Now on ScienceBlogs: The Winkler County Nurse Trial, An Alleged Massive Conflict of Interest, and Morgellons
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.
[Madrak, in Creatures of Light and Darkness, by Roger Zelazny]
« Taking bad acting to new troughs | Main | I'm not ignoring my own backyard! »
Category: Ethics
Posted on: October 12, 2009 5:47 PM, by PZ Myers
This clip is from a traffic camera in Chile — it shows a dog hit by a car, and then another dog risking the heavy traffic to pull the injured animal to the side, out of danger.
I wonder what church the heroic dog attends?
Keep this in mind when you encounter people — yeah, I'm looking at you, Francis Collins — try to argue that morality and altruism and empathy are unique markers of a divine hand in our origin.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/122137
Comments
Posted by: Jeff R.
|
October 12, 2009 6:00 PM
Is it wrong to cry over this?
Posted by: abb3w
|
October 12, 2009 6:00 PM
All dogs go to heaven....
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 12, 2009 6:02 PM
It looks at 0:17 like the second dog actually gets hit by a car and keeps on going. Am I seeing this right?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 12, 2009 6:02 PM
I was just waiting to see the dog start eating the other one.
Seriously, though, there might be something to that evolution thing. Actually, even Collins admits as much, but tries to save the miracle by saying that certain people (Mother Teresa, etc.) go beyond what's expected of the evolution of social animals. Pathetic to take outliers (whatever they might really show, in fact) as being miraculous, but we're aware that his science hat is missing when he's talking religion.
A non-social animal would just think the rescuing dog a stupid thing, if it noticed such an unimportant (certainly to it) act at all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: truebutnotuseful
|
October 12, 2009 6:05 PM
Fuck. It made me cry.
Posted by: Bronze Dog
|
October 12, 2009 6:06 PM
Heroism knows no species boundaries.
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 12, 2009 6:11 PM
I just did some Google research. It appears the dog that was hit later died, and they never found the one that came to its rescue. I hope it's had a happy life since then.
:)
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 12, 2009 6:16 PM
Okay, I wish I hadn't seen that. I'd never make a good biologist.
I'm going to hug my dog now.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 12, 2009 6:16 PM
Beat me to it! ;-)
I saw a similar video a few months ago, but that was from Italy. Unless of course, it's the same video and they had the country wrong the last time I saw it.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
October 12, 2009 6:19 PM
All this proves is that this dog was once a Christian (which gave it the moral sense) who did something so bad that (s)he was reincarnated as a dog -- and that this act of heroism is an attempt at becoming human again.
Ockham's razor, people. Use it.
Posted by: j-assmuffin
|
October 12, 2009 6:23 PM
Collins just got OWNED by that dog.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 12, 2009 6:24 PM
This won't phase them a bit. Instead of seeing this touching incident as evidence that altruistic behavior evolved -- or that one doesn't have to believe in God to do kind, noble things -- True Believers will simply credit this as a miracle. It will be interpreted as evidence which 'science can't explain.' The more the emotions are evoked, the more God is invoked. They'll wonder 'How could anyone watch this, and not believe there must be a God behind it all?'
People aren't rational about pets. Ask them if animals instinctively know there's a God. They'll usually be more than happy to tell you they do. I wouldn't put it past even Collins, frankly.
(I wonder how many posts it will take now before someone tells the feed-them-and-dogs-think-you're-God -but-cats-think-they're-God joke.)
Posted by: george.w
|
October 12, 2009 6:25 PM
Clearly, the dog was motivated by doG, the deity of dyslexic dogs everywhere. He would avoid the kennel of off-brand dog food and live forever in the land of attention and walks and throwing the stick as many times as he wants.
Posted by: JD
|
October 12, 2009 6:28 PM
But if Dawkins was dyslexic, he'd even hate dogs too (rap beat). Therefore, God exists and is controlling dogs via divine telekinesis.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 12, 2009 6:34 PM
The usual reaction is to say, "See, god put love and care even in dogs, think of how much more he caresa and loves us, and he expects us to be better to each other than dogs are to other dogs and to humans."
Which is a very good reason to lie about and attempt to demean any atheist or evolutionist.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
October 12, 2009 6:46 PM
I don't object to the notion that there are some aspects to our morality born of higher thinking, but it's this kind of behaviour in animals I point to which show that without God we won't descend into moral nihilism. Which is the true bullshit I see some theists espouse - that without god there is just moral subjectivity.
Posted by: adamh
|
October 12, 2009 6:48 PM
Francis Collins is a far more accomplished scientist than you ever have hope of becoming, ASSOCIATE Professor Myers.
Say, how are your peer reveiwed publications going?
(Or are you counting this blog as a peer reviewed publication? Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!)
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
October 12, 2009 6:49 PM
To which you reply - "So why doesn't he let them in heaven then?" Of course, that only works with some of the cults - coz some reckon they do and some reckon they don't... some consistency from this deity would be nice, dontcha think!?
My personal favourite comeback to the 'Atheists have no moral compass' line is 'so all you theist's are basically just psychopaths kept on a short leash then?' Scary - they're all just one small crisis of faith away from grabbing an axe for some whakkity-whack time! (I guess that's more obvious in some than others, but that's no reason to trust that granny! She's probably got a hatchet in her handbag...)
Posted by: CatBallou
|
October 12, 2009 6:52 PM
Erm, I hope some other comment intervenes between adamh's and mine.
But on a much lighter note, does everyone know about Animal Review? It's where I get most of my knowledge of biology.
Today's installment about the deep sea anglerfish is particularly "illuminating":
http://animalreview.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
October 12, 2009 6:52 PM
adamh squealed:
Believe me, adamh, when I say that none here considers you a peer - in any sense of the word.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 12, 2009 6:53 PM
Dear Atheists,
I was so moved by this story I had to pray about it.
SB: Dear Jesus, it it true that dogs can be good without God?
JESUS: Yes, of course it is Smoggy. You don't think dogs are stupid enough to fall for the old religion schtick do you? As long as dogs are well-fed, comfortable in their pack and they've got a friend's bottom to sniff, why would they waste time on religion. Only humans get so obsessed about some imaginary future that they forget to live in the present.
SB: Does this mean there are no dogs in Heaven?
JESUS: Well, not many in human heaven. They have their own dog heaven full of nice smells, friends to play with, and forty virgin bitches each permanently on heat. Dogs can leave dog Heaven to visit their earthly masters, but we don't see many of them because most of the best dog owners are down in Hell, with all the other interesting people.
SB: So dogs don't need God at all?
JESUS: No, but God needs his dog.
SB: God has a dog? Has he had it right from the start of creation?
JESUS: Oh no. He only got it a couple of thousand year's ago. Nine months before I was born in fact. It's a little mutt that used to belong to my mother.
SB: Your mother? You mean the Blessed Virgin? She had a dog?
JESUS: Well, she did until God took it.
SB: Why did God take Mary's dog? Was it a love token? A tangible sign of their union, given that they were never properly married?
JESUS: No. He took Mary's dog [comedic pause] because he gave her a little Lamb! Ha ha ha ... aha ha ha ... ha ... h ...
SB: I don't get it.
JESUS: You don't get it? Mary? My mother? She had me...the Lamb of God which taketh away etc. etc.
SB: Yes?
JESUS: You really don't get it?
SB: Sorry, Jesus. What about God's dog?
JESUS: [sigh] Well, after God, my father, had knocked Mary, my mother, out with a funky cold medina and then had his blessed way with her virgin bottom, he was feeling exceptionally mellow (as anyone would who'd been waiting an eternity for a good fuck) and at that moment her dog wandered in, and God stroked it instead of smiting it as he usually would have. And amazingly he discovered that stroking her dog made him relax, and then he felt happier, less angry with all of his creation, and so he took the dog back to Heaven with him, and they've been inseparable ever since. God's dog is the reason he's now so much more loving and so much less angry. Next time you sing 'God is Love', just remember that he wouldn't be without his dog.
SB: And what's God's dog's name Jesus?
JESUS: Bow-wow-zeebub.
SB: AMEN
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
October 12, 2009 6:54 PM
There was another picture I saw just recently, where a dog was guarding the inert body of another dog on a roadway. The people who were stopped and taking pictures looked Oriental, so I'm guessing it was a separate incident.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 12, 2009 6:54 PM
Yet still wrong about this.
Now do you have a point beyond acting like a spoiled little brat?
Posted by: Mobius
|
October 12, 2009 6:56 PM
What an amazing video.
It doesn't surprise me that such behavior is seen in a social species like dogs. Certainly we see it in other species. Often primates, but also cetaceans and elephants among others.
We even see it sometimes between differing species...all those stories of cetaceans helping drowning sailors. I even recall seeing a news clip of a female gorilla rescuing a human baby that had fallen into its zoo enclosure and was about to be attacked by an angry male. The female took the baby to the enclosure gate and fended off the male until the zookeepers took the baby.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 12, 2009 7:01 PM
Smoggy @ #21
So wait. First he rapes her, then steals her dog?
That guy's an ass.
Posted by: spuhgeddi
|
October 12, 2009 7:03 PM
Francis Collins is like Jesus; in that it's not him you mind so much, it's his followers that give you the screaming meanies.
Posted by: AnneH
|
October 12, 2009 7:04 PM
Some social animals, like macaques, can be more ethical than we are. In this audio clip,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E ,
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan discuss an experiment with macaques that is very similar to the famous Milgram Experiment ( http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.php ).
Those who argue that humans are superior in every way because we are 'made in god's image', are simply wrong.
Posted by: rolanlegargeac
|
October 12, 2009 7:12 PM
Wowbagger, OM #20
Except, possiblement, in the add more sawdust to the floor sense ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 12, 2009 7:13 PM
Rev., I don't think it is an act...Posted by: Primewonk
|
October 12, 2009 7:14 PM
The Wonk cried.
He then hugged his little yippie Chihuahua/Pomeranian.
She bit my nose.
The Wonk cried again.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 12, 2009 7:15 PM
l-t-w @ 25 "First he rapes her, then steals her dog?"
Well, I'm only passing on what Jesus told me. But I consider him a good authority. While on the one hand his earthly self wasn't much more than a morula at the time, he was also (and rather confusingly) there with God at conception as part of the Trinity (existing, as we all know, as three persons and one substance) so I'd say that in that respect he had a front row seat through the whole proceedings.
I did once ask him whether being a third of the triune God which impregnated his own mother wasn't just a bit squirrelly, but he got rather angry with me, and said he was just following orders, he hadn't enjoyed it and he kept his eyes shut the whole time. If you ask me, it's no wonder he preferred hanging out with fisherman after suffering that sort of trauma.
Yours in theological knots
Smoggy
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 12, 2009 7:17 PM
Don't be so harsh on adamh. He's got a brilliant idea! I don't think we should allow anyone to criticize anyone with a higher academic rank or more publications listed in the citation index.
Therefore, I'm going to have to ask adamh to hand over proof of his full professor status and a complete CV for evaluation. Anyone else trying to criticize me will have to do likewise.
Posted by: mcbender
|
October 12, 2009 7:19 PM
I hate to play devil's advocate (particularly because I think this is amazing), but I think I have to.
