Ethics - What are yours like? (Religious, quote, Ching)

Guybrush · 03-03-2009, 07:02 AM

When I say selfish, it's because the word has a certain meaning in biology and that's my background. I understand others who are not familiar with evolutionary theory might get confused by how I use the word, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Brown

"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it.

This is about selfish genes, but of course animals also behave selfish because the way they act is an expression of those selfish genes. Selfishness occurs when you have something that can replicate itself, is able to change (and improve) and compete with others for limited resources. Let's hypothesize the very start of life as something that started with a gene in a primordial soup that was able to use a resource to replicate itself. After doing so a number of times, there would be many and they would compete for those resources. When some mutate, new versions of that gene may appear that are better at replicating than the original genes, so they might outcompete the first ones. There's no concience behind it, one version drives the other to extinction simply because there is a selection for being better at replicating itself and since their needs overlap, the presence of one essentially kill the other. From this naturally occurring competition arises what we call selfishness and it's a quality that applies to all the genes that make up all organisms and so it is a fundamental "force" almost if you will in nature.

garbanzo · 03-03-2009, 07:16 AM

woah your avatar just moved. creepy.

yeah that's more along the lines of what i was trying to say. i assume this is Dawkins? never read him.

i did just finish Dennett - Darwin's Dangerous Idea. he had a whole chapter bashing Dawkins, but it was boring so i skipped it

Guybrush · 03-03-2009, 07:24 AM

It's not really just Dawkins, but he did write "The Selfish Gene" which coined a lot of terms and gathered the thoughts, ideas and discoveries made by several biologists at that time. His book is a bit like a review with a lot of his own thoughts thrown in. Instead of giving him all the credit, let's rather say he was able to popularize the ideas of many biologists at that time (and now). The theories behind that book are by far at large accepted by biologists and has really helped us understand behaviour we found it hard to explain before.

Evolutionary biology and the theories behind it still have a lot of opposition which is only natural because they rock the very foundations of what so many people believe in. The Selfish Gene is a relatively easy read even for non-biologists and should be attempted by everyone.

My avatar looks your way every now and then by the way

sleepy jack · 03-03-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garbanzo

giving to the poor would only have a beneficial psychological impact because it would allay guilt. but the guilt comes from social pressure, not from inside me. i have learned that giving to the poor is the right thing to do. it's that whole 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' deal.

i don't presume to know how i would act in the absence of such social pressures, but i can't imagine why i would help another another in need if there were nothing in it for me. do herd animals protect the young, old, and sick when a predator comes, or do they run as fast as they can and never look back?

You dodged my question...when you see suffering don't you feel even a shred of sympathy? I have a hard time believing all this comes from social pressure, I know a good deal of our morality has been constructed by society but this is because morality - not killing one other, or stealing, rape, etc - is what allows us to coexist productively and peacefully.

I think there is a basic moral compass in all our advanced brains; Adam Smith called it an unspoken partner in conversation who's approval you hope to gain, Socrates called it (much more simply) his Daimon. If we didn't we couldn't be partially rational animals. I don't think it points to anything beyond an innate sense of right and wrong and it doesn't help with more abstract or modern concepts (this is where philosophy and society come in) but I do think it's what has allowed us to continue and progress as a species. I don't think the basis of every society has been some immoral cesspool full of rape and murder that eventually stopped and got it right and then flourished.

garbanzo · 03-03-2009, 11:02 PM

the problem here is our tendency to want to derive an "ought" from an "is". an example: if i were to kick you in the knee, you would feel pain. but it by no means follows that because the kick will cause a neurochemical pain response in your body, i ought to refrain from doing it! pain is not intrinsically bad. we just don't like it.

if every living creature that causes severe pain, irreparable physical damage, or death to another creature were suddenly punished as we punish each other, the food chain would quickly break down, and the planet would ultimately die.

if we instead just picked up our pillboxes and went out on a mission to heal all the sick critters and nurture all the unfit ones into adulthood so they could reproduce, not only would we cause a severe overpopulation problem, but we would put a really big wrench in the cogs of natural selection, again causing a complete breakdown of the system.

yet we tolerate these in the human sphere because we don't like pain. we don't like to be sad, or to see babies with tails, or to watch old people's joints get creaky. so we take the "is" of suffering and derive from it an "ought". then, fueled by the "ought", we work very hard to come up with a "can". but we don't stop there - we immediately whip that "can" into a "must". we go from "pain is" to "pain is evil and must be stopped", taking some giant leaps along the way.

