Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Neilium · 03-11-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fantasy
"The problem of how you act on your morals exists whether there is a God or not. " -- Neil

Could you clarify please? Sorry

Hi,

Rereading your original post, I may have misunderstood a couple of things, but I'll stick to my statement quoted above. If you do believe in a God that enforces some sort of moral code, aren't you still acting out of self-interest when you obey that code? Whether it's treating people the way you wish to be treated or being moral because you don't want to go to Hell, it's still just looking out for #1.

Can I toss this into the stew? I don't question the idea of much of our moral code being rooted in self-interest, or in many cases, a survival instinct. But I also think that as much as humans have a survival instinct, we also have something in us that predisposes us to altruism.

I forget who originally said it (and I'm paraphrasing), and if anyone knows, I'd be very happy if they let me know: The root of virtue is the identification of the self in the other.

If I have my facts straight, this idea came about after interviews with policemen and firemen who risked their lives to save another. The common thread of all the interviews was a feeling that if they didn't act to save that person (say they just kept driving), they would have died with the victims.

Certainly people can be trained to save lives and perhaps be trained to risk their own lives for others. But it's hard for me to imagine that identification of the self in the other, to the point of feeling mortally linked with a stranger, as being the product of socialization.

Anyway, have at it. Also enjoying this thread.

-Neil(ium)

Guillaume · 03-11-2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neilium

I forget who originally said it (and I'm paraphrasing), and if anyone knows, I'd be very happy if they let me know: The root of virtue is the identification of the self in the other.

Indeed. There is a reason why everyone in the US was sad for the victims of the 9/11, yet nobody cared about the ~35 000 children in Africa who also died that very day.

You don't care about those who are different from you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Neilium
Certainly people can be trained to save lives and perhaps be trained to risk their own lives for others. But it's hard for me to imagine that identification of the self in the other, to the point of feeling mortally linked with a stranger, as being the product of socialization.

Simple : socialization determines the type of person you identify with, and the type of person you don�t care about.

Mr.Fantasy · 03-11-2003, 08:15 PM

"Rereading your original post, I may have misunderstood a couple of things, but I'll stick to my statement quoted above. If you do believe in a God that enforces some sort of moral code, aren't you still acting out of self-interest when you obey that code? Whether it's treating people the way you wish to be treated or being moral because you don't want to go to Hell, it's still just looking out for #1." -- Neil

Thinking about it now; yes, you are correct.

"We also have something in us that predisposes us to altruism" -- Neil

Yes, i agree, to an extent. Ghandi, Jesus, Martin Luther, Sidharta. All of these people were amazingly sympathetic and empathetic people. They all did things that were quasi-altruistic, no matter how noble it was. Just like the man whose goal it is to get to heaven, these people had similar reactions. I want to let you know that i am not taking away from anything these people did. They all were amazing, and if the world was full of people like them it would be a much more pleasent reality.
Have you ever read the book Night, by Elie Weisel? Its about the Jewish Holocost (sp?) Well anyway that book was one of the reasons i stopped being a christian. Man, let me tell you; that book blew me away, chewed me up and spit me out. I recommend that book to any and everyone.

"The root of virtue is the identification of the self in the other. " -- Neil
I like that.

"But it's hard for me to imagine that identification of the self in the other, to the point of feeling mortally linked with a stranger, as being the product of socialization. " -- Neil

Ill think about that and get back to ya.

"Indeed. There is a reason why everyone in the US was sad after 9/11, yet nobody cared about the ~35 000 children in Africa who also died that very day. " --Guillaume --You don't care about those who are different from you."

The first part is actually a very good point, i always use the annology of a strangers car crash. When i read the paper and i see an article about a terrible car crash, i feel kinda wierd. Like if i knew that person i would feel so much worse than the casual feeling of "aww man." The most you can do is scratch the surface of the feeling that those people's loved ones are having.
As for the second part i dont think that has anything to do with the truth of the situation. I would go so far as to say that's not the reason for most people (atleast from my experiences).