It occurred to me is that the second dog may have merely been hungry and saw the injured dog as a convenient meal. Because dogs only have their mouths to use as manipulators I don't know if there's any way to tell for sure.
Of course, it didn't really look too much like that's what the dog was doing, but I think it's worth considering as an alternative hypothesis. In my experience dogs will do almost anything for food...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
October 12, 2009 7:22 PM
rolanlegargeac wrote:
I think maybe that would be pee-er?
Posted by: butterflyfishhm
|
October 12, 2009 7:25 PM
No offense, but there's no way I'm watching this video. I don't need to be crying for an hour. I'll just take everybody's word for it.
Also, how old is adamh? He sounds 12.
Posted by: rolanlegargeac
|
October 12, 2009 7:30 PM
Wowbagger, OM #34
It's Sophisticated Mended Drum Non Rhyming Slang, innit !
Posted by: Bueller_007
|
October 12, 2009 7:30 PM
This isn't so amazing.
The dog was just dragging a prey item out of harm's way so that he could eat it.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 12, 2009 7:36 PM
mcbender, look at the end, where the dog is walking alongside the emergency worker, rather than fighting to keep a meal.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
October 12, 2009 7:42 PM
rolanlegargeac:
Dammit, I can't believe I missed a Pratchett reference. Mind you, I did see a bizarre stage adaptation of The Last Continent the other night; I think it broke the Discworld part of my brain...
Posted by: rolanlegargeac
|
October 12, 2009 7:49 PM
Wowbagger, my old, nip down to Biers and get a Neck Bolt or, my personal fave, A Kick Inna Fork, that'll see you right !
Posted by: GolemXIV
|
October 12, 2009 7:49 PM
Well, you all seem to be too focused and see what you want to see, just like a Jesus face on the toast.
Keep in mind, that that dog would do exactly the same thing for a pork-chop, or a chicken, or for that mater for anything he can eat later on the roadside. In his mind he is not rescuing another dog but a good chunk of meat.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 12, 2009 7:58 PM
I'm not sure if a dog would go through all that for a chunk of meat. And if it had, I'm sure it would try to keep that highway worker away from it. And cannibalism is rather rare in mammals. Not absent, but rare. Also, if you watch closely you can see that the dog is trying to avoid using his teeth as much as possible, preferring to use his front paws to drag the other dog to safety.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 12, 2009 7:59 PM
Now I wish I had a dog. Whether a believer would see that video and say it was a miracle or a sign that dogs believe in God, is up to them, but anyone who's ever had a puppy jump in their lap and lick their arms knows dogs are at least as full of love as us two-leggers, and without the inhibitions and complications.
Posted by: JSW
|
October 12, 2009 8:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0wYaXYwP-w
Not only does animal compassion cross species lines, it sometimes crosses genus, family, order and even class lines.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 12, 2009 8:11 PM
Seeing folks say they cried, I just couldn't watch. So, I hugged my cat instead.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 12, 2009 8:16 PM
I saw that too.
But am I the only one who's seeing the rescue dog get swiped by a car at 0:17? That would make most dogs run away. There are easier meals.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 12, 2009 8:37 PM
JSW, the cat link is so sweet! I love both of these. And I don't think the dog was in it for food; the rescuing dog was being very careful and not using its teeth much. I still can't tell if it really got swiped at 0:17, but it looks eminently possible.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 12, 2009 8:45 PM
"Heaven is based on favoritism. If it were based on merit, you would stay out and your dog would get in." - attributed to Mark Twain; may be apocryphal
Posted by: foxfire
|
October 12, 2009 8:48 PM
Bueller @#37 and Golem @#41:
Do da link.
So what evidence can you two provide for your position that the dog just wanted a meal, as opposed to the hypothesis that some kind of altruism was involved (be it purely biological or including some kind of conscious intent)?
I have no opinion on what motivated the dog in the video. For all I know the event was staged, where the "rescue" dog was trained by some human to drag the "victim" dog to safety. Of course that would imply the human possibly condemned the "victim" dog to death, purely for the sake of gaining attention on YouTube. And we all know no human would do something so despicable, given the magic sky-fairy gave us all this wondrous morality.
Posted by: Andyo
|
October 12, 2009 9:00 PM
I've seen this video and other reports before. The narrator is indeed Chilean, but I don't know about it being a traffic camera. Unless someone was operating the camera at that exact time. The pans are camera pans, not in-frame pans. Nothing to do with the actual event of course just something that jumped at me.
Posted by: pcarini
|
October 12, 2009 9:00 PM
I took it to be horrible editing. I think they were showing the dog who had been hit lying down, then they cut to the scene of it getting hit, and then to the rescue.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 12, 2009 9:12 PM
mcbender (#33)
A meal needing to be pulled out of onrushing traffic is convenient? Maybe the second dog did want to eat the first, but in that case it was deranged if it put itself at such risk.
It wrapped its forelegs around the first dog and pulled it to the side by pushing off with its hind legs. Modified mating behavior. So maybe your hypothesis should be the second dog was a pervert and thrill-seeker.
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
October 12, 2009 9:15 PM
Collins is a refusenik...Stevie Wonder can see with more clarity. Unreal altruism in that pup, however!
Posted by: Goldenmane
|
October 12, 2009 9:19 PM
So... morality comes from dog?
Posted by: mcbender
|
October 12, 2009 9:35 PM
Watched it again and you're right, it does look like it's using its forelegs more than its teeth.
As I said before, I wasn't really advancing the "dog looking for food" hypothesis seriously, just thought it might be an interesting alternative explanation. I'd rather consider it before jumping to conclusions; now we have, and it's clearly a ridiculous conjecture so I'll say nothing more about it.
On a completely unrelated note... surely I'm not the only person reminded of Frogger?
Posted by: defective robot
|
October 12, 2009 9:35 PM
And where were all the nice Christian people who stopped to help the dogs?
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
October 12, 2009 9:38 PM
Animals were put on this planet to serve us, not the other way around sillyhead ;)Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
October 12, 2009 10:10 PM
Tears, man, tears. Dogs can be very altruistic. I know one that repeatedly tries to "save" it's owner from drowning when they go for a swim. It's actually quite cute :)
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 12, 2009 10:28 PM
The packs of strays on the island of Sicily work together. I wish I could have brought a whole pack of them home; they were such nice dogs, helping eachother and sharing even though it was obvious that they've all led a hard life. I'd never seen dogs in such numbers before so I guess I never had an opportunity to see how they socialize.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 12, 2009 10:28 PM
Man, you can recognize all the real cynics here -- the ones who think the dog was dragging off a prey item. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 12, 2009 10:41 PM
The prey hypothesis has to be considered, but I believe there is more evidence against it than in support of it.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
October 12, 2009 10:57 PM
@Pygmy:
Hey yeah - back when I was in college a friend of mine had an overprotective German Shepard. It would freak out whenever he went for a swim in the backyard pool, pacing alongside the pool and whining - not sure if it would jump in to try the rescue, by the time I met them the family had a routine of dragging it inside and locking it up if they wanted to swim.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
October 12, 2009 10:57 PM
PZ wrote:
I'm not - and never have been - a dog owner; I've got absolutely no frame of reference regarding how dogs might behave in such a situation. But the dog owners I've spoken to about this seem to think it's far more likely to be the dog helping rather than predating.
We probably need an animal behaviourist to weigh in with some data. Does SB have such a person in its 'building'?
Posted by: Kristine
|
October 12, 2009 10:57 PM
The curious fact of Christian believers excluding all beings but humans from their Heaven was lampooned by E. M. Forster in his famous novel about rigid westerners going quite berzerk in colonial India.
"In our Father's house are many mansions, they [the missionaries] taught, and there alone will the incompatible multitudes of mankind be welcomed and soothed. Not one shall be turned away by the servants on that verandah, be he black or white, not one shall be kept standing who approaches with a loving heart.
"And why should the divine hospitality cease here? Consider, with all reverence, the monkeys. May there not be a mansion for the monkeys also?
"Old Mr. Graysford said No, but young Mr. Sorley, who was advanced, said Yes; he saw no reason why monkeys should not have their collateral share of bliss, and he had sympathetic discussions about them with his Hindu friends. And the jackals? Jackals were indeed less to Mr. Sorley's mind, but he admitted that the mercy of God, being infinite, may well embrace all mammals. And the wasps?
"He became uneasy during the descent to wasps, and was apt to change the conversation. And oranges, cactuses, crystals and mud? and the bacteria inside Mr. Sorley? [Nice touch, that!]
"No, no, this is going too far. We must exclude someone from our gathering, or we shall be left with nothing" (A Passage to India, pp. 40-1).
Posted by: PersoninNY
|
October 12, 2009 11:00 PM
With occurences like this, it's hard to believe anyone still defends individual selection...
Posted by: Jo
|
October 12, 2009 11:01 PM
Others have pointed out that the dog could have been dragging the other dog away for food. Another possibility occurred to me watching the manner in which the first dog clamped its paws around the second. Maybe he was up for a different sort of road meat. Just saying. ;)
In all seriousness ... nothing wrong with suggesting that the dog's motivations were not compassionate ones. It's not cynical to do so, and I'm surprised that the people here would get so defensive over an explanation they can't verify, simply because the one they've decided upon makes them feel all warm in fuzzy inside.
For the record, I agree that this looks to be a genuine act of heroism. And it is touching. But I'm not about to take the other explanations personally.
Posted by: reswat
|
October 12, 2009 11:17 PM
Hi guys.
I eat for two reasons. One is a desire and the other a rationale. I eat because I'm hungry and I eat because my body needs nutrients.
I understand that atheists might have a desire to be moral. But what is their rationale?
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 12, 2009 11:22 PM
The real question is, when God miracled morality into the dog, did He ensoul the dog as well? And if so, has it been baptized? I hope so, because it might end up being the only dog in hell, but that will contradict the doctrine of All Dogs Go To Heaven... so that can't be right.
Maybe the dog ALWAYS had a soul, and that's why it did this. Of course, for that to have happened, its mother would have to have been conceived without sin, or maybe there were two virgin births in a row... wait, I'm confused.
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 12, 2009 11:27 PM
@67
"I eat for two reasons. One is a desire and the other a rationale. I eat because I'm hungry and I eat because my body needs nutrients."
When you were a baby, you didn't need a rationale to eat. So I don't think every decision has a binary nature.
But let's say you do. The desire to act morally is to prevent the suffering of others. The rationale is that suffering is, well, pretty self-evidently bad, as every person who's ever lived can attest to.
How can an apparent Christian not understand the Golden Rule?
Posted by: PersoninNY
|
October 12, 2009 11:31 PM
@#67: Reswat, atheists are moral for the same reason everyone else is moral; to increase the reproductive fitness of one's kin. It's merely a concequence of sociality. Besides, if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, ie; a vain attempt of some vague, impossible 'promise', you're not really being moral...
Posted by: reswat
|
October 12, 2009 11:32 PM
scarshapedscar,
You said,
"When you were a baby, you didn't need a rationale to eat"
That true, but when I grew, I recognized the need to control my desires. If I just followed my desires now, I would probably not eat a healthy diet.