what if i just stop with the "is"?

now, don't for one second assume i will practice what i preach. my pain is more real than anyone else's. it's the only pain i can feel. of course i'm going to do something about it. i can and i must! but other people's pain? that's their problem. i know they didn't choose to be born to crackhead parents, or to grow up in a country where 12 year olds get automatic rifles for their birthday. they didn't ask for that brain tumor, or for that gimpy leg that keeps them from holding down a job. but i didn't ask to be born a white, middle-class american male either.

it's all moot anyway. i'm 31 today. the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old. if we set up a ratio, and imagine that one year represents the age of the universe, my then my portion of that year comes and goes in less time than it takes for me to blink my eyes...

sleepy jack · 03-04-2009, 01:42 AM

If everyone approached society with that kind of philosophy though (that the I is the most important and the them is less...for reasons that are almost solipsism by your logic) than we wouldn't get anywhere. People in society have to coexist peacefully to be productive and to progress. There needs to be a certain level of empathy and even welfare for a society to get anywhere. The human race getting this far points to just that.

I don't really see how your point about the food chain counters my point or even responds to it. I was speaking strictly about humanity, not the Animal kingdom. In no way did I suggest everyone go out and be veterinarians and try and turn all carnivores into herbivores...I was merely stating that a society (of humans) won't have any sort of longevity if there isn't some moral structure in place, which would include many altruistic aspects.

garbanzo · 03-04-2009, 02:15 AM

we wouldn't get anywhere? i thought you were an atheist, yet you believe we have a destination? a telos? you feel we should progress - towards what?

anyway you say i'm approaching society with that kind of philosophy, when in fact i'm saying that society has nothing to do with ethics on the bottom-most level. nor is it a philosophy - it's just the way things are.

more to the point, i don't deny the value of ethics, or altruism, or community. what i'm arguing against is your belief that these are innate, that we are wired for them.

the thing that distinguishes humans from animals is society - and it is on the social level that ethics truly operate. that's where cooperation and empathy and all that comes in.

but it is not part of our biology. on a pre-cultural, biological level, we are no different than animals, and we are ultimately selfish.

we have no innate moral compas. objective moral standards do not exist. morality is a social construct. how can i be any more explicit?

adidasss · 03-04-2009, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garbanzo

i'm 31 today.

Happy birthday? *runs away from thread*

Guybrush · 03-04-2009, 02:29 AM

I would argue that we do have an innate moral compass and that it is able to explain a lot about things like modern society, war, depletion of resources, etc. but that the compass is ultimately driven by the "biological selfishness" that all living things (and even some arguably unliving) possess.

I've explained why I believe that a number of times now, though, so I will leave it at that.

Regarding the poor man, you should give him money if that in turn is beneficial to you. How is it beneficial? It is, perhaps, if you regard him as part of your caveman-sense of community - if he is an "us" and not a "them". If he considers you part of his community, he might help you the same way should the tables get turned. How do you know if he's "us" or "them"? Your feelings try to guide you. If you feel able to identify yourself with, relate to or otherwise feel compassion for him, that's an indicator that he's in on the "us". If all that stands a test against your rationality, then there you go, give him cash.

Dr_Rez · 03-04-2009, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

Happy birthday? *runs away from thread*

hahahaha, dido

03-03-2009, 07:24 AM	#63 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	It's not really just Dawkins, but he did write "The Selfish Gene" which coined a lot of terms and gathered the thoughts, ideas and discoveries made by several biologists at that time. His book is a bit like a review with a lot of his own thoughts thrown in. Instead of giving him all the credit, let's rather say he was able to popularize the ideas of many biologists at that time (and now). The theories behind that book are by far at large accepted by biologists and has really helped us understand behaviour we found it hard to explain before. Evolutionary biology and the theories behind it still have a lot of opposition which is only natural because they rock the very foundations of what so many people believe in. The Selfish Gene is a relatively easy read even for non-biologists and should be attempted by everyone. My avatar looks your way every now and then by the way __________________ Something Completely Different

03-04-2009, 02:29 AM	#69 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I would argue that we do have an innate moral compass and that it is able to explain a lot about things like modern society, war, depletion of resources, etc. but that the compass is ultimately driven by the "biological selfishness" that all living things (and even some arguably unliving) possess. I've explained why I believe that a number of times now, though, so I will leave it at that. Regarding the poor man, you should give him money if that in turn is beneficial to you. How is it beneficial? It is, perhaps, if you regard him as part of your caveman-sense of community - if he is an "us" and not a "them". If he considers you part of his community, he might help you the same way should the tables get turned. How do you know if he's "us" or "them"? Your feelings try to guide you. If you feel able to identify yourself with, relate to or otherwise feel compassion for him, that's an indicator that he's in on the "us". If all that stands a test against your rationality, then there you go, give him cash. __________________ Something Completely Different Last edited by Guybrush; 03-04-2009 at 04:40 AM.

