Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

12/18/2008 01:19:16 PM · #1851

Originally posted by eqsite:

Why can't it have evolved? We can tackle such problems quite efficiently using Heurisitic Algorithms in computer science. I see no reason to attribute this to anything other than intrinsic ability (the system we are born with) applied to our own experiences. Why should this system be any different from other systems in our body? You're an doctor, right? Is our immune system the result of divine intervention, or the evolutionary result of millenia or organisms adapting to survive in their surroundings? Or is your litmus test based on the role of reasoned thought in the system? Do other animals not reason? Have you ever watched a squirrel figure out how to get to a bird feeder? The fact is that animals do think and reason, so why is it such a stretch to believe that they may have some equivalent to what we call morality? I suggest that they do, but because their heuristic may be different from ours, that we may not immediately recognize it.

Well, I guess my biggest beef was my point above. If it has evolved, ie. the idea of what constitutes "right" behavior and "wrong" behavior is evolved biologically, why do we struggle so much with "right" behavior? Perhaps we are miscommmunicating because here you say it seems possible to have such a system evolve while two posts ago you said "our responses couldn't possibly be hardwired for every situation".

Look at it this way. To me, a moral system is the algorithm that dictates "given conditions X,Y, and Z, action A is "right" while action B is "wrong". Certainly the system must be generalized because nobody has some book or mindset that addresses all possible scenarios, but I do think the complexity remains beyond a simple hard-wiring (I agree with you on that and it has never been my argument that it was). We may have instincts hardwired (self-preservation, selfishness, cooperation, fairness) but these are not the moral system in and of themselves.

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

12/18/2008 01:20:49 PM · #1852

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT: I thought this was a great line by the Joker: "You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."

As much as I am loath to discuss a basically unrelated hypothetical...

Having just seen the movie in question... don't you think it's a bit ironic that in this so called 'experiment' none of the three options actually occurs, and that people, when the chips are down, prevent both the boats from blowing up, completely invalidating the quote just posted?

Let's hear it for sappy Hollywood sentimentality?

Well, obviously it was a pertinent point in the movie, but it's, as mentioned, only a movie. Sometimes movies reflect reality, sometimes fantasy, sometimes a mix of both.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

12/18/2008 01:33:04 PM · #1853

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Perhaps we are miscommunicating. I am asserting that the system (the algorithm) has indeed evolved, not the responses themselves. Given the hypothetical situation, we struggle to find a "right" or "wrong" answer. I assert that this is because the heuristic algorithm that we use doesn't handle that well. I think we can both agree on that. You, however, take that to mean that it couldn't have evolved to this state, because (I'm obviously paraphrasing and reading between the lines, so correct me if I'm wrong) -- because such subtleties couldn't be the result of evolution. I argue the opposite, that these subtleties are inherent to any heuristic algorithm, and therefore support the idea that they are the result of evolution.

As for what this has to do with gay marriage, my algorthim is not equipped to answer that.

12/18/2008 01:39:01 PM · #1854

At the real risk of turning people off by quoting Lewis, I'll do so because I like his example. Perhaps I can disclaim ahead of time I'm not trying to inject God into this. You can consider "The Moral Law" to be synonymous with "morality" or "a moral system".

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires-one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.
Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,"
cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.

Message edited by author 2008-12-18 13:39:34.

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

12/18/2008 01:44:16 PM · #1855

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

why do we struggle so much with "right" behavior?

In general, I think the mass of mankind does quite well with "right" behavior. It's not newsworthy, however, so we don't hear about it. Why do you think thre's such a struggle with "right" behavior? Examples? I suppose one can point out the many financial failures of late, huh?

eqsite

Nikon D7100

12/18/2008 01:48:13 PM · #1856

I'm trying not be turned off by your Lewis quote, but not because of the religious nature of it, but because you keep falling back on it time and again in these discussions. Given the number of refutations to this by myself and others over the years, I'm tempted to not bother with it again. I will say, though, that just because Lewis sets up this situation where there is nothing in your mind but these two insticts (help and survive) and the voice that tells us which is "right", I contend that this is an impossible situation. There is never nothing else in your mind, and that little voice is the sum total of everything else in your mind weighing in on the decision. What is the probability of success? What is the depth of the water? How fast is it moving? How cold is it? Am I late for dinner? Does this drowning person look like a good person or a jerk? Will anyone notice if I don't help them? How could I live with myself if he dies because I didn't help? What would Jesus do? Ad infinitum...

