FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Elsewhere > ~Elsewhere~
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-29-2008, 01:55 PM   #191
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California, United States
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by elevator View Post
But if altruism in humans is innate, it is because of the evolutionary advantage, not because God planted it there.
Or both ,of course ... but you have no evidence about human altruism , because altruism is not about having more kids...
But the fact that altruism is observed in animal behavior as well, should be a reasonable argument for its evolutionary origins don't you think? And why are you so hung up on the whole "having more kids" argument? As I have said before, altruism is not about individual survival but about group survival and social coherence. It has nothing to do with "having more kids".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
But you have no evidence of that, redefining 'altruism' as something to do with reproduction is bizarre enough , but then generalising it to humans where it simply is clearly untrue is very passionate for your cause, but makes no sense ...
I am not redefining altruism. Look it up. I have a hard time understanding why it is so difficult for you to see the evolutionary benefits of altruistic behavior in a social setting where the coherence of the group and a successful social network is vital to its survival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
You just haven't understood what altruism is, it has no cause [except the Love within], it ain't aimed at anything , least of all bringing even more offspring [whether ones own or someone else's] into a world overcrowded with humans ...
I think it is you who misunderstand altruism. Altruism is simply the unselfish motivation to do good for others, without expecting reward or recognition (in some instances at the expenses of your own welfare). I have never said its about more offspring; but rather about social coherence. If humans (or any other social species) were completely devoid of altruism it is easy to see how such selfish behavior would be detrimental to a social group (and we'd be back as individual roamers). There would be nothing to assure the coherence of the group. The group would break up into individual creatures; each with its own distinctively selfish agenda. Altruism is vital for establishing a successful social network (human or animal). Altruism is often referred to as natures own golden rule (and is indeed very similar to the "Golden Rule of Ethics"). That we find this "golden rule of ethics" in animal behavior is astounding don't you think?
elevator is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 06:43 PM   #192
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 16,498
Default

I altruism is evolutionarily derived it must be such that it passes the natural selection filter.

The natural selection filter selects for genes. The honeybee that sacrifices its life for the queen is protecting their own genes.

When our white cells sacrifice themselves (and become pus) for the defense of the body as a whole they are protecting their own genes.

When a behavior that is useful for survival in the ordinary course of events misfires then we get altruism. We feed birds from a bag on a bench. We feed cats and dogs. They get this for free. (Or maybe they got it by behaving in a cute and/or cuddly way... not quite for free.)

The out-for-myself-except-in-mating-season is the rule in some species.

Inter-species altruism is (except for mutual altruism) rare indeed. The bee does the service of pollination and gets well paid in return. This is an example of inter-species cooperation for mutual benefit, not altruism. Even intra-species altruism cannot be the norm. The individual in the group who only gives and gives with no expectation of reward would soon be out of wherewithal and could give no more.

Morality cannot be based on 'altruism.'

Instead, it is based on a proper Golden Rule. Mentally change places. Now, how would you like that 'other' in front of you to behave.

Your guesses as to how to treat him come from two places. Your first guess is: What would I like if I were in his shoes. The second (and better) guess is to assume that that 'other' is also using the proper Golden Rule and reflect his behavior back at him.
George S is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 03:26 AM   #193
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Roaming a wilderness that some think is real ...
Posts: 1,125
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by elevator View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Or both ,of course ... but you have no evidence about human altruism , because altruism is not about having more kids...
But the fact that altruism is observed in animal behavior as well, should be a reasonable argument for its evolutionary origins don't you think?
Altruism in animals , if it exists, does not have to come from evolution either, but the point is that redefining 'altruism' is no way to prove its existence either .

Quote:
And why are you so hung up on the whole "having more kids" argument? As I have said before, altruism is not about individual survival but about group survival and social coherence. It has nothing to do with "having more kids".
Evolution acts only on the number of offspring , that is the proposed mechanism of evolution.

