|
| Thread: Altruism is evil |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
posted July 20, 2011 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I do "good deeds" (my meaning) because I "choose" to.
Quote:
Of course you do. But have you ever asked why humans would even think to make such a choice at the expense of their own direct interests?
Don't we always asks ourselves that very thing, whenever we are in that wonderful situation? I've had to sacrifice my own interests to help others, and lately (the last decade), far more frequently it seems. It may seem a simple choice but it is not, it is a "collective or community"-choice versus my own needs. My Faith has taught me that well. The Western world though, <IMO> (when a end-person is on auto-pilot and thinking of the ONE or not weighing results at all) is in direct opposition to yielding to the needs of others, with it's "Be... all you can be", "Me-first"- focus. It's no secret that generally, the Eastern world is more family and community focused than the West. I fear that this is already changing, with the transformation of those cultures to the modern Western one of greed.
A recent realization of mine about my church in the west is "why" it sails wide of the mark of Christ. I think it is because the heart of the Christian message is "others" and the "societal-programming" the western children receive is in direct contrast to such a notion as sacrifice. Furthermore, to those (soft-wired people)the Cross is a defeat and not a victory so why choose that path? <imo> The tragedy of people walking by a dying human on the streets is the result of "only the strong survive" played out in RL.
To me this thread is in serious error. What matters "most" is where people end-up-mentally-residing with decisions. The reasons and arguments pale in contrast to the resulting decision at the end of the mental wrestling match (over time there is not one). Summary= You helped? Yes=good NO? =bad,very bad. Btw, the Yes answer continues with more maturity steps. You helped out, great, get over yourself and move on.
Quote:
Quote:
I mean zero disrepect Corribus but you know how much you get sick of Faith stuff? Well, evolution is just as gag-matic to me.
Quote:
LOL - I don't feel disrespected, but you're wrong that I get sick of Faith stuff. I just get sick of the way it is often presented.
Well I would hope not. Other wise my considerate-caution would have been worthless.
Clarity of dislike...understood...your Modship
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 20, 2011 11:28 PM |
|
|
Corribus, people radically change their **behavior**, which results in a radical change in their health and fitness as well. They chose to get up off the sofa and exercise and thus become more fit. They chose to live a healthier lifestyle and thus became healthier. They did not just **change** their fitness or their health. A genetic change did not cause their change in behavior, thus they were not dancing to their genes.
A human being is complex. He is more than just an clump of genes or an animated body. A mature human is a spirit with intertwined mind, will, emotion, and body. Each "part" contributing to who we are, but no one "part" determining who we are. Our genetic inheritance is perhaps an initial foundation for our behavior but it does not determine who we are. There are many options for building on a foundation. Likewise, we chose what to build on our biological foundation.
There are external forces acting on me and internal forces acting on me. My environment has an influence on me and I have limited control over it. But I will not allow my environment to have determinative control over me. If a gun were held to my head and I were told to renounce Christ or die. I would die. My environment does not control my behavior. My relationships do not control my behavior, though they can certainly be influential. My emotions have an influence on me but I will not allow my emotions to have determinative control over me. My thoughts have an influence on me but my thoughts too must be subject to my will.
I can also chose to internalize forces. I chose my values, my hopes, my dreams, my ambitions through acts of my will. Choosing these things is a big part of choosing who I will become.
As I've pointed out, there are many stimuli acting on a person, both internal and external. I am not destined to act in a particular manner. As a self-aware being I reflect on stimuli, I respond to stimuli and I initiate stimuli. As a responsible self-aware being I chose how to respond to the forces acting on me. I can chose my response to those forces. The many influences on us are not determinative of who we are--they are only stimuli waiting for our responses. I chose who I will be tomorrow by my thoughts, decisions, and actions today.
I am a living rational, self aware being, not a clump of genes. The genes voice their opinion but their voice is but one of many that compete for my obedience. I hear the counsel of the stimuli but I make the final decisions.
____________
Revelation
|
|
tsar-ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 20, 2011 11:50 PM |
|
|
Well the human body is exactly (notice i said exactly) like a computer. Without input there is no output so a computer = to a corpse/husk, it is us that put the body to use, but we are not the body, just like a person who is using a computer isn't the computer.
And without input there can be no defects, in other words nothing goes wrong, nothing can go wrong (excluding decay over-time of-course, but a husk/corpse doesn't feel anything) you only receive problems once a human comes into touch with it, because a human brings the computer to life.
'You are what you eat' is a lovely quote because what you put into your body will either help maintain it or help in it's destruction.
In the end nothing really happens to the person who is using the computer, except what he used the computer for , whether it is a day or 100years.
So if the computer dies does the person using it die?!?!  
And yes the human body is a very advanced (well if god created it then I must say the 'most') advanced computer.
You must learn to use said body to fulfill ones own 'duty' in this 'life', because when it comes down to purpose there is nothing, but that.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 12:06 AM |
|
|
I don't understand what you mean here Ivor... the fact that we make errors doesn't mean we're not part of the computer.
