost us, but don't actually destroy us.

We are all going to die very soon, and we REALLY DO act in the ongoing interests of humanity and other consciousnesses. And we do this even when we can be assured of nothing else for ourselves but the happiness of actually performing the act itself.

And above and beyond that, we are WILD, WILD, WILD!!

PanAtheist wrote

It is very possible for one to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of other people.
This is what sane people call altruism.

It is probably likely that in doing so the "sacrificer" is acting out his/her happiness++ urges.
But we can also be wild and reckless and fey.

And it is ridiculous to call an action which destroys that self and saves others as "self-centred", when clearly the weight of benefit is totally skewed towards those saved, and any benefit the sacrificer gets is rapidly destroyed. The action may not be entirely selfless (thanks to some very temporary happiness) but it certainly rapidly becomes so, as the acting self destroys itself.

Of course this is why "sacrificial" acts are called selfless.

We are not gene machines or meme machines, or economic calculators.
Because we are not machines at all!
We are wild things, and the primeval wildness which began it all courses through everything we do.
And some of that randomness brings about self-destruction (and some helping others!).

We love being alive and we love that other people are alive and enjoying life as well.
We revel in the earth.
We love the children of the earth and are passionate about doing everything we can to help them.
We shall die very soon, and we can indeed be reckless of ourselves to protect the children and their future.

And we can and do act in "self-sacrificing" ways that cost us, but don't actually destroy us.

We are all going to die very soon, and we REALLY DO act in the ongoing interests of humanity and other consciousnesses. And we do this even when we can be assured of nothing else for ourselves but the happiness of actually performing the act itself.

And above and beyond that, we are WILD, WILD, WILD!!

Good posting.

[a different tim]

Bad posting.

Where do you think these instincts came from? A soul or something?

Natural selection and evolution "bullshit"? Fuck that noise.

[PanAtheist]

Rocketman, thank you! :D

You know Tim--while science can very well explain the presence of altruism as an adaptive conceit--and people can blather on about the nature of genes to promote altruism in various ways--the fact is that people do not act because their genes are spekaing to them. They do not act the way they do becasue they are aware of the reproductive success of the strategy.

You can analyze that on any ground you want but the end result is that instinct will almost inevitably push the individual to self preservation.

It reminds me of an interesting little situation that came out of an anthropological discussion regarding the cultural materialist view of pork prohibition in the Middle East.

THe real economic reasons were lucidly put forward, made absolute sense, and explained the prohibition of pork in that aprt of the world while the oppostie held true in various other places without the extreme ecmonomic/environmental pressures that slect against it as a cultural strategy.

It made sense--it was explanatory and met each potential exception really well.

Cultural Materialism is largely discredited now--but I still hold to it --becasue it is in the final analysis the method for cultural analysis that best parallels Darwinian evolutionary theory. It functions in essentially the same manner.

But after you list all the reasons --when you ask a muslim why he doesn't eat pork--his answer is going to be--" Because a pig is a filthy disgusting animal and is prohibited by god."

You can speak of all of the genetic initiatives and adaptive reproductive strategies all you want--but the end result is people are going to do what they are going to do--and sometimes it makes no logical sense when you narrow the viewpoint to a single vector and expect it to explain everything.

The reason people don't eat pork in the Middle East?

All of the reasons put forward.

The reasons that people are altruistic?

Pick any number of them and I'll still hold that they may all be basically valid.

Life for us is more than evolutionary strategy as much as everyone would like to reduce it down to that single unified point.

Life may be as much about being human--including making up that definition as it is any of this population arguement.

You can shit all over free will in more and more glorious and arcane deconstructions of human sensory modalities , enculturation concepts and theory--in the end ---I wouldn't live my life reduced to that set of varibles--and neither would you.

Part of having the ability to analyze this crap is being able to recognize that we do have a choice in what we express as our essential natures.

And that inevitably is the choice of the individual. Now I'm not saying you can decide tomorrow to translate yourxelf into a hologram and fly about thew stars under your own power--nor am I saying that some popsitive thought mumbo jumbo is going to make anything happen...

What I am saying is that we have our limitations yes--but we create our meaning and by doing that we assign to ourselves characteristics.

Perhaps they seem right because of the eveolutionary history wecome from--perhaps it is learned at the knee of our parents--but in the end that doesn't mean it removed the validity of it.

And if something as rare and exceptional aconcept as altruism is part of that--regardless of what people will try and break it down to--then I say be human--make it part of the meanign--give it's due--and stop trying to denigrate it.

It's like sex --we may be biologically programmed to like it--but we have a choice as to how we engage in it--or what we take from it--and how much of our lives we devote to it.

[Choobus]

PanAtheist wrote

[PanAtheist]

I am interested in what RA forum-users who are serving in their nation's armed forces, think about altruism, and the issues raised in this thread?

(And I apologize for forgetting which of you are in the services.)

PanAtheist wrote

We are not gene machines or meme machines

No? Then what evolutionary explanation is there for our bodies and their many mechanisms?

bryantee wrote

No? Then what evolutionary explanation is there for our bodies and their many mechanisms?

I think we are--but i don't think we live that way. We may be gene machines but we don't percieve ourselves as such--nor do we necessarily act that way.