You also said,
"The rationale is that suffering is, well, pretty self-evidently bad"
So are you saying that declaring something to be "self-evident" is a sufficient means of defining a rationale?
Posted by: reswat
|
October 12, 2009 11:35 PM
PersoninNY,
You said,
"atheists are moral for the same reason everyone else is moral; to increase the reproductive fitness of one's kin"
Again, I certainly understand the desire to moral, but why should I as a rational person care about my kin? Especially those kin that continue once I am dead?
You also said,
"Besides, if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, ie; a vain attempt of some vague, impossible 'promise', you're not really being moral... "
What definition are you using for "moral" in that sentence?
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 12, 2009 11:35 PM
Actually the baby example is a poor analogy.
A better one would be cavemen. A caveman does not know the first thing about nutrition, but he knows what hunger feels like, and so he eats.
If you're going to argue that atheists can kill without remorse, then you're arguing that you yourself would kill without remorse if you'd been born in some area without Bibles... right? That's one hell of a confession. I hope that's not true.
In any event, there's also decisions that lack one side of the binary nature you attribute to them. For example: things we desire to do without a rationale, like smoking cigarettes or shouting at the football game on the TV. And then there's rational acts that we don't desire, like asking professors for recommendation letters or doing the dishes.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 12, 2009 11:37 PM
Good question. I think Hitchens does the best job of critically reflecting on Christian morality and how, on its face, it is not based on the Golden Rule and shared human experience but is handed down by fiat from a totalitarian dictatorship on high. If morality isn't forced on them, they apparently believe they have none.Posted by: emactan
|
October 12, 2009 11:38 PM
Well obviously that was the dog's guardian angel. Praise Dog!
There's so much cut and splice I can't tell if it's the same dog or not
Posted by: reswat
|
October 12, 2009 11:38 PM
scarshapedstar,
"If you're going to argue that atheists can kill without remorse"
I'm not arguing that.
I didn't see a rationale for being moral in your last post. Please clarify.
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 12, 2009 11:42 PM
Reswat, are you trying to convince us that we're all closet sociopaths here? I think that step 1 in proving that atheists lack morality would be to show that atheists commit more crimes than religious people.
Reality is, in fact, quite the opposite. Most crimes are committed by believers. How do you rationalize that?
Posted by: reswat
|
October 12, 2009 11:43 PM
I'm enjoying the conversation, but have to go to bed.
Maybe I'll check back later.
Thanks.
Posted by: PersoninNY
|
October 12, 2009 11:43 PM
@#72: Reswat, we're a highly social species. Since we're all in this together, your kin, ie; every single other human on this planet who you are related to and connected with in some way, can make or break your reproductive fitness. With regard to those who continue after your death, well, what about your descendants, or family's descendants? Would you really want them to suffer because of something you did or didn't do in the distant past?
By 'moral', I mean purley altruistic. Not done with the intent of getting something out of it.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
October 12, 2009 11:48 PM
See? Another psychopath on a short leash.
Lock away the axes!!!
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 12, 2009 11:50 PM
"I didn't see a rationale for being moral in your last post. Please clarify."
I don't see a justification for your argument that morality is a strictly rational decision, and you didn't seem to quite grasp my point about football games, so I will elaborate upon it.
You seemed to accept the argument for kin-selection as an evolutionary argument for morality: species whose members do not harm each other (more or less) will prosper, and that's why we got here. However, you went on to say that humans, unlike our forebears, are *rational* and need *rational* reasons to continue doing what our animal ancestors managed to do for millions of years: "why should I as a rational person care about my kin? Especially those kin that continue once I am dead?"
Why should you care? Does it matter? You either care or do not. You can't force yourself to care about something. You can force yourself to ACT like you care about something, but ultimately it's an emotion. Similarly, if you have to ask yourself why you should love someone, you do not love them. Et cetera.
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 12, 2009 11:53 PM
Aww, as soon as I drop the empirical reality bomb he disappears!
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 12, 2009 11:54 PM
PersoninNY (#65)
As opposed to which sort of selection?
~*~*~*~*~
Jo (#66)
See, the thing about altruism is it doesn't have to be about compassion. The second dog is risking its life to drag the first out of the road. Very probably it has no concept of saving the first dog like a human would, but unless what it's doing has some sort of payoff for itself to offset the risk, its actions still qualify as altruistic. My guess is that it's distressed by the wrongness of the first dog's situation and is trying to fix it. Dogs, for whatever reason, are pretty big on the concept of "how things are supposed to be."
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 12, 2009 11:57 PM
reswat (#71)
Your original analogy was about eating vs. not eating; now you've shifted to eating vs. eating well. Why don't you simply stop eating as an adult? Because your body still tells you it needs to eat. Our bodies tell us we need to be moral in a similar way and whatever rationale we apply after that doesn't change the basic need. It is true that, in the same way we could choose to starve ourselves, we might choose to ignore our moral needs, but it must be deliberate. And, in the same way we can choose to eat only foods that will make us the most healthy, we can choose to refine our moral senses and behaviors to benefit ourselves and those around us. Note that none of that requires religion. Religion is like a fad diet which isn't necessarily good for you but makes a lot of noise about being the best or only way to keep yourself healthy.
(#72)
Because genes that program you to care what happens to your surviving kin are more likely to get passed on.
Posted by: PersoninNY
|
October 12, 2009 11:59 PM
@#83: A. Noyd, individual selection, of course!
Posted by: PersoninNY
|
October 13, 2009 12:05 AM
@#83: Oops, I meant group selection!
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 13, 2009 12:06 AM
A. Noyd @ 83
"See, the thing about altruism is it doesn't have to be about compassion. The second dog is risking its life to drag the first out of the road."
No, Jo was saying that the 'hero' dog was trying to drag the roadkill dog away in order to eat it. That's what he meant by 'not compassionate'.
It was perhaps a little obtuse.
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 13, 2009 12:08 AM
Well, to clarify, Jo was saying that it was a possibility, anyway.
If these two dogs didn't know each other, honestly, I'd suspect that the Food Theory is correct.
Welcome to the jungle. :)
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 13, 2009 12:19 AM
In that same scene, by 0:22, the dog appears to be getting up and walking again.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
October 13, 2009 12:27 AM
I've never really got the idea that morality is tied to religion. It makes no sense beyond justification to do so. Do we really need to have a higher power tell us that it's wrong to cause others harm? I don't think so. Even for morals that are innate, there's no need to appeal to authority when talking about right and wrong.
The Euthyphro Dilemma to me spells out why the whole notion of morality cannot be tied to gods. Is it pious because it is loved by the gods, or loved by the gods because it is pious? To take the first part of the dilemma is to appeal to authority - that morality is obedience to a higher power, and an amoral higher power at that, making any moral dictum arbitrary. To take the latter it puts morality beyond gods.
Of course this doesn't explain why we are moral or even what is moral, but it shows the ineptness of theism to actually account for it. In the end morality it seems is an implicit social construct to facilitate repeated interaction among individuals, much in the same way that law is an explicit construct. There's a near universiality to what people find right and wrong, many things that fall out of game theory when applied to repeated interaction.
When it comes down to it, certain practices aren't sustainable. Stealing is an unsustainable practice - too many thieves and there comes a point where there's no-one to steal from. Too much lying and there is no grounds for trusting others. Too much murder and the population can't sustain itself. By pure virtue of being a social mammal there are morals that fall out, just as there are morals that fall out of being self-aware wise beings capable of suffering and understanding the suffering of others.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 13, 2009 12:40 AM
That is very plausible. With that desire for order, though, there can be some overlap with compassion, as we mean when we see suffering and say "that ain't right."
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 13, 2009 1:48 AM
PersoninNY (#85)
"Of course" nothing. Why would what the dog's doing be problematic for individual selection (assuming it's not looking for a meal) but not group selection?
~*~*~*~*~
scarshapedstar (#87)
Jo suggested people were shooting down the food theory because the alternative where the dog is being altruistic "makes them feel all warm in fuzzy inside." My point is merely that there isn't a dichotomy between compassion and self-interest. Once the food theory is off the table, the dog's behavior becomes altruistic; even if its motivations are alien to us, we can recognize the sacrifice it's making and the goodness of it.
Posted by: Stu
|
October 13, 2009 2:48 AM
Haven't read all of the comments, but am I the first to say "natural selection breeds what is good for the species, not necessarily what is good for the individual"?
I mean, it took me the full 10 seconds saying that to explain natural selection to an 11 year old the other day.
What's the mystery?
Posted by: Anonymouse
|
October 13, 2009 2:57 AM
To the unenlightened:
1. Chile is a predominantly Catholic country.
2. Catholics have their pets blessed with Holy Water, usually on the feast day of St. Francis of Assisi.
3. Presumably, these dogs have been blessed.
4. If this happened in secular countries where dogs are not blessed, the other dogs would have left the poor dog out to die.
5. Clearly, this shows that dogs need God (and Religion too!) to be good!
Posted by: scarshapedstar
|
October 13, 2009 3:02 AM
My God... it's so clear now. Don't you get it? Am I the only one who... GETS IT?
The first dog died to absolve all dogs of their sins! The second dog was his apostle, and his Skidmarked Savior will rise in 3 dog days! The symbol of the church of the risen Dog will be, obviously, the automobile - ever wonder why dogs chase cars? To them, it has been foretold! And the Food Theory, why, that's just like eating the Eucharist!
With this, the doctrine of All Dogs Go To Heaven has, for better or for worse, been overturned - unless you start bringing home roadkill for your dogs to eat, they're going to dog hell, where they will be eternally tormented by people knocking on a door that they can't see out of.
I guess it's only a matter of time before we discover a dog that eats his weekly carrion when everyone is watching and then humps the other male dogs when no one is around...
Posted by: Stu
|
October 13, 2009 3:02 AM
Also, Chile has been a fertile target for The Family. The dog was obviously aware that the downed compatriot was Important In The Idea.
(Yes, please read Jeff Sharlett's book. If you think you're freaked out now about religious influences in business and politics, well, YIKES)
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 13, 2009 3:15 AM
Group selection is one of the most uncertain topics in evolutionary biology today. While it's possible that you're right, yours is not an uncontroversial summary.
Posted by: ekcol
|
October 13, 2009 4:11 AM
@Mobius "I even recall seeing a news clip of a female gorilla rescuing a human baby that had fallen into its zoo enclosure and was about to be attacked by an angry male."
