| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2010 03:12:44 AM · #476 |
...some things are best left unsaid.
Message edited by author 2010-09-28 03:22:23. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 04:10:44 AM · #477 |
Thanks for the info, Robert. There does appear to be a little hitch there if 'true altruism' carries per definition that there should be no benefit to the actor. Semantic, possibly, but things do need to be defined for the purpose of discussion.
Doesn't make America a whole lot more or less ignorant, methinks :) |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 01:25:49 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I feel that the cultural explanation for moral systems is far superior to a purely genetic one. |
I don't understand why altruism is so incompatible with genetic evolution.
I made a decision a while ago always to give money to charity bucket shakers when I have change. The main reasons are because I admire the generosity of the volunteers in giving up their time and think that they should be rewarded, I sympathise with the charitable purpose, and I wish to avoid a very mild pang of guilt when I ignore them.
When I give cash I get a mild sense of satisfaction - probably a small dopamine hit or somesuch. Helping others makes me happy. I presume that this is because I am mentally capable of empathising with the position of the volunteer and the people (invisible to me) that the money will reward/help.
Is it not conceivable that the biological mechanism (dopamine hit or whatever) that encourages co-operation in social animals for clear evolutionary benefit might also encourage higher intelligence animals to be generous more generally because of their abilities to understand complex and remote social consequences? Is it not also conceivable that demonstrations of excess wealth might be attractive to the opposite sex?
Remember that evolution is not a perfect process for reaching optimal survival conditions - it encourages beneficial and discourages poor genetic mutations that we all undergo. The fact that some consequences (which we consider beneficial and potentially attractive) like altruism might carry a small evolutionary cost does not mean that they did not evolve.
The fact that we evolved and we have a sense of altruism is good evidence that it is possible... |
The definition for altruism that I've been using in the conversations has been much closer to Bear's "true altruism" and was the one I was taught in undergrad. So, with that in mind, it IS pretty hard to fathom altruistic behavior being genetic. However, a "looser" definition (to encompass cooperation etc) can quickly change that.
To me, the fact that moral systems tend to encourage a pure altruism favors a cultural root for the system rather than being a direct outgrowth of our genetic predispositions. I think that our imperative for self-interest is so strong that any other imperatives are lost in the noise. Moral systems are generally designed to combat this, not embrace it.
I don't know if that was very clear. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 06:40:28 PM · #479 |
And in some Pew study that showed atheists and agnostics to be more educated about religion than various representatives of religious groups*, the "scariest" finding was that 4 of 100 Americans think Stephen King wrote "Moby Dick".
Link to article here
*Jews and Mormons were pretty closely ranked to the atheist/agnostic bunch. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 09:06:19 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The definition for altruism that I've been using in the conversations has been much closer to Bear's "true altruism" and was the one I was taught in undergrad. So, with that in mind, it IS pretty hard to fathom altruistic behavior being genetic. However, a "looser" definition (to encompass cooperation etc) can quickly change that. |
I think my example was an example of true altruism - do you agree? There is no reciprocal benefit other than a self engendered mental benefit in relation to a remote charitable gift. Otherwise, I'm not clear whether true altruism is ever demonstrated by humans (let alone other animals).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To me, the fact that moral systems tend to encourage a pure altruism favors a cultural root for the system rather than being a direct outgrowth of our genetic predispositions. I think that our imperative for self-interest is so strong that any other imperatives are lost in the noise. Moral systems are generally designed to combat this, not embrace it.
I don't know if that was very clear. |
But social co-operation has been critical in our evolutionary story - collective self interest. I'd also say that even if cultural it must be something that is genetically "permitted": something that is genetically permitted doesn't necessarily depend on a specific moral codification to become activated.
Incidentally, the practical barriers to acting in a purely altruistic manner may be one of the reasons we see it exhibited less in nature.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2010 10:33:30 PM · #481 |
One of the challenges in finding true altruism is that it's a matter of motivation on the species' part and how does one measure the motivation of an animal?
When a bird raises a cuckoo chick that has been dropped into her nest it could potentially be pure altruism that causes the bird to raise it, but it also could be a matter of trickery and the bird doesn't know any better and thinks it is raising its own young (the most likely explanation). It's almost as hard to judge a scenario involving humans. What is the inner motivation for the subject displaying altruism? Does it count if there are "accidental" benefits? etc.