"Simple : socialization determines the type of person you identify with, and the type of person you don�t care about." --Guil

Occam's Razor fails again...The fireman at 9/11 only participated because their "type" of person was the rescue goal? No, surely what he is talking about is a disposition to all of man-kind. From what i gather by this quote: "The root of virtue is the identification of the self in the other." hes talking about empathy. Hes talking about a wise understanding of the golden rule.
--Neil: A cool quote i came across from Ghandi is "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Kinda slams ya in the face, huh? Anyway mull that over for a bit, ill work on yours.

Oh and to LostGirl, thank you for the recomendation. I wrote it down, thats exactly the thing ive been thinking about but didnt have a clue as to one source that contained some answers. Thank you.

LostGirl · 03-11-2003, 09:33 PM

Hey, no probs, Mr. Fantasy *dimple*. I'm just glad that my Value Theory course this semester is coming in handy. I haven't read the book myself, but that's my prof's synthesis of her thesis.
I tend to feel the same way as Ms. Bok; whatever the particulars of the social mores, the fact is, there are always social mores present in society, and there are very basic ones that pop up almost everywhere, in some form or other.

Dr. Retard · 03-12-2003, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fantasy

"I think these are your presuppositions
* It's reasonable, by default, to act in your own selfish interests." -- Dr.Retard

Yes, it is reasonable to act in your own self interest, and it wasnt a supposition. Scientific research (and daily observation) will show that we humans have one inherent trait that makes us just like any other animal: self-survival.

"I wonder: why? Why is selfishness automatically justified? Do you think there are some magical 'reasons' that make selfishness proper, whereas there aren't any such reasons for generosity?" ---Dr. Retard

There is no magic, it is purely human nature and that of many other animals to want to survive. There is no scientific evidence supporting generosity from the view point of the self, unless it creates a more favorable position for that person. I merely notice how far this trait carries through people's lives. I dont think im stretching it too far when i say that this trait governs almost all of our lives. I see lots of conflicts between this "Natural Law" and the laws humans decided to institute for growth. We have grown beyond understanding where ethics came from and it blinds people into never questioning their validity, and just accepting them as truth.

"It looks for all the world like you're relying on an ethical claim, at the same time that you dismiss ethics." -- Dr.Retard

Im sorry, where is my ethical claim?? Point it out please.

Here's a quote: "Yes, it is reasonable to act in your own self interest, and it wasnt a supposition. Scientific research (and daily observation) will show that we humans have one inherent trait that makes us just like any other animal: self-survival."

You are saying that some normative value -- reasonableness -- attaches to 'self-survival'. That's ethics. You're saying that this is true because animal behavior is driven to insure 'self-survival'. So you must be saying that

* whenever animals behavior is driven to insure some goal (like 'self-survival'), then acting in accordance with that goal is reasonable.

Animals are also driven to love each other and care for each other. We're especially driven to care about our kin. Does that mean this is reasonable? Are you holding your theory of reasonableness hostage to whatever biological impulses happen to predominate among animals?

Or are you not talking about reasonableness at all? You're just saying that we in fact have this biological impulse to 'self-survival'? If that's the case, then So What? Why should I obey this impulse? Why not fight against it, with the other, kinder impulses I've gotten from society and from reflection?

Quote:

"In any case, no one believes in a social contract. The social contract is just a hypothetical scenario, intended to illustrate the reasonableness of morality." --- Dr.Retard

Many people believe in a social contract (in my opinion as a loop hole). Ive heard tons of arguments from that point of view upon the subject of abortion.

My point is that no one believes that we actually had a big agreement. They just believe it's a nice thought-experiment, to illustrate what practices are reasonable to accept.

Neilium · 03-12-2003, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guillaume
Indeed. There is a reason why everyone in the US was sad for the victims of the 9/11, yet nobody cared about the ~35 000 children in Africa who also died that very day.

You don't care about those who are different from you.

Guillaume,

There's mountains of anecdotal evidence regarding willfull ignorance of suffering. There will always be plenty of people with dangerously misplaced sentiments. As much as I think there is altruism at the core of humanity, I am regularly confounded at how good we've become at overwhelming that impulse and allowing human suffering to continue.

Quote:

Simple : socialization determines the type of person you identify with, and the type of person you don�t care about.

not so simple: That doesn't explain the underlying mechanism that compells us to care about anyone else.

-neil

DRFseven · 03-12-2003, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neilium:
not so simple: That doesn't explain the underlying mechanism that compells us to care about anyone else.