It was actually the alpha male gorilla, named Jambo, that looked after the kid. This happened in Jersey Zoo, later known as Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust and now just "Durrell" - it really confuses tourists. He stayed close by and showed concern, and wouldn't let other gorillas near, but I think it gets blown out of proportion. I doubt the rest of the tame, raised-in-captivity gorillas would have beaten the kid to death if Jambo wasn't there.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
October 13, 2009 4:16 AM
Replace species with genes and you might have something more accurate. How can natural selection work for a group?Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 13, 2009 4:35 AM
There's more than one such incident. In 1996, a female gorilla in Chicago carried a fallen child to the door of the enclosure.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 13, 2009 6:58 AM
I think a number of people, in replying to reswat, have failed to make a clear enough distinction between the causal explanation of altruistic behaviour, and its rationale or justification. Kin selection, and a number of other factors (notably but not only reciprocity and reputational effects) can explain how genuine altruism - motivation to act for the good of others, as clearly shown by this dog (those suggesting the rescuing dog was treating the other as food have clearly never owned a dog) - can arise and persist. None of these factors is a rationale or justification for such acts. That rationale or justification is, simply, the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help. No further rationale is needed; and the demand for it reduces altruism either to self-interest, or to obedience to an external authority - usually "God". In the latter case, of course, one can simply ask for the rationale for obeying God: the demand for "ultimate" justification is logically incoherent, as was shown with Euthyphro's dilemma more than 2000 years ago.
Incidentally, the fact that so many highly intelligent people do not realise the need clearly to distinguish causal explanation from justification illustrates one reason why we need philosophy (whether done by professional philosophers or not): to make such distinctions clear, and hence ensure that our arguments are sound. The same people who fail to make the distinction here would, in other contexts, correctly say that evolutionary theory does not mandate anything at all, i.e. it never tells us what we should do. To think that it does is the fundamental, philosophical error of "social Darwinism".
Posted by: Grimalkin
|
October 13, 2009 7:18 AM
Having not read any of the comments because... wow, that's a lot of comments...
This argument doesn't work. They simply respond "we're not saying that you can't be good if you don't believe in god. We're saying that morality itself comes from god - god put morality into you, whether you believe in him or not."
It's standard shifting of the goal posts, but it ALWAYS happens. We need to anticipate that and stop focusing on the first part. I went to a debate fairly recently (Boot vs De Souza on "is there a god" at Carleton U.) and this is exactly what happened. It was like De Souza simply could not get what Boot was saying once he had shifted the goal posts and so he kept addressing the first portion. It was embarrassing!
Posted by: hexag1
|
October 13, 2009 7:30 AM
Three cheers for the lovely Boards of Canada background music. The group is in some ways inspired by 1980s wildlife films
http://www.boardsofcanada.com/
Posted by: hexag1
|
October 13, 2009 7:33 AM
Also, this video has NOTHING on 'The Battle of the Species'
http://www.glumbert.com/media/battlespecies
Posted by: Speedwell
|
October 13, 2009 7:52 AM
The folks who don't believe dogs can exhibit altruism frankly perplex me. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but it's right in line with the reason we use dogs as helpers for the disabled and as rescue animals. Evolved and bred to be social and intelligent, responsive to circumstances and subtle clues, dogs are certainly capable of altruistic, even heroic, behavior, and a simple Google on hero dog should do the last bit of convincing.
Much of this has to do with training. Any reasonably social animal can, over time, be led to understand the benefits of delayed gratification and protecting others; I have three well-behaved cats who I've raised to be considerate of me and of each other, and to bear indignities like cat carriers and pills with resignation. Of course, over the years they've trained me almost as much as I've trained them. :)
I had an older cat, Bandersnatch (who's since died) when I got a new kitten, Snark. Snark was a filthy little morsel and my boyfriend insisted on bathing him in the bathroom sink. Snark is more than usually scared of water, and he let everyone in a fifty-mile radius know. Ban managed to figure out how to open the bathroom door, and he bit my boyfriend on the ankle to make him stop "hurting" the kitten. Fortunately the boyfriend had on hunting boots. But nobody can tell me that Ban wasn't trying to rescue his new kitten.
Posted by: grubi
|
October 13, 2009 9:23 AM
Um. People seem to be overlooking the obvious: we get hungry BECAUSE we need nutrients. They're not separate things.
Also: dog altruism FTW.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
October 13, 2009 9:34 AM
Dogs also have the ability to smell cancer in humans. This particular case relates to an untrained dog helping it's owner.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/02/06/cohen.dogcancerdetect/index.html
They have also been trained to do it.
Posted by: chebghobbi
|
October 13, 2009 10:01 AM
Footage of Jambo the gorilla:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
I looked around for footage of the other gorilla (Binti Jua, the female who actually defended a child from more aggressive gorillas before bringing her to the entrance of her enclosure) but was unable to find anything.
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 10:30 AM
Knockgoats,
Thanks for clarifyng the concept I was trying to get to. I think you said it well when you said,
"I think a number of people, in replying to reswat, have failed to make a clear enough distinction between the causal explanation of altruistic behaviour, and its rationale or justification."
Just to expand even further, my assumption is that we are rational beings who apply reason to decide what we should do.
So, Knockgoats, you then went on to say that the rationale for morality... "is, simply, the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help."
What about my own interests? Sure, in a vacuum, I might be concerned about the interests or preferences of another. But what is the rationale for setting aside by own interests and prioritizing the interests of another?
Posted by: Gordy
|
October 13, 2009 10:33 AM
Re the group selection issue - I agree that selection acts on genes rather than groups, but, since humans are more successful when living in cooperative groups, it seems obvious that any genetically influenced behavioural traits which enable individuals to succeed in groups would be selected for. This is not the same as selection of one group over another, it is selection of individuals who are able to thrive in groups over those who aren't. Altruistic behaviour is necessary for successful group living and so we would expect it to be selected for.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist
|
October 13, 2009 10:34 AM
I remember seeing something on TV about dogs that can warn someone they're about to have a seizure (it was a chronic thing for the kid), and the kid could notify help before he even had the seizure.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 13, 2009 10:50 AM
-Just to expand even further, my assumption is that we are rational beings who apply reason to decide what we should do.-
Um, no. Unless you are doing maths or something, you probably use reason to decide why you did what you did or to justify what you did. But your hand will reach into the cookie jar all by itself easily enough.
I bet if a child falls in front of you, you will have taken two steps towards them before you even realise.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist
|
October 13, 2009 10:58 AM
Doing things in the interest of others makes it more likely for you to get what you want.
For example, people in a stable relationship have sex more often than single people. So, if you want sex more often, get a stable mate. If you want kids, get a stable mate.
This also applies to not commiting crimes. If a society of people are less likely to steal something, you're less likely to get stolen from. No commiting a crime also means you're less likely to get put in prison and less likely to get raped.
If you don't see that rational I highly question your ability to reason at all.
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 11:04 AM
grubi,
You say,
"we get hungry BECAUSE we need nutrients"
I agree. And then I would ask the next question:
Is my hunger an unnerring guide telling me what to eat?
I would say no. For example, I often desire to eat cookies even after I'm full. If I followed just my hunger, I would gain weight to an unhealthy level. (By the way, there is empirical data to support this theory :>)
As a rational being, I'm not enslaved to just following my desires. I seek rationales that will be a guide to me as I experience these various desires.
So, in the case of morality, I think we mostly recognize the "hunger" to be moral. My question is this: What is the rationale behind this "hunger"?
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 11:07 AM
KematheAtheist,
You said,
"Doing things in the interest of others makes it more likely for you to get what you want."
So, are you saying that morality ultimately boils down to just acting in my own best interests?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 11:12 AM
They simply respond "we're not saying that you can't be good if you don't believe in god. We're saying that morality itself comes from god - god put morality into you, whether you believe in him or not."
I think you're responding to a different argument than the one being addressed here.
the one being addressed here is the idea of "humans are moral and animals not, ergo God."
It's taking the piss on the idea that god made man different from animals to begin with.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 11:14 AM
I seek rationales that will be a guide to me as I experience these various desires.
and different people make entirely different decisions as to what rationales work for them.
What is the rationale behind this "hunger"?
does it really matter?
why?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 11:18 AM
I agree that selection acts on genes rather than groups
technical but important correction:
selection acts on phenotypes, not genes.
evodevo.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
October 13, 2009 11:22 AM
Reswat says "Just to expand even further, my assumption is that we are rational beings who apply reason to decide what we should do."
Ah, well there's your mistake. We are rational animals who apply reason to justify our actions and desires. Sometimes on rare occasions, some of us can rise above that and maybe have some insight into our true motivations. Most of the time, though, even the most self-aware of us are on auto-pilot
We are social animals, ill suited to survive outside of a group. That and a few million years of evolution are sufficient to explain why we are as altruistic as we are--and why we aren't moreso.
Posted by: Gordy
|
October 13, 2009 11:31 AM
@ Ichthyic #118 > You are of course right, thanks for the clarification. I think the rest of what I said in #110 still stands though.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 13, 2009 11:33 AM
It's taking the piss on the idea that god made man different from animals to begin with.
Actually, the Bible does this itself in Ecclesiastes 3.
Of course, if you point that out to anybody you will be taking it out of context, because the only person capable of reading the Bible and understanding it in context is the Christian who is arguing with you. Kinda like how everybody else on the highway is driving either too fast or too slow and you're the only person on the planet who knows how to drive.
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 13, 2009 11:33 AM
@reswat -
This is very interesting.
Almost. He continued with "No further rationale is needed; and the demand for it reduces altruism either to self-interest, or to obedience to an external authority." That's a pretty important part of his statement since it delineates the absurdities ommitted by those who (perhaps indirectly) attempt to dismiss altruism or our understanding of it.
What about your interests? I don't know; you tell me. Are your interests ones that would preclude you from trying to help someone who needed assistance? Are you someone who requires a "rationale" for something that is self-evident to others? If so, I really hope you aren't one of my neighbors.
@everyone else - Hi, folks! Been busy for a few months; what have I missed?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 11:38 AM
Man, you can recognize all the real cynics here -- the ones who think the dog was dragging off a prey item. Sorry, I don't buy it.
I'd bet there is evidence from studying pack animal behavior (like wolves) to support the idea of altruistic behavior within packs. Wouldn't it be better to look and see, rather than simply reject alternative explanations for any given behavior?
I didn't think "cynic" when I read those suggestions, I thought "alternative that must first be rejected".
heh, strangely enough, I did run across this article from a student at your very own UMM:
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:gpC5nTVwy1UJ:www.morris.umn.edu/academic/biology/sensem/4.doc+altruistic+behavior+wolves&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk
I just think it's important to separate what we want to think about any given behavior from what actually is going on.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 11:42 AM
what have I missed?
all the good xians were raptured.
we're just left behind, parodying them.
:P
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 13, 2009 11:45 AM
@Icthyic -
Damn. I wish! :-D
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 11:54 AM
hey, just look up "smoggy batzrubble" on this very blog.
you'll see it's true.
all the True(tm) xians we're raptured while you were away.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 13, 2009 12:05 PM
reswat (#109)
You're confused. While we do apply reason in deciding how to act, moral behavior isn't something that goes against our nature. We might have conflicting urges, but our moral decisions and preferences arise out of our evolved sense of right and wrong which itself comes from the need to get along with those around us for the sake of our descendents. Concern for the welfare of others is the human default. You do not need a rationale to want to do something for the benefit of others at a cost to yourself and you do not need reason to sort out altruistic and selfish impulses. (Well, maybe you do, but normal humans don't.)