Quote:
I am not redefining altruism. Look it up. I have a hard time understanding why it is so difficult for you to see the evolutionary benefits of altruistic behavior in a social setting where the coherence of the group and a successful social network is vital to its survival.
Altruism is indeed a benefit to individual and group , but there is no sign that it is genetic . Children can be altruistic until society teaches them otherwise, but others become altruistic in reaction against the ways of the world , by inspiration in the truth behind that [and altruism is rewarding in removal of conflict with conscience, it brings great inner peace and thus survival value, but it is thus acquired, not genetic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
You just haven't understood what altruism is, it has no cause [except the Love within], it ain't aimed at anything , least of all bringing even more offspring [whether ones own or someone else's] into a world overcrowded with humans ...
Quote:
I think it is you who misunderstand altruism. Altruism is simply the unselfish motivation to do good for others, without expecting reward or recognition (in some instances at the expenses of your own welfare). I have never said its about more offspring; but rather about social coherence. If humans (or any other social species) were completely devoid of altruism it is easy to see how such selfish behavior would be detrimental to a social group (and we'd be back as individual roamers). There would be nothing to assure the coherence of the group. The group would break up into individual creatures; each with its own distinctively selfish agenda. Altruism is vital for establishing a successful social network (human or animal). Altruism is often referred to as natures own golden rule (and is indeed very similar to the "Golden Rule of Ethics"). That we find this "golden rule of ethics" in animal behavior is astounding don't you think?
Altruism is not a rule, and it is becoming less prevalent in humanity, not evolving upward to some steady state percentage ... thus it is not genetic and is uninfluenced by evolution ... human civilisation is indeed falling apart progressively at the seams without the Love we all crave inside to do and receive, but it is the system under which we live that excludes this from most people's lives, progressively destroying us to the point that we are destroying our own home through unrestrained greed of the few... this simply has nothing to do with genetics, and thus is unconnected with evolution.
ohmi is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 08:57 AM   #194
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California, United States
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Hathaway View Post
Morality cannot be based on 'altruism.'
I am sorry for picking a single quote out like this; but this was the one line I really disagreed with. Morality seems to be the result of an evolved altrusitic basis, that, in the presence of exceptional intelligence and cultural development has been developed by the human race into what we see today. I can under no circumstance believe that an intelligent agent (i.e. God) planted this morality within us (although I admit ohmi's stance of only asserting "a God" is vastly better than asserting the existence of a denominational God), especially not when we can clearly observe the usefulness of basic moral knowledge in a social setting. Inter-species altruism is rare even in humans. It is evident only to the extent that it does not interfere with our survival (for example in food production).

Social evolution is even today a new field of research; but there is certainly a lot more evidence for evolved altruism than divinely planted altruism. The evolutionary mechanism we know exists; the divine mechanism we don't know exists.
elevator is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:05 AM   #195
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California, United States
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Altruism in animals , if it exists, does not have to come from evolution either, but the point is that redefining 'altruism' is no way to prove its existence either .
What do you mean "if it exists"? Please define altruism for me. For this discussion to have any real content to it, we must at least be discussing the same thing. The existence of altruism has never been subject to doubt. You can observe it directly in nature! It is the existence of God that is in doubt. It’s our alleged divine moral basis that is in doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Evolution acts only on the number of offspring , that is the proposed mechanism of evolution.
You better read up on evolution again. Evolution is about natural selection. If a group that shows altruistic traits and as such is able to stay coherent in order to fend of, warn about, or hide from predators, is more likely to survive, then that group will be selected for naturally, and any group lacking such traits will be selected against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Altruism is indeed a benefit to individual and group , but there is no sign that it is genetic . Children can be altruistic until society teaches them otherwise, but others become altruistic in reaction against the ways of the world , by inspiration in the truth behind that [and altruism is rewarding in removal of conflict with conscience, it brings great inner peace and thus survival value, but it is thus acquired, not genetic]
Did you read the link I gave on altruism? There is lots of evidence that altruism is beneficial in an evolutionary context; and as such it makes perfect sense that such behavior could be encoded into our genes the same way as any other beneficial evolutionary trait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Altruism is not a rule, and it is becoming less prevalent in humanity, not evolving upward to some steady state percentage ... thus it is not genetic and is uninfluenced by evolution ... human civilisation is indeed falling apart progressively at the seams without the Love we all crave inside to do and receive, but it is the system under which we live that excludes this from most people's lives, progressively destroying us to the point that we are destroying our own home through unrestrained greed of the few... this simply has nothing to do with genetics, and thus is unconnected with evolution.
Do you think that observing altruism in humans, and maybe concluding it is less prevalent, is evidence that it is uninfluenced by evolution? You’re talking observations through decades then, not evolutionary time-scales of hundreds of thousands of years. I find it far more likely, that if atruism is less prevalent today it is because of cultural influence. We are still back at the question; if humans possess basic moral traits; are these the results of social evolution or divine interference? I think evolution have way more evidence for it; but of course you will disagree.
elevator is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:55 AM   #196
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Roaming a wilderness that some think is real ...
Posts: 1,125
Default