That mechanism is attachment and occurs during the infancy stage. We are not born caring about others, though we are born with the capacity for attachment. Provided certain behaviors occur between parent/caregiver and child, the infant will become attached and capable of mirroring attitudes such as caring. In institutionalized neglected children attachment disorders are common and, later, so are behavioral problems indicating lack of regard for others.

Neilium · 03-12-2003, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven

That mechanism is attachment and occurs during the infancy stage. We are not born caring about others, though we are born with the capacity for attachment. Provided certain behaviors occur between parent/caregiver and child, the infant will become attached and capable of mirroring attitudes such as caring. In institutionalized neglected children attachment disorders are common and, later, so are behavioral problems indicating lack of regard for others. [/B]

DRF7,

Right on. We're not born caring for others, but we are born with a profound need for others.

and now for some comic relief:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3119/stupidbabies.html

-neil

Mr.Fantasy · 03-12-2003, 08:27 PM

"Animals are also driven to love each other and care for each other. We're especially driven to care about our kin. Does that mean this is reasonable? Are you holding your theory of reasonableness hostage to whatever biological impulses happen to predominate among animals? " -- Dr.Retard

----- Selfishness is a driving instinct. I feel the reason why we are driven to love our kin is because we are attached to them. We wouldnt want to lose that contact with those people because we connect with them. We in many situations go out of our way to help these people so that they feel good; but the heart of the issue is we feel good when they do.
----- Animals are not driven genetically to care for eachother, that comes form a disposition brought about by our reaction to our environment. I am not trying to say that because other animals are like that we must be, i was just using animal conduct as an anology because i feel we act the same under similar human cricumstances. (for this situation)

"Or are you not talking about reasonableness at all? You're just saying that we in fact have this biological impulse to 'self-survival'? If that's the case, then So What? Why should I obey this impulse? Why not fight against it, with the other, kinder impulses I've gotten from society and from reflection?" -- Dr.Retard

----- I was bringing it to people's attention who had never thought of it the way i do. I was just trying to unvail the illusion that we are an altruistic people, which is the basis of most of our ethics. Im not saying you should do anything, react to this the way you want as long as you have the knowledge and recognise it.
----- I realised along time ago that i must not tell people how to live or react; rather i should just supply them with the knowledge or view point on the situation and let them react accordingly. Each action and feeling is legitamate, however if i can supply what i feel to be a less ignorant thought process than i will do so and step out of the picture. What you do with it is your molding. If you want to fight against a natural law of the universe go ahead. Ive managed to incorporate and embrace selfishness while still keeping a loving empathy for other people. "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

"My point is that no one believes that we actually had a big agreement. They just believe it's a nice thought-experiment, to illustrate what practices are reasonable to accept." -- Dr.Retard

----- My point was that plenty of people do believe it; whether or not the idea was formulated for the purpose youve mentioned, it is a popular belief.

Guillaume · 03-12-2003, 11:37 PM

Mr.Fantasy, could you please use quotes for your post ? It is really hard to understand you.