And do you know why you have urges to gorge and eat lots of sweets? It's an adaptation left over from times when food was scarce. The current need to ignore impulse and make reasoned choices about what to eat is a consequence of living in an environment we're not very well adapted to. There are certainly parallels to morality; we need reason to apply our evolved morals more appropriately for our current social environment. But that doesn't change the fact that we do not need a rationale either to eat or to be moral in the first place.
(#114)
Read my reply at 84, please. Whether to eat and what to eat are two different questions and you're conflating them which confuses your question. Do you or do you not accept that we're moral by default and do not need any special reasoning to make us behave morally in general?
(#115)
In the evolutionary view, morality boils down to insurance for the continued existence of your genes.
Posted by: qbsmd
|
October 13, 2009 12:13 PM
"Kinda like how everybody else on the highway is driving either too fast or too slow and you're the only person on the planet who knows how to drive. "
Completely off topic, but people driving too fast or slow on a highway isn't usually a problem; it's people who speed up when you start to pass them, or try to pass someone who's going a fraction of a mile/hour slower than they are.
And has anyone else noticed a correlation between bad driving and Jesus fish and religious bumper stickers? If I see a fish on a car near me anymore, I expect them to do something annoying.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 12:17 PM
And has anyone else noticed a correlation between bad driving and Jesus fish and religious bumper stickers? If I see a fish on a car near me anymore, I expect them to do something annoying.
here's a hypothesis for that:
the people who put jesus fish on their cars are typically also the kind of xians who decide to have big families.
have you ever actually driven in a car with a bunch of maniacal toddlers?
Posted by: kopd
|
October 13, 2009 12:22 PM
I don't know about fish, but where I live if somebody cuts you off or flies by, their license plate will probably say JO in the corner where the county abbreviation goes. The fish seem to denote slow drivers around here.
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 12:40 PM
a_ray_in_dilber_space said,
"Ah, well there's your mistake. We are rational animals who apply reason to justify our actions and desires."
That just doesn't ring true to me. I sometimes eat brocolli because it is healthy for me - more so than a cookie. I'm pretty sure that I reason first and act later.
It's not as if I uncontrollably gorge myself on broccoli and then have to justify my behavior later by saying that I did it just to be healthy.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 13, 2009 12:42 PM
weirdo
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 12:47 PM
Eric Saveau,
Knockgoats said this, that the rationale for being moral...
"is, simply, the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help."
To me, looking out for... "the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help" is a decent definition for what morality is.
If you agree, then isn't he just saying that the rationale for being moral is to be moral?
Later on in your post, you use the term "self-evident" to describe the rationale for helping a person in need.
To me, philosophy and discussion is the attempt to put into words those things that might appear self-evident. I'm just asking this board to put into words what it is that is self-evident about acting morally, after setting aside the emotional compulsion or urge to act that way.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 12:51 PM
If you agree, then isn't he just saying that the rationale for being moral is to be moral?
no.
he's saying the rationale for being moral is self-realized.
what you interpreted him as saying makes no sense.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 12:56 PM
I think Reswat has a conclusion that requires an imaginary deity. He doesn't like our evolutionary explanations, and will always find something wrong with them. Like he will get anything other than non-deity explanations at this blog...
Posted by: kopd
|
October 13, 2009 1:03 PM
Re: "setting aside the emotional compulsion or urge to act that way."
That is a large part of my rationale. I feel good when I do good.
"The most common mistake is to assume that logic and emotion are somehow naturally opposed and that employing one means you can't have the other."
From a website about television, of all things.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 13, 2009 1:06 PM
No doubt, Knockgoats. I have seen my pets look out for each other many times and they have even called out in alarming ways that got my attention in emergencies. Altruism is a very natural reaction to observing another animal in distress. Cats, of course, turn altruism on its head and present to you their tortured, mangled prey.
You can plan ahead and animals cannot to the same degree. You have to purchase or grow your food but animals do not. Besides, eating broccoli over cookies has nothing to do with morality.Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 13, 2009 1:12 PM
reswat, remember what I said about "absurdities" in my comment? Bingo. As Knockgoats already indicated, a behavior that has blindingly obvious survival advantage for a species, like altruism, does not require a "rationale"; it self-evidently works for the benefit of those groups whose members engage in such behavior. You may as well ask us to provide a moral justification for the color blue.
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 1:27 PM
A. Noid,
You made multiple statements, but here's your question to me:
"Do you or do you not accept that we're moral by default and do not need any special reasoning to make us behave morally in general?"
I agree that most, if not all, human beings have urges to "behave morally in general".
But I also think that human beings have an even stronger urge to fulfill their own self interest. When there is a strong desire to fulfill my own self interest and it conflicts with another desire to help someone else, what then?
You made a distinction between "eating" and "eating well". That's true about eating, but not about acting morally. There is no distinction between "acting morally" and "acting morally well"
I still don't think you've answered my question. When I have a strong desire to act in my own self-interest, what rationale is there to set that aside and act in the interest of others?
And comments regarding the propogation of my genes make no sense here. In my decision-making process, that has absolutely no bearing. And I don't believe any person could honestly claim that they consider that fact when making decision in a real-life situation.
Propagation of genes might have some bearing in explaining why we have the urges we have, but it has no application in determining why a rational person would make a decision one way or another.
Posted by: Yakaru
|
October 13, 2009 1:34 PM
To me it looks like he's trying to save the other dog, because if he wanted to eat it he would've been trying to quickly tear off a piece with his jaws rather than trying carefully to pull it off the road. He also didn't try to avoid the human, which I would expect.
Secondly, even if he WAS intending to eat the other dog, that is also behaviour condoned by the Bible.
See what the Bible says about cannibalism:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/cannibalism.html
For example:
"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend." -- Jeremiah 19:9
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 13, 2009 1:35 PM
Propagation of genes might have some bearing in explaining why we have the urges we have, but it has no application in determining why a rational person would make a decision one way or another.
oh?
I suppose it depends on your definition of rational then.
Posted by: Fatboy
|
October 13, 2009 1:35 PM
Reswat wrote:
To be honest, from what you've written, I'm not sure how you think you've escaped your desires. You have one desire to eat cookies, and another desire to be healthy. You may use reason to determine actions to balance those desires, but I doubt that you'd restrain yourself from eating cookies if you didn't have some sort of desire otherwise.
Can you give an example of an action you do voluntarily that goes against all of your desires?
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist
|
October 13, 2009 1:41 PM
No, it's what's best for the group, whether it's two people (as in a couple) or in a group as in a society.
Your best interests are to act in the best interest of the group. Ever hear of John Nash and game theory?
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 13, 2009 1:41 PM
You, personally? Dunno. Humans in general? Well that varies quite a bit, depending on circumstance and between individuals... but, in general, the pattern seems to be that usually people will try to help other people if they can do so safely, or will disregard their own well-being if helping that other person is of greater importance to them than their well-being. (There are exceptions, of course, such as sociopaths and their close cousins, the libertarians.)
No rationale needed. We merely observe that most do, some don't, and some others argue over whether they have been provided with a rationale for doing so. Tell me, what is the moral justification for the color blue?
Posted by: kopd
|
October 13, 2009 1:42 PM
"but it has no application in determining why a rational person would make a decision one way or another."
Many rational justifications have been given for moral behaviors. Some moral behaviors have emotional reasons. One person may pass on an opportunity to steal something because they know that they could get caught and get in trouble. Another may make the same decision because they know it would hurt the victim and they have no desire to harm others.
Because different actions have different justifications, and there is not one universally accepted set of moral codes, could you please provide an example of a moral behavior that you think is irrational? One that you cannot think of a rational reason for? I will point out again, however, that it is a bit of a strawman to argue that rational people cannot make emotional choices.
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 13, 2009 1:51 PM
Kema said -
Exactly. Let's break that down with specifics - As a husband, my best interest is to act in the best interests of my wife. As a father, my best interests are to act in the best interests of my son (and daughter-in-law). As a resident of my neighborhood, my best interest is to act in the best interest of my neighbors. As a friend, my best interest is to act in the best interest of my friends. As a working man, my best interest is to act in the best interests of my co-workers and employer. As an American, my best interest is to act in the best interests of my country. As a human being, my best interest is to act in the best interest of other people. As someone who aspparently can't figure out what his best interest is, reswat's best interest would be to start by interacting with other people and reading a little Rousseau.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist
|
October 13, 2009 1:55 PM
@146
Thanks, Eric. I really didn't feel like having to explain game theory to reswat.
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 13, 2009 2:28 PM
Glad to jump in, Kema. What really makes my eyes cross is that he apparently needs these things spelled out; he's essentially asking for a graph or flowchart to show why someone shouldn't be an asshole. And that sets off a few alarm bells...
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist
|
October 13, 2009 3:04 PM
Too right, Eric. Someone already pointed out that all he's doing is searching for someone to say something so he can jump in and claim it must be a deity. I'm inclined to agree, but I'll respond to him because there is a small chance he'll actually listen, and, at the very least, he'll go away when he figures out he's way out of his league with the pharyngula posters.
Posted by: PersoninNY
|
October 13, 2009 3:07 PM
@#136: Reswat, whenever there is a strong desire to fulfill your own self interest and it conflicts with a desire to help someone else, you help someone else if it increases the reproductive fitness of your kin. That may not be your conscience decision, but evolution has bred certain behaviors, actions, and thought patterns into us regardless of our desire. After all, do you choose to feel hungry?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 13, 2009 3:09 PM
reswat (#133)
And, in doing so, you're asking us to find a wholly separate cause for moral behavior than its true cause. The reasoned portion of morality is built out of the biological urge; they can't be split apart, not to answer a question so general as yours.
(#139)
Our basic, unconscious ability to balance altruism vs. selfishness is calibrated for the environment in which we evolved. Selfishness is a conflicting urge, sure, but not a stronger one. Maybe your selfishness always overwhelms your generosity, but this is not the case for the majority of people.
I make the distinction because it's important to your question that you recognize the difference between basic behaviors and extended ones. Eating is a basic imperative whereas eating well is an intentional extension of the general behavior of eating, one made necessary by our move to an environment where instinct no longer keeps us as healthy. There certainly is an analogy for having to intentionally extend our basic evolved moral behavior to cope with the change in environment which might be better phrased as "acting morally on a larger scale."
If you think you haven't been answered, it's only because you're demanding we explain our moral behavior using something we find unnecessary. Rationales, as you mean them, are just-so stories; they're not necessarily accurate explanations of why we find moral behavior agreeable, both emotionally and logically. So we can reject the need for an artificial rationale once we are satisfied we understand the explanation for why we are moral.
You don't have to consider the benefit to your genes in order for your decisions to benefit your genes. Your genes build you, build your general thought processes and your basic emotional reactions. Genes that build in you a tendency to think of the welfare of others and feel distress when your relatives are suffering will influence you to make decisions in favor of helping them and consequently propagate themselves better than genes that let you ignore the welfare of others and feel apathy towards suffering of relatives.
No? How can you be sure? I think you have a very naive understanding of human psychology.
~*~*~*~*~
ztkl40a (#142)
Excellent question.
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 3:13 PM
There are two related questions here:
1) Why do I feel the urge to be moral?