Message edited by author 2008-12-18 13:49:45.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

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

12/18/2008 01:49:13 PM · #1857

-- oops, double post

Message edited by author 2008-12-18 13:49:28.

12/18/2008 01:52:05 PM · #1858

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why do we struggle so much with "right" behavior?

In general, I think the mass of mankind does quite well with "right" behavior. It's not newsworthy, however, so we don't hear about it. Why do you think thre's such a struggle with "right" behavior? Examples? I suppose one can point out the many financial failures of late, huh?

I look in the mirror. I'm not saying we don't have good in us or we can't act right. I'm saying that generally when it's most important it's hardest to act rightly. I'm not saying it's not impossible, I'm saying it takes effort. It is easier to act wrong than it is to act right.

12/18/2008 01:57:08 PM · #1859

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why do we struggle so much with "right" behavior?

In general, I think the mass of mankind does quite well with "right" behavior. It's not newsworthy, however, so we don't hear about it. Why do you think thre's such a struggle with "right" behavior? Examples? I suppose one can point out the many financial failures of late, huh?

I look in the mirror. I'm not saying we don't have good in us or we can't act right. I'm saying that generally when it's most important it's hardest to act rightly. I'm not saying it's not impossible, I'm saying it takes effort. It is easier to act wrong than it is to act right.

I disagree, but from my own perspective. I don't find it easy to act wrong at all - I find it to be very difficult. I don't have a problem acting right. Hardwired or not, to me that is the natural choice. If I have a bill due, I pay it. If someone wants to cut in front of me in traffic, I let them. If I'm asked to "cheat the system" in some way, I can't see the point in doing so. I'm not perfect either - I do make mistakes (bought the wrong size florescent light bulb for my Christmas present but that's been corrected). I just believe that in general the average person has far more right than wrong in them. If I believed otherwise, I'd find it very hard to interact with anyone - I'd always distrust them. I prefer to approach that in reverse - I trust implicitly until proven otherwise.

12/18/2008 01:57:38 PM · #1860

Originally posted by eqsite:

I hear ya. I think Lewis' example is simplified to make the point. Certainly all your questions could play into the situation, and sometimes almost instantly, but there is still a process there. The ability to process can be evolved, the details of the process, as you have shown, are far too complex to have some "if/then" algorithm playing out in our brain in a hardwired sense. I don't have to keep stamping my foot and saying "this is the way it is!" though. You can disagree and that's fine. It's getting away from my question anyway which is back to why we find it so hard to act "right" when pressure is applied to us? I don't think that jives with either the "man is basically "good"" idea or the "right action is dictated by our evolution" idea.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/18/2008 01:58:58 PM · #1861

Originally posted by Melethia:

How do you explain the general state of the world then? Why is there so much suffering?

Message edited by author 2008-12-18 13:59:13.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

12/18/2008 02:01:54 PM · #1862

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires-one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

I will agree with 2 of the basic premises:
1. Herd Instinct
2. Self-preservation instinct

I will agree that the choice one makes is a different 'thing' than the 2 instincts. However, I will disagree that, in all cases, the herd instinct is weaker than the self-preservation instinct. I will also disagree that this 'thing' dictates our actions. I would also disagree that this 'thing' tells us to do the weaker one.

Lewis is a great writer and wraps things in a pretty package but he had an agenda.