This is why I look more to the moral constructs themselves. Judeo-Christianity, as an example (and I only bring it up because I know it the best), encourages true altruism whether it actually can occur or not and the teachings of the religion are rife with examples where doing something generous but for selfish motives is looked down upon (despite it being helpful) versus doing it with no hope for gain. I find it at least illuminating that the code would hold this as the greatest good even if it is merely theoretical.
Message edited by author 2010-09-28 22:34:52. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:34:28 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One of the challenges in finding true altruism is that it's a matter of motivation on the species' part and how does one measure the motivation of an animal?
When a bird raises a cuckoo chick that has been dropped into her nest it could potentially be pure altruism that causes the bird to raise it, but it also could be a matter of trickery and the bird doesn't know any better and thinks it is raising its own young (the most likely explanation). It's almost as hard to judge a scenario involving humans. What is the inner motivation for the subject displaying altruism? Does it count if there are "accidental" benefits? etc. |
What about examining situations where there's no apparent personal benefit? Would these be examples of true altruism?
- anonymous heroism or charity
- a solider diving on a grenade to save his fellow soliders
- donating an organ you can't live without
- taking the blame for something you didn't do to protect someone else
- letting a love go because you can't give them the life you feel they deserve
|
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:34:51 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...This is why I look more to the moral constructs themselves. Judeo-Christianity, as an example (and I only bring it up because I know it the best), encourages true altruism whether it actually can occur or not and the teachings of the religion are rife with examples where doing something generous but for selfish motives is looked down upon (despite it being helpful) versus doing it with no hope for gain. I find it at least illuminating that the code would hold this as the greatest good even if it is merely theoretical. |
I found this bit of information found in this link rather interesting: Linky
The word give appears more than 1,000 times in the Bible. Obviously, God considers giving very important. Proverbs 13:7 warns, "There is one who makes himself rich, yet has nothing; and one who makes himself poor, yet has great riches." In other words, the person who focuses on getting ends up ultimately with nothing, while the one who majors on giving will have an abundance. The Bible says that when we give, God may make us wealthy, but it may be in ways we could never dream. Giving makes us rich, but we may have little cash to show for it. So why do we give? Why do we cast our bread upon the waters? We do it because it's right!
What might surprise some, is that very similar comments can be found in the Koran, and that altruism existed in societies that had no association whatsoever with religion as is currently known in modern society.
While it might be argued that altruism is indeed influenced by society, it does not necessarily follow that structured religion as we define it is the only governing force.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:40:57 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...This is why I look more to the moral constructs themselves. Judeo-Christianity, as an example (and I only bring it up because I know it the best), encourages true altruism whether it actually can occur or not and the teachings of the religion are rife with examples where doing something generous but for selfish motives is looked down upon (despite it being helpful) versus doing it with no hope for gain. I find it at least illuminating that the code would hold this as the greatest good even if it is merely theoretical. |
I found this bit of information found in this link rather interesting: Linky
The word give appears more than 1,000 times in the Bible. Obviously, God considers giving very important. Proverbs 13:7 warns, "There is one who makes himself rich, yet has nothing; and one who makes himself poor, yet has great riches." In other words, the person who focuses on getting ends up ultimately with nothing, while the one who majors on giving will have an abundance. The Bible says that when we give, God may make us wealthy, but it may be in ways we could never dream. Giving makes us rich, but we may have little cash to show for it. So why do we give? Why do we cast our bread upon the waters? We do it because it's right!
What might surprise some, is that very similar comments can be found in the Koran, and that altruism existed in societies that had no association whatsoever with religion as is currently known in modern society.
While it might be argued that altruism is indeed influenced by society, it does not necessarily follow that structured religion as we define it is the only governing force.
Ray |
"God considers giving very important"
"God may make us wealthy"
Assuming you believe in that all powerful god wouldn't those be sufficient reasons to give whether you want to or not? And the last one, isn't that a direct benefit for doing so?
Message edited by author 2010-09-28 23:41:51.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2010 12:45:44 AM · #485 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One of the challenges in finding true altruism is that it's a matter of motivation on the species' part and how does one measure the motivation of an animal?
When a bird raises a cuckoo chick that has been dropped into her nest it could potentially be pure altruism that causes the bird to raise it, but it also could be a matter of trickery and the bird doesn't know any better and thinks it is raising its own young (the most likely explanation). It's almost as hard to judge a scenario involving humans. What is the inner motivation for the subject displaying altruism? Does it count if there are "accidental" benefits? etc. |
What about examining situations where there's no apparent personal benefit? Would these be examples of true altruism?