2) Why should I act morally?
They are both interesting questions, but the only one I'm asking is number (2).
Some here have figured that out, but many have not.
To say that morality boils down to just doing what's in my own best interest certainly seems counterintuitive.
Also, it seems like a leap of faith (game theory notwithstanding) to say that acting morally will always ultimately benefit me in the end.
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 13, 2009 3:28 PM
So? A lot of science is counterintuitive; mere intuition can lead one down a dead end path. Also, the way you keep insisting on constructing these statements indicates that you are (deliberately?) misconstruing what everyone here is saying about morality and self-interest.
Of course it won't "always ultimately benefit" any and every one particular individual "in the end" (whatever that means) and nobody here is saying that it will. What we have actually and consistently been saying is that acting altruistically tends to benefit both the recipients of that altruism and those who act with altruism. It is a tendency, not a guarantee; though it is a fairly consistent tendency.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 13, 2009 3:30 PM
I could switch that around for you, reswat, and throw it back:
Why don't you not act morally and see what happens. I imagine you would quickly find yourself hurt, dejected, alone, in danger of being attacked, and possibly exiled from society. Is that counterintuitive?Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 13, 2009 3:31 PM
I'm late to this party and am supposed to be working, so forgive me if this has been covered.
One of the many problems inherent in the question posed by rezwat is that it ignores the obvious fact that others won't let us get away with that for very long. One of the first things a child learns is to take turns (on the swing, on the slide, on the whatever), because otherwise fights break out. Hell, like small children, most of us would be all about prioritising our own interests all the time, but pretty soon one finds nobody's willing to give a backrub if one doesn't reciprocate once in awhile. Even sociopaths learn to fake empathy, unless they want to be ostracised by the tribe.
Actually, only the first is interesting. The second is quite clearly begging-the-question.
Social prescriptions of the kind you're interested in (in the way you're interested in them) tend only to have themselves as an answer. For instance, why shouldn't one eat shellfish (Abrahamic faiths) or beef (Hindu sects)? Well, one shouldn't because, well, because...um...it is written that one shouldn't!
Of course not; this isn't a Disney movie. However, over the long run, and played out by many individuals, being moral (reciprocating altruism) will make it more likely that you'll survive. Successful cheaters are rarities, not the norm.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 13, 2009 3:37 PM
reswat (#152)
Er, no. You think you're asking 2, but, given your persistent analogy to eating "well," what you're really asking is 3: "Why should I act morally in the extended fashion necessary to our current social environment?" I think that's a really great question, but if you're not even aware you're asking it or how it differs from question 2, then it's doubtful you can begin to understand the answers.
So? Why would you prefer your intuition when human brains aren't built to perfectly apprehend our own motivations? And it boils down to what's in the best interest of your genes for getting passed on; you are quite expendable. Important distinction. (Note that this is not ultimately different from what Brownian, Eric Saveau, etc. are saying about reciprocal altruism since it still comes down to whether you pass on more genes or not.)
It doesn't have to always benefit the passing on of your genes, it just has to do so more often than it harms the passing on of your genes. Try to peel your brain away from thinking in absolutes. Reality is messy.
Posted by: Paul
|
October 13, 2009 3:40 PM
Because God says so.
/subthread
Really, it's all he wants to hear, might as well let him have it. When someone says "despite the perfectly reasonable answer I've been given and refuse to educate myself on, what am I missing" he's just waiting for a chink in which to insert $deity.
Posted by: reswat
|
October 13, 2009 3:51 PM
I think I'll let my last post (#152) be my last word on the subject.
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to respond. I wish you all the best.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 13, 2009 3:55 PM
Paul, I think you got it right.
Because you were wrong that it is not counterintuitive to say morality always boils down to one's best interests? Why no response to the challenge of acting immorally to find out what happens?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 3:59 PM
Shucks, now we will never hear his subhypothesis... ;)
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 13, 2009 4:10 PM
Yeah, that stink was reeking my way too. It's all about trying to trap atheists with the "but even if there is a prefectly serviceable evolutionary explanation with evidence for reciprocal altruism, how do you rationalise being reciprocally altruistic"? How fucking pedestrian. Wank, wank.
As I noted above, the whole "Why should one..." never gives a useful answer in any context. Seriously, pick a religion--any religion--and one of its tapus and I dare you to find anything more substantive than a just-so story with some (demi-/semi-/hemi-)deity using the "Because I said so" justification.
Besides, from a reality-based framework, RA works the same as with hunger. Why should I eat? Well, because if I don't I'll have a pretty rough go of it before I croak. Why should I reciprocate altruism? Well, because if I don't I'll have a pretty rough go of it before I croak. Atheists recognise any rationalisation would only be a post hoc attempt to explain the behaviour that we already engage in because generally it worked for our ancestors.
Of course, this is counterintuitive, but only for those inculcated in a mindset that humans are nasty, brutish creatures fallen from the grace of god. If you stop flagellating the species for wearing mixed fibres long enough to look around, you'll see that we as a species are marked by as much cooperation as competition, with mechanisms for detecting and punishing cheaters so innate that one can witness it even on the playground.
Usually, this is the point in the conversation where, were we one-on-one, I would tell the theologian that he has shown me the error of my ways and that I have no rationale as an atheist for being a kind, decent person. Then I demand he hand over his wallet or die.
And theists always accuse us of not thinking of the ultimate consequences of our actions. Did scripture predict you'd be panhandling for bus fare home, jerk?
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
October 13, 2009 4:32 PM
Then how is this group selection? It's still gene selection as opposed to group selection as the group is the environment the genes are to survive in. I really don't see how this distinction makes the case for group selection.Posted by: Paul
|
October 13, 2009 4:34 PM
This was one thing I thought about chipping in on earlier, but it wasp pretty obvious where reswat was going from the beginning. It goes without saying that we could trivially rationalize why we do a given thing. But that begs the question of whether the rationalization given is the actual reason an action is taken or a post hoc explanation, and it turns out for the majority of decisions "post hoc explanation" is more likely to be the case. It's blatant mind/body dualism, assuming that any behaviour taken is a result of a conscious decision from the ethereal mind, as opposed to a result of mostly unconscious thought processes that our brain in turn rationalizes later in the process of creating a coherent perspective. It's a good cue that you're talking to someone that is trying to rationalize their religious beliefs, instead of trying to understand the actual underlying mechanisms for decision-making.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
October 13, 2009 4:44 PM
The environment our ancestors lived in was very different from the environment we live in today. Communities of around 150-200, a fierce in-group / out-group morality - how our ancestors lived for the most part is not something we would wish to base our morality off today. Surely one can distinguish between moral traits being hereditary and justifying what morals we have based on that hereditary.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 13, 2009 5:20 PM
I'm reminded of some of the work done on patients with severed corpus callosi whose left eyes were shown images evoking an emotional response. When asked why they were crying or laughing, their left brains (the speaking/communicating parts), having no idea as to what their left eyes were shown (right brain-left body/left brain-right body, and all that) were forced to come up with an explanation, and it seemed any old explanation would do. For instance, when one patient was shown a humorous image and asked why she was laughing, it suddenly and seemlessly occurred to her that the researchers were hilarious. Another found them equally mean and cruel when shown a saddening image. Notably, this process is entirely subconscious. There is pop-sci article on this here, but it's behind a firewall so I'll have to dig out my paper copy to find the original research.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 13, 2009 8:05 PM
The answer to number 2 depends on number 1.
Do you feel the urge to be moral?
If yes, then you should act morally because it's the only way you will be able to respect yourself. You have to try to be the kind of person who you admire, or else you will despise yourself and have an unhappy life.
If no, then you should act morally anyway, because if you don't, the rest of us will lock you up behind bars to protect ourselves from you.
Easy.
Now you probably want to say something like "but what if I can get away with acting immorally while no one is looking," but that just goes back to question 1. If you do feel the urge to act morally, then you will act morally even when you could get away with worse.
And if you don't feel the urge to act morally, there's not much we can do about it. We'll have to hope that we can catch you in the act sometime so we can lock you up and put an end to your crime spree. Such is life. This is not an easy answer to accept, but it's the best anyone -- theist or atheist -- has ever come up with. Even the fantasists, who pretend that there's a hell after death, cannot deter those who have no fear of hell.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 14, 2009 6:02 AM
@ SGBM #166:
It's worse than that. That would be playing into the fantasists' hands of, falsely and simplistically, blaming atheists for being the criminals (ie because, not believing in it, they are the ones who have no fear of hell). Whereas the truth is that it's the religious (more than the atheistic) who commit both petty and atrocious crimes (and anything in between).
The subtlety behind the "no fear of hell", is that the religious can and do tell themselves that they can be forgiven, quite routinely, for just about anything (other than becoming apostate perhaps) by praying or confessing or merely claiming to believe in Jesus etc. Far worse still, they can and do tell themselves they'll get extra merit in heaven, rather than demerits down to hell, for committing atrocities for Jesus.
They use their religion to make themselves feel extra good and meritworthy at committing crimes and not just to mitigate away any of the guilt which might otherwise cause them to stop being bad and make real-world amends. They have fantasy amends to make and fantasies for why they don't have any amends to make.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 14, 2009 6:30 AM
To bring back in Fatboy's #142:
The religious and the pro-religious accommodationists like to claim that religion adds an extra pair of desires to the prioritization mix - the desire to obtain the fantasy reward of heaven and the desire to avoid the fantasy penality of hell. Some may do this because they are sociopaths themselves, but others because they mistakenly (ie the evidence contradicts them) think it will control sociopaths.
It fails because it has to fail:
• A religion which didn't include any possibility for getting away with being wrong would leave a sociopath, once they had inadvertantly or unavoidably committed any sort of "crime" (and note that religions tend to include fake crimes as big deal crimes), would be in the "might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb" situation.
• A religion which does include weaselly ways of wiping the slate clean (or even of chalking badness up on the goodness side instead!) immediately opens the door for the sociopath to discard each incidence of bad behaviour or to justify his bad actions to himself - and even to others in the same religion. The latter then allows him to co-opt otherwise moral people to an evil cause. The sociopath can gain minions through religion, who wouldn't otherwise have been available without that ready-made con-trick.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 14, 2009 6:47 AM
For example, I often desire to eat cookies even after I'm full. If I followed just my hunger, I would gain weight to an unhealthy level. (By the way, there is empirical data to support this theory :>) -
So, people aren't gaining weight to an unhealthy level in the developed world?
-2) Why should I act morally?-
Because you will get punished if you don't. Because helping others makes us feel good and socially connected. Because of reciprocation. Because we have more than we need.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 14, 2009 8:44 AM
So, Knockgoats, you then went on to say that the rationale for morality... "is, simply, the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help."
What about my own interests? Sure, in a vacuum, I might be concerned about the interests or preferences of another. But what is the rationale for setting aside by own interests and prioritizing the interests of another? - reswat
Unless I've missed it, you have not said what you mean by "rationale". Could we paraphrase your question above by rephrasing it:
"Why is it in my interest to set aside my own interests, prioritizing the interests of others."?