Quote:
...if atruism is less prevalent today it is because of cultural influence...
Just my point really, it has nothing to do with evolution at all... altruism is not caused by genetics, nor is it lost by genetics...
ohmi is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 12:39 PM   #197
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California, United States
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Quote:
...if atruism is less prevalent today it is because of cultural influence...
Just my point really, it has nothing to do with evolution at all... altruism is not caused by genetics, nor is it lost by genetics...
You didn't specify what you define altruism as, and why you feel it conflicts with my definiton.

You also misrepresented my statement. I have shown you that there is a reasonable evolutionary base for altruism. If it seems to be less prevalent today; it is partly because of cultural influence, but that doesn't mean that the altruistic basis isn't there anymore! You have yourself (correctly so) asserted that humans seems to have some kind of innate moral basis that they need to listen to. All I am saying is that instead of divine interference; human morality may just as well (and, in my opinion, even more so) be the result of evolved altruism, an exceptionally large brain and cultural influence.
elevator is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 03:08 PM   #198
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Roaming a wilderness that some think is real ...
Posts: 1,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elevator View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
Just my point really, it has nothing to do with evolution at all... altruism is not caused by genetics, nor is it lost by genetics...
You didn't specify what you define altruism as, and why you feel it conflicts with my definiton.
You defined 'altruism' to be a genetic mechanism for increasing offspring [possibly of a group] ... I do not think that is anything like what altruism is, and your presumption that it is genetic doesn't work as an explanation in the slightest for the human behaviour , as I have explained .
ohmi is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 04:01 PM   #199
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California, United States
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
You defined 'altruism' to be a genetic mechanism for increasing offspring [possibly of a group] ... I do not think that is anything like what altruism is, and your presumption that it is genetic doesn't work as an explanation in the slightest for the human behaviour , as I have explained .
I have never made such a definition. If you feel I have, please show me the quote so I may correct that misunderstanding as soon as possible. The way I defined altruism was "the unselfish motivation to do good for others, without expecting reward or recognition (in some instances at the expenses of your own welfare)". Among other things, I have said, for example, that altruism promotes coherence of a social group. In order to prevent further misunderstandings like this; please define your understanding of altruism.

I hope you can see that I have never claimed that altruism was a genetic mechanism for increasing offspring; in fact I have, in several posts above, explicitly denied exactly this.
elevator is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 03:28 AM   #200
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Roaming a wilderness that some think is real ...
Posts: 1,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elevator View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmi View Post
You defined 'altruism' to be a genetic mechanism for increasing offspring [possibly of a group] ... I do not think that is anything like what altruism is, and your presumption that it is genetic doesn't work as an explanation in the slightest for the human behaviour , as I have explained .
I have never made such a definition. If you feel I have, please show me the quote so I may correct that misunderstanding as soon as possible. The way I defined altruism was "the unselfish motivation to do good for others, without expecting reward or recognition (in some instances at the expenses of your own welfare)". Among other things, I have said, for example, that altruism promotes coherence of a social group. In order to prevent further misunderstandings like this; please define your understanding of altruism.

I hope you can see that I have never claimed that altruism was a genetic mechanism for increasing offspring; in fact I have, in several posts above, explicitly denied exactly this.
Please try to understand that evolution only favours things which are genetically-based mechanisms for increasing offspring ... that is how it works ... it simply doesn't work on altruism because this is not genetically based ,but you have presumed that it is.
ohmi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:21 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.