- anonymous heroism or charity
- a solider diving on a grenade to save his fellow soliders
- donating an organ you can't live without
- taking the blame for something you didn't do to protect someone else
- letting a love go because you can't give them the life you feel they deserve |
The problem is, you can always assume some self-interest. As you said in your second post, if you believe "God wants you to do it", well, you declared that self-interest right there. How do you know the hero wasn't still hoping for attention or reward? The soldier thought he'd live or didn't mean to dive on it. etc. etc. etc. I guess I'm not saying it's impossible to prove, but really the cynic can come up with any number of angles for self-interest that are difficult to prove or disprove (you did it yourself with the God thing) as the true motivation for an action.
Ray, I hope you don't think I was making any of the arguments you were speaking against, because I wasn't. My only assertion is a doubt that true altruism would be a natural outgrowth of our genetic imperatives. In other words, if I grew up separated from society and was suddenly integrated, I would be unlikely to display true altruism until it was taught to me by cultural codes. Can I prove that beyond a doubt? Probably not. But I believe it to be true. |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 05:38:01 AM · #486 |
The common mistake made in this type of debates is that of confusing proximate causes with ultimate causes. For example; the -nauseatingly romanticized, even exalted- proximate causes for production of art probably have nothing whatsoever to do with its ultimate (evolutionary) cause, which would be, to put it bluntly, merely the desire to get laid. Geoffrey Miller suggests that creation of art is a mating tactic aiming to impress prospective mating partners with the power of one's brain.
"If you could interview a male satin bowerbird for Artform magazine, he might say something like 'I find this implacable urge for self-expression, for playing with color and form for their own sake, quite inexplicable. I cannot remember when I first developed this raging thirst to present richly saturated color-field within a monumental yet minimalist stage-set, but I feel connected to something beyond myself when I indulge these passions...It's a happy coincidence that females sometimes come to my gallery openings and appreciate my work, but it would be an insult to suggest that I create in order to procreate.' Fortunately, bowerbirds cannot talk, so we are free to use sexual selection to explain their works, without them begging to differ." - Geoffrey Miller, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped Human Nature
Naturally, altruism (reciprocal or otherwise) too has its proximate and ultimate (evolutionary) causes. Dogs are known to sacrifice their own life to save their owner's, and even though we tend to immediately attribute their sacrifice to their undying, unconditional love for us, the ultimate cause of their seemingly true altruism lies in the fact that in the process of domestication, they were subjected to certain selection pressures; one of them being the willingess to sacrifice oneself. Therefore, the dogs that were prepared to sacrifice life or limb in defense of their owners if the occasion arose had, on average, a higher chance of passing their genes on to the next generation, and so the genes connected to such behaviour became dominant in the dog population.
Humans often show behaviour that appear to be truly altruistic, too. There may very well be several proximate causes for such behaviour, but that does not mean there are no ultimate causes.
"People do more for their fellows than return favors and punish cheaters. They often perform generous acts without the slightest hope for payback, ranging from leaving a tip in a restaurant they will never visit again to throwing themselves on a live grenade to save their brothers in arms. Trivers, together with the economist Robert Frank and Jack Hirshleifer, has pointed out that pure magnanimity can evolve in an environment of people seeking to discriminate fair-weather friends from loyal allies. Signs of heartfelt loyalty and generosity serve as guarantors of one's promises, reducing a partner's worry that you will default on them. The best way to convince a skeptic that you are trustworthy and generous is to be trustworty and generous." - Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
While the influence of culture can be invoked as a proximate cause for one's altruistic/generous acts, what we call "culture" itself is, ultimately, a product of the cognitive abilities our genes equip us with, and it, too, evolves under various selection pressures. In light of the various theories, evidence and studies I am familiar with, I am inclined to believe that all our common behaviors/acts (including the criminal and self-destructive behaviors, such as cheating, deception, murder, consumption of potentially lethal substances, driving like a lunatic, etc., as well as oh-so-noble-and-romantic ones) have, ultimately, evolved for a good, compelling evolutionary reason. That does not mean that there is a specific gene for every imaginable behavior or act.