If so, yhe answer is, of course, that it isn't. But if you mean by "rationale" what it usually means, i.e., what one hopes to achieve by doing something, then benefiting others is the rationale for prioritizing their interests. (More precisely, it is at least part of the rationale: it may also be that one hopes to feel good about oneself.)
You appear to assume that self-interest is rational. It isn't: this is just a piece of capitalist ideology (ideology in the Marxist sense of a belief justifying particular socio-economic arrangements). Rationality only comes into play when determining how (or if) a particular top-level goal or set of goals can be achieved: not in determining what those top-level goals should be. Most people have, as top-level goals, both self-interest, and the interests of others. When these clash, we cannot determine rationally which should be preferred, unless we have already decided on a way to make such decisions. In practice, few if any people do this: in most cases, we follow habit or social expectations, sometimes we do go through an extended process of making a decision in which rationality plays a part - but it is never the whole story. If you really believe people are wholly rational decision-makers, you are extraordinarily naive.
Knockgoats said this, that the rationale for being moral...
"is, simply, the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help."
To me, looking out for... "the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help" is a decent definition for what morality is.
If you agree, then isn't he just saying that the rationale for being moral is to be moral?
No: "the interests or preferences of others" are not the same as "looking out for the interests or preferences of others". The interests and preferences of others are by definition external to the individual; looking out for those interests and preferences is a course or principle of action followed (or not) by the individual. Are you really unable to see the difference?
As someone noted, you truncated my point: that any further attempted justification or rationale either reduces to self-interest, or to obedience to authority. I notice also that you never gave us your rationale.
As Knockgoats already indicated, a behavior that has blindingly obvious survival advantage for a species, like altruism, does not require a "rationale" - Eric Saveau
No, that's not what I said, and not what I think. Again, this confuses the causal explanation for our altruistic tendencies, with what individuals hope to achieve by acting altruistically. The latter is (to the extent they are acting altruistically), some benefit to others.
There are two related questions here:
1) Why do I feel the urge to be moral?
2) Why should I act morally? - reswat
The "should" in (2) is ambiguous. If it is a moral should, then it is an analytic truth that you should act morally - it is true simply by the meaning of the words, like "A square has four sides". If it is what might be called a "prudential" should (why is it a shrewd move to act morally? why is it in my interest to do so?), then the answer is that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Welcome to the real world.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 14, 2009 8:47 AM
The whole of the following should have been italicised:
Knockgoats said this, that the rationale for being moral...
"is, simply, the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help."
To me, looking out for... "the interests or preferences of those the altruist is trying to help" is a decent definition for what morality is.
If you agree, then isn't he just saying that the rationale for being moral is to be moral?
Posted by: reswat
|
October 14, 2009 1:45 PM
knockgoats,
I suspect that we ultimately arrive at different conclusions, but I feel that you at least respond to my true questions.
Let me try to step through your most recent response, because it seems like you raise valid questions:
Focusing on the definition of rationale is a good thing. I think your definition is good:
"what one hopes to achieve by doing something"
So, my question "What is the rationale for being moral" could then be rephrased "What does one hope to achieve by being moral."
You said this,
"Most people have, as top-level goals, both self-interest, and the interests of others."
That is exciting for me to read, because I believe it addresses the foundational issue in this whole discussion. I happen to disagree with it, but at least we've arrived at the root of the issue.
I think you correctly identified an unstated assumption in my post - that self-interest is the top-level goal of each individual. In fact, I would define a rational man to be "A man who always acts in his own self interest." (That definition is nor original to me, but I don't remember who I originally read it from)
If we can't agree on the top-level goal of individuals, I'm not sure how to proceed. That seems to be an axiom.
On another note, you said:
"If you really believe people are wholly rational decision-makers, you are extraordinarily naive."
In no way do I believe that people are wholly rational. I am only trying to discuss what a person would do if he were rational.
As to what I believe? I'm sure you've detected that I'm a foreigner in these parts. I am a Christian, but my ideas often get me in trouble with my fellow Christians. Specifically, my definition of a rational man (see above) is offensive to many Christians.
Here is my justification, which is a verse from Hebrews:
"Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."—Hebrews 12:2
This verse says that Christ did what he did "for the joy set before him." So, I believe that even Christ himself sought to maximize his own self interest.
This idea runs throughout the Bible. If you were to read the Sermon on the Mount, you would find Jesus appealing over and over again to the self-interest of the listener. Just one example, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"
Who would that appeal to? Those who desire the kingdom of heaven. And desiring the kingdom of heaven is definitely a self-interested desire.
I suspect there will be a fair helping of disdain directed at me, based upon this post. I'm not too concerned about that, but I would be interested in hearing your response.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 14, 2009 1:52 PM
As I suspected, Reswat needs his fiction babble and imaginary deity in order to be moral. What a boring twit. The fact that we don't need those unreal and unnecessary crutches makes us much smarter than him. (Mean enough for you?)
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 14, 2009 2:42 PM
@Knockgoats -
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
October 14, 2009 2:44 PM
Gah. Blockquote fail; only the first line should blockquoted.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 14, 2009 4:11 PM
reswat (#172)
Why? What real-life evidence is there for this?
How about by methodically observing reality and seeing which of us is more closely describing that reality?
If he were rational according to your definition (which hasn't been established), he could never be moral. So if you value morality, you must think there's something to rescue man from immorality that is other than the rational. Unfortunately for you, we do not agree with your premises, thus you fail from the outset in demonstrating the necessity of this "other" thing which will make us act in the interest of others.
Do you know how absolutely un-special that makes you? Religion is, in many ways, quite flexible, and every believer personalizes his or her religion to some degree. No, really.
The Bible cannot provide justification for anything.
Your persecution complex is un-special as well. I always get the impression, when your lot* says this sort of thing, that you enjoy the disdain. However, your intentions were guessed from the start, so don't think that identifying yourself as a Christian will now garner you any particular scorn.
Not that you don't deserve scorn. You're asking questions based on preconceptions we don't share and you reject answers that do not buy into your personal understanding of the world. Having been made aware of this, you are at a loss to figure out how we should decide whose understanding of the world is more accurate, though you're posting on a blog site devoted to science. You try turning to Bible quotes, something guaranteed not to impress a pack of science-minded atheists, especially when you admit yourself that your interpretations are unorthodox. So it is your continued obtuseness and intellectual vacuity that earns you disdain.
If you want to remedy that, try convincing us that your premise that a rational man is one who is predominately self-interested is accurate and not a theology-serving assumption backed only by your cherrypicking of the Bible and observations of your own nature.
*By "your lot" I mean you religious folks who come here and hide or gloss over your religion while trying to provoke particular answers or reactions out of the regulars.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 16, 2009 5:16 PM
Eric Saveau@174,
Sorry, I see you understandably interpreted my "No, that's not what I said, and not what I think.", as indicating that I was offended; I wasn't really!
reswat,
In fact, I would define a rational man to be "A man who always acts in his own self interest."
Well, you are... what's the word? Ah, yes, wrong: the word you want is "selfish", or possibly "psychopathic". Buy yourself a dictionary. Rationality is either about choosing appropriate means to your goal (which may be selfish, altruistic, masochistic, spiteful, whatever); or adjusting your beliefs according to the evidence.
As I noted before, equating "rationality" with "self-interest" is a piece of capitalist ideology, its function being to suggest that as everyone is (or at least ought to be) selfish, no-one has any cause to complain about the behaviour of the rich and greedy. Although the primary ideologues of capitalism, the neoclassical economists, usually go through what I call the "neoclassical shuffle": saying "Everyone is self-interested" - and tacitly assuming this means "selfish", as it does in everyday language (and as is required for their analyses to go through successfully); but, when challenged with evidence of altruism, retreating to the formulation that of course among their interests may be a genuine concern for others - so "self-interested" just means "trying to achieve their goals".
[Aside: Folks - here we have a very rare specimen: a Christian Randroid! Quick, get the killing jar and the pin!]
Posted by: Butters | October 16, 2009 6:02 PM
What are you saying? Aren't dogs created by God too?
Posted by: Mike Schilling | October 16, 2009 6:07 PM
I wonder what church the heroic dog attends?
Ruff doesn't havta go to church. Dogs are already good. -- Dennis the Menace.
Seriously, though, there's lot of evidence of dogs acting heroically (though usually to save its master or a family member). Why does this one in particular disprove the existence of God?
Posted by: Tom Roland | October 16, 2009 6:36 PM
Andrew Sullivan: "PZ needs to chill out. Saint Francis knew this a long time ago. There is a divine marker in all living creatures."
See PZ? God sent you that video just to watch you make a fool of yourself? He's still chuckling.
Posted by: Paul | October 16, 2009 7:12 PM
I was wondering if I was the only person that read "That definition is nor original to me, but I don't remember who I originally read it from" as "I heart Ayn Rand but know better than to say such in civilized company".
As an aside, Christian Randroids are the only type I've ever met. But then, I'm in the good ol' US of A and Randroids are pretty common among Republicans that managed to get through college in a major other than Business.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 16, 2009 7:22 PM
Andrew Sullivan: "PZ needs to chill out. Saint Francis knew this a long time ago. There is a divine marker in all living creatures."
And we should care what the twit sullivan says because....?
Posted by: Some guy | October 16, 2009 7:33 PM
So, let me lay this out as a syllogism:
Dog helps other dog.
Ergo, there is no God.
I left a space for the phantom premise that will make this thing Venn-proof. Bang up work, perfesser.
Posted by: VCubed | October 16, 2009 7:55 PM
Very touching, the moral of the video narrator though, is that there are too many uncared for strays in the streets, thus altruistic-beyond-self-interest dogs like these end up being the only ones caring for the injured strays.
The hero dog was struck, no less, and felt he could have been incapacitated or killed, and still got up again and braved the cars again to stand in the middle of cars narrowly missing him/her and his/her rescue every step of the way.
In Chile, here, and everywhere, people are definitely at least as selfish as the least altruistic dogs. We buy purebreds despite awareness of the cruelty and profit in puppy mills, and we let thousands of dogs, cats and other pets die of neglect, or by euthanasia lonely and scared, or in a chaos of despair with fellow discards in gas chambers, every single day.
The only diff I see between animals and us is that we rationalize self-interest with reams of dead trees or megabytes, masticating to death the justifications for ignoring so much suffering, blaming it on a disconnect with "god", faulty or efficient evolution, whatever, rather than take actions that are difficult and costly to help solve the problem. Thank creation - by whatever means - that animals can't pontificate, at least not in any way we understand, to rationalize their worst actions.
What this and like videos make me feel is: I want to get enough dough to start or support a foundation and rescue much more than my 2 dogs and cat rescues, to start a neutering/spaying revolution around the world, and eliminate every single breeding facility until every stray has a home. And yes I say that against my own self-interest, an utter obsession w/my chocolate Lab that I only adopted over a mutt because she was on her third-strike at the pound - she actually scared me at first. Now, and for over 9 of the 10 years we've been together, I wish I could clone her to have with me always. That's irrational, to want to hold on to a living thing forever when one of us will die eventually, and to feel that only another just like her is the only "replacement". There are no replacements, our relationship flourishes only with mutual altruism and selfishness that actually benefits us both.