Some people, seemingly without thinking, will try to save the person. Some, seemingly without thinking, will run away. Some, seemingly without thinking, will panic and do nothing. We all hope we will do what we consider 'most moral' in a situation such as this, but we also accept that we won't. That is why we celebrate heroes to such an extent. They do what we only wish we could. Lewis is assuming that higher thought/reason kicks in in a moral dilemma and tells us what we *should* do. That is not necessarily true nor is it always the case.

12/18/2008 02:02:51 PM · #1863

Note I said "most" and that good news isn't news. Yes, there's a great deal of suffering, but there is an even larger quantity of non-suffering. There will always be evil mean bad nasty people. They garner all of the attention and acclaim. The nice people, who go about their every day without thoughts of mass destruction, embezzlement on a grand scale, or murder of their neighbor, in my opinion, far far outnumber the not so nice people. Not a perfect world, but to me certainly not one to spend one's time in a perpetual state of doom and despair.

12/18/2008 02:07:34 PM · #1864

Originally posted by dahkota:

Some people, seemingly without thinking, will try to save the person. Some, seemingly without thinking, will run away. Some, seemingly without thinking, will panic and do nothing. We all hope we will do what we consider 'most moral' in a situation such as this, but we also accept that we won't. That is why we celebrate heroes to such an extent. They do what we only wish we could. Lewis is assuming that higher thought/reason kicks in in a moral dilemma and tells us what we *should* do. That is not necessarily true nor is it always the case.

To say different people will act differently is probably very true. Does that change what the "most moral" action was after the fact? Is it valid to analyze the situation afterward and conclude which action was "most moral"? Even if it's not valid, do people do it anyway? Even if we act "on instinct" at times in certain situations, we as humans certainly go back and apply "higher thought" to a situation. How many times have you done something and then spent hours or days reflecting on the situation and whether what you did was what ought to have been done? I've been there plenty. Sometimes I conclude I did the right thing, sometimes not.

12/18/2008 02:08:20 PM · #1865

Originally posted by Melethia:

Perhaps you only live in a nice cozy corner of that world?

12/18/2008 02:33:27 PM · #1866

I was having a good conversation with Deb on IM and we got to talking about power. For the "people are generally good" crowd, what do you think about the saying, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."? Why is this true if people are generally good?

Message edited by author 2008-12-18 14:33:49.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/18/2008 02:38:07 PM · #1867

To clarify a bit - I see power as something which is actively sought; I see responsibility as something that we execute to the best of our ability without thought to personal gain.

And yeah, maybe I'm hopelessly naive.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/18/2008 02:40:30 PM · #1868

Perhaps because we are also systematically inculcated with the idea that power (wealth) is good, and that to have more is better. Fallible humans sometimes let greed trump civicism ...

rossbilly

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/18/2008 02:53:00 PM · #1869

Could it be that, as in most things, the change is gradual and goes relatively unnoticed? Consider what CAN become the norm for someone in power - a LOT of people trying to advise you on what to do, what is the best course of action, what one 'deserves' for their service / efforts.

Over time, the misuse of power becomes obvious to those watching from the sidelines. To the person in power? It is simply 'business as usual'.

When applied to an entire culture, through multiple generations of repetition, the statement "homosexuality is wrong / immoral / a sin" becomes the norm. Hence, our current situation. As it took time to instill, it will also take time to eradicate.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/18/2008 02:54:06 PM · #1870

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I believe power can corrupt and absolute power can corrupt absolutely. But it is not a given, nor does it happen in all cases.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/18/2008 03:01:54 PM · #1871

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
Some people, seemingly without thinking, will try to save the person. Some, seemingly without thinking, will run away. Some, seemingly without thinking, will panic and do nothing. We all hope we will do what we consider 'most moral' in a situation such as this, but we also accept that we won't. That is why we celebrate heroes to such an extent. They do what we only wish we could. Lewis is assuming that higher thought/reason kicks in in a moral dilemma and tells us what we *should* do. That is not necessarily true nor is it always the case.