"...First, all this talk about genes that influence behavior does not mean that we are cuckoo clocks or player pianos, mindlessly executing the dictates of DNA. The genes in question are those that endow us with the neural systems for conscience, deliberation and will, and when we talk about the selection of such genes, we are talking about the various ways those faculties could have evolved. The error comes from the Blank Slate and the Ghost in the Machine: if one starts off thinking that our higher mental faculties are stamped in by society or inhere in a soul, then when biologists mention genetic influence, the first alternatives that come to mind are puppet strings or trolley tracks. But if higher faculties, including learning, reason and choice, are products of a nonrandom organization of the brain, there have to be genes that help do the orginizing, and that raises the question of how those genes would have been selected in the course of human evolution." - Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 11:02:32 AM · #487 |
On first readover of your post Tycho it sounds like either a case of wanting your cake and eating it too (we are both ultimately a product of our genes yet we are not automatons) or putting the cart before the horse (all traits are beneficial because evolution selects beneficial traits).
To simplify art as a process of "getting laid" is to vastly oversimplify such things (though I understand the tongue-in-cheek nature of the example). In the end, ALL processess would be about "getting laid" since reproduction is the only means for passing your genetic information on. If ALL processess are about reproduction then, as a point of discussion and as an answer for differences that arise in people or culture, it becomes moot. |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 11:41:12 AM · #488 |
| Not all acts of altruism can be rationalized away as self-interest. A cat that "adopts" a squirrel, a dolphin that rescues a human, a person who returns a wallet and refuses any reward, the 19th century Underground Railroad, someone who stops to change a tire and then leaves with a wave, doctors volunteering aid in a war zone... these are acts purely for the sake of helping others in need. To pretend that they don't exist is to deny a basic trait of humanity. We say that it "feels good" to help another, and that may be literally true. It may be a conscious choice to help, but the smile on your face and the "warm fuzzies" in your heart are electrochemical responses that cannot be explained by the simple obedience of pleasing a god (especially coming from those who claim good deeds don't matter). |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 11:49:00 AM · #489 |
I can respond to your comment Shannon when you address mine from above.
Originally posted by scalvert:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you quote the Bible on matters of cosmology, biology, sociology, geology, etc. when it's really only an authority on theology?
Originally posted by scalvert:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You base so many of your arguments on them that I really don't think you grasp the difference between rationalization and reason. You use the Bible as an authority on cosmology every time you argue a Christian God as the creator. You use the Bible as an authority on sociology every time you argue morality as a Judeo-Christian institution. You use it as an authority on biology when you argue free will in terms of a Christian God, and so on. Absent the Bible, you would have no specifics, no authority to appeal, and no religious answers whatsoever.
Twice now you have said this. It is complete untruth. I consciously do not quote the Bible in these threads because I realize that to the people I'm talking to it has little value as an authority. If I ever quote the Bible it is in the context of what Christians believe. I feel unjustly wounded by this comment and would ask out of the spirit of civil discourse for you to retract it. I won't think less of you, in fact, I will think much more. |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 11:49:53 AM · #490 |
| You *REALLY* don't want to go there! |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 12:08:38 PM · #491 |
| Ah, good times. Good times... |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 01:34:49 PM · #492 |
Moving on. Maybe tycho or Richard can reply to this thought experiment.
You have a friend who informs you that she is thinking about doing something that has no benefit to her but would help someone else she doesn't know. She isn't sure whether to do it or not and asks for your help in the matter.
"Why should I do it?" she asks you. What is your response? |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 02:02:15 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You have a friend who informs you that she is thinking about doing something that has no benefit to her but would help someone else she doesn't know... "Why should I do it?" she asks you. |
If not for altruism, why would she even be thinking about it? |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 02:07:18 PM · #494 |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 02:17:13 PM · #495 |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 02:20:08 PM · #496 |
-deleted rambling-
Message edited by author 2010-09-29 14:25:35. |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 03:02:05 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On first readover of your post Tycho it sounds like either a case of wanting your cake and eating it too (we are both ultimately a product of our genes yet we are not automatons) or putting the cart before the horse (all traits are beneficial because evolution selects beneficial traits). |
Not unless you assume, with no good reason at all, that being a product of one's genes necessarily means that one can't be anything but an automaton. You're still making the mistake of believing that every single behavior/act strictly corresponds to a specific gene. And this is where that whole duality thing comes into the discussion, I guess. Frankly, I find it quite discouraging, to say the least, that roughly half a millennium after Spinoza debunked the myth of mind/soul-body duality without the benefit of modern science, we're still wasting our time and energy on this issue.