Besides the symbiotic health benefits from petting and hugging her big brown self, and snuggling with my little almost-always amped mutt, I moved from a very comfortable city setting for my lab. She is old, she was limping and falling and getting lumpy as labs often do. She was panting in even northern CA heat. I have arthritis that incapacitates me, but I moved north in hopes of prolonging her life with a little cooler comfort. I found a super-pet-friendly studio with an elevator, but culturally relatively alien and, without a car, isolated place for us to live, and added a rescued cat to the mix. The cat's affectionate in his feline way, because he feels safe and cared for after months in unfriendly makeshift homes.
My Lab has flourished, seems years younger, with cool beach walks, trails, clean air from frequent rain and nearby forests (and more expensive food and mineral additives). Naturally I miss family and friends, the cultural mix of city life, but the fact is this is a much more peaceful, rejuvenating place to live, arthritis and all, and I think I've prolonged all of our lives. Moral to the story: If it's not fit for a dog, it's not fit to live there.
Of course altruism improves our own lives. Sheer logic doesn't prove it, but living it does. Altruism costs money, time, personal sacrifice, it isn't rewarding every moment. Just, often enough to be worth it. And it's addictive in the best possible way.
Posted by: Matunos | October 17, 2009 2:51 AM
Just to play a bit of Devil's advocate here... What's to say these two dogs weren't related? If they were, couldn't the altruistic behavior be explained not so much as "being good" but "protecting my relative's genes"?
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Rod | October 17, 2009 3:24 AM
I just upbraided Sullivan, whom I agree with, because I thought he gave this discussion short shrift, pronouncing that Saint Francis had the final word 800 years ago and there is no more to be said.
In this day and age -- given that Creationism exists solely to separate our divinity from the alleged non-divinity of other creatures -- I think there is unfortunately much to be said to the religious fundamentalists out there of all stripes. With apologies to the early poster in this thread who misspelled the concept, Occam's Razor dictates that the most obvious, simple explanation is generally the correct one. I believe that to be the case here. The explanation, as Saint Francis said, is that all God's creatures who display grace have that divine marker. If you've ever looked a loving pooch in the eye, you'll know what I'm saying. If not, you'll probably never understand. And religious fundamentalists will absolutely never understand. Because in their minds, we could never be related to the 'beasts in the field'.
We are the 'beasts in the field'; our dogs are 'the beasts in the field;, and all are equal in the Creator's eyes. That divine marker, which seems so obvious to me? It's that word that is now apparently so nasty among those on the right: Empathy.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 17, 2009 7:29 AM
Mike Schilling, some guy
Look you fuckwits: there is no claim this disproves the existence of God. It shows that morality is a natural feature of the behaviour of social animals, and does not need a religious explanation. Got it now?
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 17, 2009 7:34 AM
Rod,
Don't. Be. Silly. The original form of Ockham's razor (either spelling is correct) was "Do not multiply entities without necessity". There is no need to posit an invisible, intangible, yet infinitely powerful entity to explain empathy in social animals.
Posted by: Joel | October 17, 2009 8:43 AM
If you do not see God here, you never will. THERE is "God." "Must a Christ perish in every generation for those who have no imagination?"-- Shaw
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 17, 2009 8:54 AM
Why don't you dwell on the real problem of that statement - which is why Christ had to perish at all; the Christian god could have chosen to forgive humanity without anyone having to suffer torture, humiliation and execution - and then get back to us.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 17, 2009 9:04 AM
Sorry, no evidence for deities as being anything other than a construction of man's imagination. They are all fiction.Posted by: Knockgoats | October 17, 2009 9:14 AM
If you do not see
Goddog here, you never will. JoelThat's some profound dyslexia you have there, Joel!
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 17, 2009 10:17 AM
Are we still getting idiot invaders from Andrew Sullivan's blog?
Might as well take this moment to correct the Christian Randroid's deliberate misunderstanding.
I thought that sounded suspicious; it doesn't accord well with Christian theology. I checked Oxford's Revised Standard Version, and it has a footnote:
"For the joy, may also be translated 'instead of the joy' (of unbroken life in heaven, Philippians 2:6)"
The Geneva Study Bible offers a similar interpretation:
"While he had every type of blessedness in his hand and power, yet suffered willingly the shame of the cross."
The only bible version I know of which translates this correctly in the text, rather than in a footnote, is Young's Literal Translation, which says:
"looking to the author and perfecter of faith -- Jesus, who, over-against the joy set before him -- did endure a cross, shame having despised, on the right hand also of the throne of God did sit down;"
But how do I know this is the correct interpretation? Easy. The Greek word in question is word G473 in Strong's Concordance, anti. It usually means "over against, opposite to, before, instead of, in place of." And this is the only way it makes sense in Christian theology.
If Jesus died on the cross for his own joy, then it was not a sacrifice, and without a sacrifice, Christians like reswat are not saved from their sins.
But if Jesus died on the cross instead of his own joy, joy to remain in heaven and sacrifice nothing on earth, then he suffers as a sacrifice in place of Christians' own suffering, and believers are saved.
I don't know why so many translators have been so careless. Most of them could not have anticipated that someone like reswat would overlook the constant theme of sacrifice. They probably figured that Mark 14:32-36 ought to have been obvious enough.
But reswat has made for himself a theology of damnation. By fixating on this mistranslation of the word anti in one verse of Hebrews, he has constructed an anti-Christ theology. He will not be saved by God's self-interest. Only by God's unwarranted and unfathomable grace is the Christian saved from hell.
Posted by: David | October 17, 2009 11:39 AM
To the moral argument of dogs' souls--worth checking out
Posted by: David | October 17, 2009 11:49 AM
sorry-here is the link: http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/dogheaven.asp
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 17, 2009 11:51 AM
FREE DOG SOULS WITH CONVERSION
That was great, David.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | October 17, 2009 12:35 PM
It shows that morality is a natural feature of the behaviour of social animals, and does not need a religious explanation.
You generalize from one incident to "morality is a natural feature of the behaviour of social animals" and call me a fuckwit? Whatever. The ironic thing is that you probably think you're being "scientific".
"Everyone generalizes from one example. At least I do." -- Steven Brust.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 17, 2009 12:39 PM
"Must a Christ perish in every generation for those who have no imagination?"-- Shaw
Anybody got a hammer and nails?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 17, 2009 12:52 PM
The Objectivism discussion upthread reminds me of a conversation I once had with my economist brother where he tried to convince me that economics had conclusively proved that there was no such thing as true altruism.
The argument goes that people are, consciously or subconsciously, motivated by maximisation of 'utility' (utility is employed here as a term in economics. Actions that maximise a personal sense of wellbeing or happiness are considered to have utility. One can also have collective or systemic utility, or so I am told). So far as I can tell, the ideas of 'utility' and randian 'rational egotism' are prety much interchangeable.
If a person performs an action that is, on the surface, inconsistent with their rational self-interest such as an act of seeming altruism, this is in actual fact performed in pursuit of oblique self-interest. Either it is done as a function of reciprocity or it is done in order for an individual to enhance their own self-image and thus improve their mental state. According to this world view, as human beings we are fundamentally incapable of truly selfless altruism. We may think we genuinely care about the well being of others but this is in actuality a self-delusion. Every single action is directed toward the narrow goal of self-interest even if we are not aware of the fact. Utility rules all human interaction. Anything that seems to contradict this is illusory.
I must admit that I was not really convinced by this statement. At all. I asked for further evidence of this position. Since my brother stated this position as an absolute truth, I asked for proof drawn from other fields of study such as psychology or, preferably, brain chemistry and neuro-science that demonstrated conclusively that any sensation of altruism was merely psychological camoflage for an expression of self-interest.
He responded that such evidence was not necessary since all other fields were lesser disciplines. He went on to explain that economics was not a human construct or an intellectual tool but a fundamental expression of the nature of the universe that predated mankind itself. The terms 'God Concept' and 'Master Discipline' were bandied about.
I may have become a little annoyed at this juncture.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 17, 2009 12:52 PM
If you think this is the only incident of altruism among social animals, then you might be a fuckwit.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 17, 2009 1:43 PM
You generalize from one incident to "morality is a natural feature of the behaviour of social animals" and call me a fuckwit? - Mike Schilling the fuckwit
Of course I'm not generalising from one incident, fuckwit. Try putting: animals altruism
into google scholar, fuckwit.
Spend a while reading what comes up.
Then come back and admit you're a fuckwit, fuckwit.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 17, 2009 1:45 PM
Sorry, fuckwit:
"Spend a while reading what comes up.",
should have been:
"Spend a while reading what comes up, fuckwit."
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 17, 2009 1:57 PM
"imagination", indeed. In Fact though, right now would be the PERFECT time to get oneself publicly crucified. and this time, it would be good to remember to write down whatever one has to say personally, in triplicate, with a safe hard-drive backup. And some video evidence, and an autopsy pre-resurrection and a medical examination post-resurrection.
That should sort out all the Doubting Thomases. Unless of course one doesn't REALLY want everybody to believe. or one doesn't exist.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 17, 2009 1:57 PM
Gregory Greenwood,
Your brother is a victim of neoclassical indoctrination. There is research showing that taking a degree in economics actually alters behaviour in situations such as the "Prisoner's dilemma", so that those who have taken one act less cooperatively than those who have not - and the difference does not appear in those beginning such courses. I'll find the references - they are in a review paper I wrote some years ago.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 17, 2009 3:57 PM
Mike Schilling (#179)
It doesn't. Care to try engaging the actual arguments now? Thanks.
~*~*~*~*~
Matunos (#185)
What's the difference?
~*~*~*~*~
Rod (#186)
It's true; confirmation bias tends to fail if one doesn't share your biases.
Yeah, because it's way more complicated to say that empathy evolved because it boosts the inclusive fitness in social animals. Oh, wait, it's actually a lot more simple than to say an entity you can't even define coherently created everything equally with some animals more equal than others.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 17, 2009 4:13 PM
Knockgoats @ 204;
That sounds like extremely interesting research. I did notice a sharp alteration in my brother's behaviour when he took the degree course. He was always self-confident, but he became increasingly supercilious and even arrogant over time. Now that he has completed his PhD, these traits seem to be becoming less prenounced. He is also less fixated upon the accumultion of wealth as an end in itself. I have no idea if the research you mentioned would predict these behaviours or not, and it is eminently possible that my brother's experience is not indicative of general principles, but it would be very illuminating to see if the paper in question could shed any light on this.
I will just have to avoid mentioning this to him. I am not sure if he would appreciate the idea of economics being comparable to a cult in any respect.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 18, 2009 4:45 PM
Do you honestly think this is the only incident ever showing that animals can behave altruistically?Posted by: Knockgoats | October 19, 2009 10:46 AM
Gregory Greenwood,
The promised references:
Frank, R.H., Gilovich, T. and Regan, D.T. (1993) Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(2):159-171.
Cadsby, C.B. and Maynes, E. (1998) Choosing between a Socially Efficient and Free-Riding Equilibrium: Nurses versus Economics and Business Students. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37: 183-192.