?s about atheism but were afraid to ask

02/10/2011 08:23:25 PM · #76

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is important enough to bring to the bottom again so we can have a reply...

It's still the poster child for a naturalistic fallacy no matter how many times you repeat it.

You're kidding, right? That's all you got?

You're ignoring the faulty logic and demanding a rational answer to an irrational question. It's not worth the keystrokes.

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/10/2011 08:27:03 PM · #77

Now he declares a win.

02/10/2011 08:28:32 PM · #78

Empathy and compassion are obvious benefits for a social animal
caring for the infirm may be an extension of that trait
it also reduces survival in some cases.

You, as a human, possess the intelligence to understand all three statements above. You are presented with a scenario where you can choose to care for the infirm, but you understand it will reduce survival in this case. What do you do and why?

There is no faulty logic here. I'm presenting a scenario and asking for your answer? Nothing is illogical.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/10/2011 08:47:16 PM · #79

Originally posted by Louis:

Now he declares a win.

Looks like he went with denial.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

02/10/2011 08:52:18 PM · #80

Your friend relates that his mother is elderly and in a nursing home. The costs will soon drive him to bankruptcy. His wife is pregnant with triplets. There are no other options for her care. He confides he is thinking of taking her home and letting her starve to death. He is positive no legal ramifications will result. Do you talk him out of it? If so, what argument do you use?

Am I phrasing the issue in a way you two can connect with? Still all fallacious?

tmhalling

Nikon D200

02/10/2011 09:09:58 PM · #81

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

George Price died trying to disprove his own mathematical proof; which basically stated is that people are altruistic to benefit themselves therefore true altruism does not exist. To answer your question; what I would choose to do in this scenario is irrelevant. The real question is what would the greater population would choose to do statistically speaking?

02/10/2011 09:33:03 PM · #82

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wolves will ostracize or leave behind weak members of the pack. These seem like natural behaviors so why would our moral code abhore similar behavior if we found it in man? Our social structure doesn't preclude benefits from such activity.

An aside - I'm only skimming and passing over the usual stuff - but elephants will stay with a member of the group who is ill, and will mourn when that member dies.

And perhaps the reason to keep the parasites around (old people) is for their knowledge. That is a strenght as well, is it not?

By the way, I thought Judi's thread was fine. If it wasn't something I wanted to read, I didn't have to read it.

Carry on!

02/10/2011 09:34:55 PM · #83

Originally posted by tmhalling:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Empathy and compassion are obvious benefits for a social animal
caring for the infirm may be an extension of that trait
it also reduces survival in some cases.

You, as a human, possess the intelligence to understand all three statements above. You are presented with a scenario where you can choose to care for the infirm, but you understand it will reduce survival in this case. What do you do and why?

There is no faulty logic here. I'm presenting a scenario and asking for your answer? Nothing is illogical.

George Price died trying to disprove his own mathematical proof; which basically stated is that people are altruistic to benefit themselves therefore true altruism does not exist. To answer your question; what I would choose to do in this scenario is irrelevant. The real question is what would the greater population would choose to do statistically speaking?

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of him before. So would you equate what the greater population would choose in this case as to be the "moral choice"? or would there be other considerations for that designation?

02/10/2011 09:36:49 PM · #84

Originally posted by Melethia:

And perhaps the reason to keep the parasites around (old people) is for their knowledge. That is a strenght as well, is it not?

I guess I wouldn't consider such an individual a "parasite". Their knowledge may increase the fitness and resources of the group even though they themselves are not doing the work. But I wasn't talking about such cases. Assume that "infirm" means both in physical traits and in mental ones.

02/10/2011 09:38:34 PM · #85

Nobody wants a crack at the moral dilemma?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/10/2011 09:40:30 PM · #86

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody wants a crack at the moral dilemma?

Your last one is a personal value judgement. There is no "correct" answer.

02/10/2011 09:49:36 PM · #87

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
And perhaps the reason to keep the parasites around (old people) is for their knowledge. That is a strenght as well, is it not?

I guess I wouldn't consider such an individual a "parasite". Their knowledge may increase the fitness and resources of the group even though they themselves are not doing the work. But I wasn't talking about such cases. Assume that "infirm" means both in physical traits and in mental ones.

Oh. In that case, yes, ship them off on an iceberg or drop them off in the woods. No need to keep them around.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

02/10/2011 09:53:13 PM · #88

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody wants a crack at the moral dilemma?

Your last one is a personal value judgement. There is no "correct" answer.

tmhalling

Nikon D200

02/10/2011 10:01:24 PM · #89

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by tmhalling:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Empathy and compassion are obvious benefits for a social animal
caring for the infirm may be an extension of that trait
it also reduces survival in some cases.

You, as a human, possess the intelligence to understand all three statements above. You are presented with a scenario where you can choose to care for the infirm, but you understand it will reduce survival in this case. What do you do and why?

There is no faulty logic here. I'm presenting a scenario and asking for your answer? Nothing is illogical.