03-11-2003, 08:15 PM	#13
Mr.Fantasy Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Washington Posts: 11	Im enjoying this thread too =p "Rereading your original post, I may have misunderstood a couple of things, but I'll stick to my statement quoted above. If you do believe in a God that enforces some sort of moral code, aren't you still acting out of self-interest when you obey that code? Whether it's treating people the way you wish to be treated or being moral because you don't want to go to Hell, it's still just looking out for #1." -- Neil Thinking about it now; yes, you are correct. "We also have something in us that predisposes us to altruism" -- Neil Yes, i agree, to an extent. Ghandi, Jesus, Martin Luther, Sidharta. All of these people were amazingly sympathetic and empathetic people. They all did things that were quasi-altruistic, no matter how noble it was. Just like the man whose goal it is to get to heaven, these people had similar reactions. I want to let you know that i am not taking away from anything these people did. They all were amazing, and if the world was full of people like them it would be a much more pleasent reality. Have you ever read the book Night, by Elie Weisel? Its about the Jewish Holocost (sp?) Well anyway that book was one of the reasons i stopped being a christian. Man, let me tell you; that book blew me away, chewed me up and spit me out. I recommend that book to any and everyone. "The root of virtue is the identification of the self in the other. " -- Neil I like that. "But it's hard for me to imagine that identification of the self in the other, to the point of feeling mortally linked with a stranger, as being the product of socialization. " -- Neil Ill think about that and get back to ya. "Indeed. There is a reason why everyone in the US was sad after 9/11, yet nobody cared about the ~35 000 children in Africa who also died that very day. " --Guillaume --You don't care about those who are different from you." The first part is actually a very good point, i always use the annology of a strangers car crash. When i read the paper and i see an article about a terrible car crash, i feel kinda wierd. Like if i knew that person i would feel so much worse than the casual feeling of "aww man." The most you can do is scratch the surface of the feeling that those people's loved ones are having. As for the second part i dont think that has anything to do with the truth of the situation. I would go so far as to say that's not the reason for most people (atleast from my experiences). "Simple : socialization determines the type of person you identify with, and the type of person you don�t care about." --Guil Occam's Razor fails again...The fireman at 9/11 only participated because their "type" of person was the rescue goal? No, surely what he is talking about is a disposition to all of man-kind. From what i gather by this quote: "The root of virtue is the identification of the self in the other." hes talking about empathy. Hes talking about a wise understanding of the golden rule. --Neil: A cool quote i came across from Ghandi is "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Kinda slams ya in the face, huh? Anyway mull that over for a bit, ill work on yours. Oh and to LostGirl, thank you for the recomendation. I wrote it down, thats exactly the thing ive been thinking about but didnt have a clue as to one source that contained some answers. Thank you.

03-11-2003, 09:33 PM	#14
LostGirl Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Posts: 45	you're welcome Hey, no probs, Mr. Fantasy dimple. I'm just glad that my Value Theory course this semester is coming in handy. I haven't read the book myself, but that's my prof's synthesis of her thesis. I tend to feel the same way as Ms. Bok; whatever the particulars of the social mores, the fact is, there are always social mores present in society, and there are very basic ones that pop up almost everywhere, in some form or other.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2003, 08:27 PM	#19
Mr.Fantasy Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Washington Posts: 11	"Animals are also driven to love each other and care for each other. We're especially driven to care about our kin. Does that mean this is reasonable? Are you holding your theory of reasonableness hostage to whatever biological impulses happen to predominate among animals? " -- Dr.Retard ----- Selfishness is a driving instinct. I feel the reason why we are driven to love our kin is because we are attached to them. We wouldnt want to lose that contact with those people because we connect with them. We in many situations go out of our way to help these people so that they feel good; but the heart of the issue is we feel good when they do. ----- Animals are not driven genetically to care for eachother, that comes form a disposition brought about by our reaction to our environment. I am not trying to say that because other animals are like that we must be, i was just using animal conduct as an anology because i feel we act the same under similar human cricumstances. (for this situation) "Or are you not talking about reasonableness at all? You're just saying that we in fact have this biological impulse to 'self-survival'? If that's the case, then So What? Why should I obey this impulse? Why not fight against it, with the other, kinder impulses I've gotten from society and from reflection?" -- Dr.Retard ----- I was bringing it to people's attention who had never thought of it the way i do. I was just trying to unvail the illusion that we are an altruistic people, which is the basis of most of our ethics. Im not saying you should do anything, react to this the way you want as long as you have the knowledge and recognise it. ----- I realised along time ago that i must not tell people how to live or react; rather i should just supply them with the knowledge or view point on the situation and let them react accordingly. Each action and feeling is legitamate, however if i can supply what i feel to be a less ignorant thought process than i will do so and step out of the picture. What you do with it is your molding. If you want to fight against a natural law of the universe go ahead. Ive managed to incorporate and embrace selfishness while still keeping a loving empathy for other people. "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." "My point is that no one believes that we actually had a big agreement. They just believe it's a nice thought-experiment, to illustrate what practices are reasonable to accept." -- Dr.Retard ----- My point was that plenty of people do believe it; whether or not the idea was formulated for the purpose youve mentioned, it is a popular belief.

03-12-2003, 11:37 PM	#20
Guillaume Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Canada, Québec Posts: 285	Mr.Fantasy, could you please use quotes for your post ? It is really hard to understand you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.