Not all traits are the result of either natural or sexual selection. There's, for one, the genetic drift which may or may not lead to beneficial traits as well as neutral or even detrimental ones. Some other traits are simply unintended by-products, if you will, of other biological (or even cultural) adaptations. Whoever believes that "all traits are beneficial because evolution selects beneficial traits" needs to read Evolutionary Biology For Dummies.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the end, ALL processess would be about "getting laid" since reproduction is the only means for passing your genetic information on. If ALL processess are about reproduction then, as a point of discussion and as an answer for differences that arise in people or culture, it becomes moot. |
Well before getting to the mating part, one first has to stay alive long enough, be healthy, fit, strong and attractive when the mating season arrives so that one can have a hope of driving the competitors away and of being considered a worthy mate by the prospective partner, have a healthy supply of sperm/eggs, and for many species, stay alive, fit and strong after the birth of the offsprings so as to be able to feed and protect them until they are old enough to go their own way, etc. etc. So, no, not all processes would be solely about "getting laid". If we wanted to go all greedy-reductionist, we would say that all processes are, in the end, about "staying alive and in one piece", but then we would have painted a horribly incomplete picture.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Moving on. Maybe tycho or Richard can reply to this thought experiment.
You have a friend who informs you that she is thinking about doing something that has no benefit to her but would help someone else she doesn't know. She isn't sure whether to do it or not and asks for your help in the matter.
"Why should I do it?" she asks you. What is your response? |
Simple. "If you have at least a somewhat valid [proximate] reason to do it, like, I don't know, because it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, go ahead and do it." Just because I'm aware of the possible ultimate causes underlying such acts doesn't mean I do not acknowledge or value the proximate causes. |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 03:51:56 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
Not all traits are the result of either natural or sexual selection. There's, for one, the genetic drift which may or may not lead to beneficial traits as well as neutral or even detrimental ones. Some other traits are simply unintended by-products, if you will, of other biological (or even cultural) adaptations. Whoever believes that "all traits are beneficial because evolution selects beneficial traits" needs to read Evolutionary Biology For Dummies. |
I feel pretty unsatisfied to think that the greatest morals systems our species has come up with are products of "genetic drift" or "unintended by-products". I guess the good news is we'll eventually work it out and go back to bashing each other over the head. ;)
Originally posted by tycho:
Simple. "If you have at least a somewhat valid [proximate] reason to do it, like, I don't know, because it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, go ahead and do it." Just because I'm aware of the possible ultimate causes underlying such acts doesn't mean I do not acknowledge or value the proximate causes. |
I guess the point of the experiment was first to see if we could fathom a truly altruistic act and then come up with a reason to do it. I think your answer would fail because you point to the self-serving reason of "feeling all warm and fuzzy" so it isn't an answer for why we should do something with "no benefit" to us. |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 05:02:25 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Moving on. Maybe tycho or Richard can reply to this thought experiment.
You have a friend who informs you that she is thinking about doing something that has no benefit to her but would help someone else she doesn't know. She isn't sure whether to do it or not and asks for your help in the matter.
"Why should I do it?" she asks you. What is your response? |
My response is that you seem to be demonstrating that "true altruism" is more an innate reflex (i.e. "genetic") than cultural indoctrination. Altruism shouldn't require the cost/benefit analysis you ask for; I think someone dashes into traffic to save baby, or even swerves to avoid hitting a squirrel, "without thinking about it" ...
I'm still wondering why no one seems concerned about how ignorant USA-ans are, and what might be done about it. Did we truly exhaust that subject?
Message edited by author 2010-09-29 17:03:16. |
|
|
|
09/29/2010 05:39:19 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...I'm still wondering why no one seems concerned about how ignorant USA-ans are, and what might be done about it. Did we truly exhaust that subject? |
Reform the educational system from the present commerce/career-centred ways to a humanistic system, hire teachers who care and can control a class rather than certified conformists, give those teachers the tools they need to get the student's attention, stimulate and support gifted students as opposed to forcing them to conform to the mean; install more journalists with a little integrity and provide access to global media from a global perspective for everyone, turn the churches into art galleries, encourage excellence rather than mediocrity in all aspects of life, including entertainment...
Discredit nationalism and xenophobia and the tired "ra-ra-ra" of threshed, populist Americanisms... |
|