George Price died trying to disprove his own mathematical proof; which basically stated is that people are altruistic to benefit themselves therefore true altruism does not exist. To answer your question; what I would choose to do in this scenario is irrelevant. The real question is what would the greater population would choose to do statistically speaking?

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of him before. So would you equate what the greater population would choose in this case as to be the "moral choice"? or would there be other considerations for that designation?

According to the equation it would really come down to what gives the population the greatest chance to pass on their perspective genes i.e. most would opt to protect themselves and their genes rather sacrifice themselves; however, for me it would really depend on the situation. The situation that posed bears no real world consequences for me so it is impossible for me to answer. I would like to think that I would sacrifice; however, I have children. Instinctively I would factor them into my decision. It really isn't a clear cut situation. I first learned of George Price listening to Radio Lab. Specifically this podcast.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/10/2011 10:08:36 PM · #90

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo] Nobody wants a crack at the moral dilemma?

Your last one is a personal value judgement. There is no "correct" answer.

I didn't say there was one (although there may be). But it would be revealing to know your answer and, more importantly, your argument to support it. Unless your answer is to just abtstain and let your friend do whatever he wants. But that would just feed the stereotype of the amoral atheist, wouldn't it? [/quote]

...and you arrived at the conclusion that atheist are amoral how? ...and exactly how is this a stereotypical view. Just curious?

Ray

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/10/2011 10:28:56 PM · #91

Originally posted by RayEthier:

...and you arrived at the conclusion that atheist are amoral how? ...and exactly how is this a stereotypical view. Just curious?

Ray

Originally posted by SaraR:

Are you saying that an atheist can have no personal morals, and if they do they subconsciously believe in a God and are thus merely deluding themselves?

That seems to be a perception that Jason perpetuates. He seems to think if you aren't scared of the wrath of God, you'll do anything and not care. In his worldview, we are all sinners, and cannot do good without God.

jpochard

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/10/2011 10:45:09 PM · #92

Total aside:

It's "Jud-y" not "Jud-i"...since there is a well-known "Judi" here, I didn't want confusion for her.

That is all. Carry on.

02/10/2011 11:23:52 PM · #93

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo] Nobody wants a crack at the moral dilemma?

Your last one is a personal value judgement. There is no "correct" answer.

I didn't say there was one (although there may be). But it would be revealing to know your answer and, more importantly, your argument to support it. Unless your answer is to just abtstain and let your friend do whatever he wants. But that would just feed the stereotype of the amoral atheist, wouldn't it? [/quote]

...and you arrived at the conclusion that atheist are amoral how? ...and exactly how is this a stereotypical view. Just curious?

Ray

That was mainly a joke. But if you abstained from providing your friend with some advice, wouldn't you at least superficially appear to be amoral?

But that was wrong. The takehome message for tonight is that matricide is a personal choice. :D

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 23:24:20.

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/10/2011 11:33:26 PM · #94

Jesus Christ this is idiotic. Isn't it about time you took your pastor's advice, and stopped trying to think your way through your faith, or arguing it "logically", or whatever this painfully stupid exercise is?

02/10/2011 11:34:56 PM · #95

Love ya too Lew. 'Night!

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/11/2011 12:00:30 AM · #96

Yeesh. You're always harping about what others are trying to prove. Give it a rest. I have a feeling you missed shutterpuppy's post here.

Dr.Confuser

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/11/2011 12:08:59 AM · #97

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't disagree with that Dr., but you are trying to change the thought experiment and convey a benefit to the individuals "on the chopping block". We can, of course, change it to make sure there is no obvious benefit. People with severe mental retardation. People in persistent vegitative states. Alzheimer's patients. etc. Can you convey the selective advantage of making sure these people are protected? I do not know how the fitness of the tribe is increased by keeping them around. And while an abundance of resources may allow times where there isn't an overall disadvantage, a dearth of resources would exacerbate the situation. We are not apt to consider our moral codes to be extraneous when the going gets tough. In fact, we would argue that this is when our moral codes mean the most!

The Donner Party comes to mind. As I recall, with shortages in the extreme, when the going got not only tough but impossibly tough, they not only didn't preserve the weakest members of the party, they ate them!

More seriously, there is more than physical evolution. There is cultural and behavioral evolution as well. With a long enough time of plenty, philanthropic behavior becomes ingrained in the cultural behavior of the tribe which is practiced after that behavior is directly beneficial to the tribe as a whole or to the individuals in the tribe.

This of course is prejudice, holding onto a belief or behavior long after it is rational to do so and long after the behavior or belief is defensible. I would love to know, and maybe one day I will, but holding onto religious beliefs and rituals may be such a prejudice.

02/11/2011 12:52:53 AM · #98

Originally posted by jpochard:

Total aside:

It's "Jud-y" not "Jud-i"...since there is a well-known "Judi" here, I didn't want confusion for her.

That is all. Carry on.

I thought you were a "y" but since everyone else was using "i" I figured it was just another round of senility on my part. Apologies! :-)