03-03-2009, 07:16 AM	#62 (permalink)
garbanzo Recommended by 4 out of 5 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 137	woah your avatar just moved. creepy. yeah that's more along the lines of what i was trying to say. i assume this is Dawkins? never read him. i did just finish Dennett - Darwin's Dangerous Idea. he had a whole chapter bashing Dawkins, but it was boring so i skipped it

03-03-2009, 11:02 PM	#65 (permalink)
garbanzo Recommended by 4 out of 5 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 137	the problem here is our tendency to want to derive an "ought" from an "is". an example: if i were to kick you in the knee, you would feel pain. but it by no means follows that because the kick will cause a neurochemical pain response in your body, i ought to refrain from doing it! pain is not intrinsically bad. we just don't like it. if every living creature that causes severe pain, irreparable physical damage, or death to another creature were suddenly punished as we punish each other, the food chain would quickly break down, and the planet would ultimately die. if we instead just picked up our pillboxes and went out on a mission to heal all the sick critters and nurture all the unfit ones into adulthood so they could reproduce, not only would we cause a severe overpopulation problem, but we would put a really big wrench in the cogs of natural selection, again causing a complete breakdown of the system. yet we tolerate these in the human sphere because we don't like pain. we don't like to be sad, or to see babies with tails, or to watch old people's joints get creaky. so we take the "is" of suffering and derive from it an "ought". then, fueled by the "ought", we work very hard to come up with a "can". but we don't stop there - we immediately whip that "can" into a "must". we go from "pain is" to "pain is evil and must be stopped", taking some giant leaps along the way. what if i just stop with the "is"? now, don't for one second assume i will practice what i preach. my pain is more real than anyone else's. it's the only pain i can feel. of course i'm going to do something about it. i can and i must! but other people's pain? that's their problem. i know they didn't choose to be born to crackhead parents, or to grow up in a country where 12 year olds get automatic rifles for their birthday. they didn't ask for that brain tumor, or for that gimpy leg that keeps them from holding down a job. but i didn't ask to be born a white, middle-class american male either. it's all moot anyway. i'm 31 today. the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old. if we set up a ratio, and imagine that one year represents the age of the universe, my then my portion of that year comes and goes in less time than it takes for me to blink my eyes...

03-04-2009, 01:42 AM	#66 (permalink)
sleepy jack isfckingdead Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 18,967	If everyone approached society with that kind of philosophy though (that the I is the most important and the them is less...for reasons that are almost solipsism by your logic) than we wouldn't get anywhere. People in society have to coexist peacefully to be productive and to progress. There needs to be a certain level of empathy and even welfare for a society to get anywhere. The human race getting this far points to just that. I don't really see how your point about the food chain counters my point or even responds to it. I was speaking strictly about humanity, not the Animal kingdom. In no way did I suggest everyone go out and be veterinarians and try and turn all carnivores into herbivores...I was merely stating that a society (of humans) won't have any sort of longevity if there isn't some moral structure in place, which would include many altruistic aspects.

03-04-2009, 02:15 AM	#67 (permalink)
garbanzo Recommended by 4 out of 5 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 137	we wouldn't get anywhere? i thought you were an atheist, yet you believe we have a destination? a telos? you feel we should progress - towards what? anyway you say i'm approaching society with that kind of philosophy, when in fact i'm saying that society has nothing to do with ethics on the bottom-most level. nor is it a philosophy - it's just the way things are. more to the point, i don't deny the value of ethics, or altruism, or community. what i'm arguing against is your belief that these are innate, that we are wired for them. the thing that distinguishes humans from animals is society - and it is on the social level that ethics truly operate. that's where cooperation and empathy and all that comes in. but it is not part of our biology. on a pre-cultural, biological level, we are no different than animals, and we are ultimately selfish. we have no innate moral compas. objective moral standards do not exist. morality is a social construct. how can i be any more explicit?