To say different people will act differently is probably very true. Does that change what the "most moral" action was after the fact? Is it valid to analyze the situation afterward and conclude which action was "most moral"? Even if it's not valid, do people do it anyway? Even if we act "on instinct" at times in certain situations, we as humans certainly go back and apply "higher thought" to a situation. How many times have you done something and then spent hours or days reflecting on the situation and whether what you did was what ought to have been done? I've been there plenty. Sometimes I conclude I did the right thing, sometimes not.

My comment was not in regard to what is 'most moral' but rather that people react to the same situation in different ways; as stated before, judgment after the fact is immaterial (and you know how I feel about judgment at all). Also, I try, as stated before, not to judge people morally - it will be done after the fact, armchair style, and I cannot possibly know what it REALLY felt like to have to make the decision.

To take this back to the gay rights discussion, I am not gay. I cannot judge the 'morals' of being gay because any judgment I make would be monday morning quarterbacking. I can state that I would not chose to be gay, but I can't possibly know that without being in the situation. So, rather than decide what is 'most moral' in the situation, I'd rather assume that the person making the decision *is* making the most moral decision given the circumstance.

btw - my comment with regard to choosing to be gay is solely based on the idea that some people believe it is a choice. I do not believe that to be the case.

Message edited by author 2008-12-18 15:17:18.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/18/2008 03:06:48 PM · #1872

Originally posted by Melethia:

Yes, there's a great deal of suffering, but there is an even larger quantity of non-suffering. There will always be evil mean bad nasty people. They garner all of the attention and acclaim. The nice people, who go about their every day without thoughts of mass destruction, embezzlement on a grand scale, or murder of their neighbor, in my opinion, far far outnumber the not so nice people.

I agree with this from the following perspective; As an advocate for general issue concealed weapon carry for citizens, one would need to believe this way. One would need to believ in the natural good of people and the history of those who have been granted concealed carry permits - bear witness to this. The vast vast majority of citizens are trustworthy and responsible. They prove it every day with responsible actions around strangers, the elderly, children, in supermarkets, and on highways. The anti-gunners are the ones who don't trust the average law-abiding citizen to do right and act responsible. And they have been proven wrong in every instance where law abiding citizens have been allowed the right carry concealed.

Further, although a woman has a 25% chance (1 in 4) of being assualted in her lifetime, that also means that she has a 75% chance of not being assaulted. When one considers the millions and millions of people who go through each day without being victimized by a robbery or assault, then that itself is testimony to the basic "good" nature of the general populace. On the flip side, when one considers the staggering numbers sold into the sex trade (essentially slaves), or the genocide in Rawanda, or the evil dictators that world history has known or the thousands of predators who have maimed, assaulted and murdered citizens simply for their gratification - it is no wonder that many consider the world's citizens to be less than perfect. I simply think the daily evidence as a whole - demonstrates the general "good" in people.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/18/2008 03:14:23 PM · #1873

I believe that people are basically "good" with much temptation around them to be/do bad, with a concious decision required to remain "good".

Of course "good/bad" can be relative terms.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/18/2008 04:23:43 PM · #1874

Flash said, good and bad can be relative. I say it is always relative. The society and environment you live in dictates what is good or bad not some universal truth or authority. Besides, it doesn't matter whether something is good or bad unless you act upon it.

In my opinion people act because they are selfish plain and simple. Take

DrAchoo for instance. He continues day after day, thread after thread trying to argue his points against all comers! How in the world does he have the time to care for his patients aand argue against heathens all day? Is this not a selfish behavior? He is either using everyone to fine tune his arguments so he can be better at it the next time or he is trying to convert people so that in his little way make the world more like how he wants it to be. It is why we argue, why we fight, isn't it? We want things to be better for US. We just want to be able to live in our own skins more comfortably and so we act or we don't act. Some choose to use a higher power to justify their actions but lets not kid ourselves as to the true nature of our thoughts and actions. The sooner we can get past this point the better because what would make me more happy is DrAchoo getting back to the issue at hand, i.e. gay marriage and quit playing this prevent defense. :)

Message edited by author 2008-12-18 16:26:09.