Our body has a genius system of interpreting information which can adapt to a great number of situations... it can see patterns where there are missing features and come to conclusions based on previous experiences... in 90% of the cases it works great, but some times it fails (Which is what we call an illusion, our mind interprets things wrong). Our mind traded the ability to make exact measurements for an ability to adapt to new situations.
I agree that without input there is no output, but can you really name a situation where we are not receiving input from our enviroment to react on? We do not need some inner soul to give our body input, we receive it all the time anyway.
Temperature changes... wind... just the fact that nothing happens is an input as well.
____________
|
|
tsar-ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 12:11 AM |
|
|
I meant that errors can only occour on system/computer if an outside force (i call this input, which is us, but I refer to food and drink as imput aswell so don't get confused  ) doesn't use it properly.
If a computer is left outside for nature to have some fun, who will care? The computer is incapable of feelings or thoughts it is the servant of the will of he who uses it, and yes we are attached to these computers (can't over-state how attached in some cases).
This world is complex and I was just trying to get you to picture a computer in an empty white room .
Quote:
I agree that without input there is no output, but can you really name a situation where we are not receiving input from our enviroment to react on? We do not need some inner soul to give our body input, we receive it all the time anyway.
Urgh I overused 'imput' a little, apologies. Does a corpse look like it cares what the weather is like or how the family is.
If i got a person and drained him of all his blood, then once he 'perishes' I return all his blood. Then there is nothing wrong with said person exept in that 'brief' period of time he 'died', yet all his systems are intact: his brain, his heart, his lungs.
And yet said person doesn't move there is nobody to put the body to work since said person 'died'.
The body is simply a very advanced computer, housing an advanced being that requires a body for certain reasons i'd prefer not to go into. (it is complex and offtopic, also it isn't my place to tell you what your purpose is, I simply see potential in a person which can be associated with one, as I said offtopic and not my place)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 01:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus, people radically change their **behavior**, which results in a radical change in their health and fitness as well. They chose to get up off the sofa and exercise and thus become more fit. They chose to live a healthier lifestyle and thus became healthier. They did not just **change** their fitness or their health. A genetic change did not cause their change in behavior, thus they were not dancing to their genes.
I think you're missing my point. I understand that people are changing their behavior, and I'm not arguing otherwise. Nevertheless, your genetics do determine your physical characteristics (or, at least, their starting point) and your predelection for certain diseases and physical states. I'm saying that moralistic predelections are also determined in a general sense by your genes. No, you're not a slave to your genes, but your genes do define, in some general way, the boundaries of who you are and what you can be. Or perhaps better put, they define who humans are, what they can be, and how they will generally tend to act.
Aside from that, let me say that if all your posts were written in the same kind of reasonable tone as this one was, you'd go a long way toward improving the way other posters react to you.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 02:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I am a living rational, self aware being, not a clump of genes.
I don't think the two are contradictory. You are a clump of genes, among other things. That doesn't mean you can't choose to act as you will.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 05:27 AM |
|
|
@Corribus and Mvass
OK, so we agree that although genes may influence behavior they are not the determining factor in our decisions. Now, tying this in with altruism. Even if people are inclined to help each other as a general rule, there are plenty of people who do not help others or who seldom help others. Some people will go to great lengths to help others while some people will help others only if it does not cause them very much inconvenience. So even if there is a predilection for helping others that genetic stimuli does not force us to help others and is only one stimuli of many competing stimuli.
I propose that one's values, hopes, dreams,and ambitions that he chooses to internalize are far more influential in his decisions than his genes are. Some people are more inclined to help others and go to great lengths to help others simply because they love people. Their choices and actions over the years have transformed them into a genuinely good person. They help others not because of any reward (including feeling good) that they may receive in the process but because they just want to help out of their love for the person. Their desire to help is not one driven primarily by genes but by the character they have built. Who they have become.
Altruism therefore can't be dismissed as something done selfishly or as something done because of one's genetic makeup. Altruism is done by a person because of who he has chosen to become.
Oh, about genetic boundaries--I think our genes limit us more physically than any other way. Well, mentally too to an extent, but not so much for a "normal" person. Our genetic makeup does not limit our ability to develop either a "good" character or a "bad" character. I think those who have become psychopathic serial killers have chosen to become what they became through their choices and actions that they made daily. So too, the "saintly" among us have chosen to be who they are.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:04 AM |
|
|
It's true that they may not be motivated by feeling good, but they are acting in accord with their values - they prefer to help other people over doing something else, and they think that preference is action-guiding. Acting in a way that fulfills your values is selfish. You are acting to fulfill them, and the circumstance that your values happen to favor helping other people is secondary - first you value something, and then you act accordingly.
Quote:
I think those who have become psychopathic serial killers have chosen to become what they became through their choices and actions that they made daily.
I don't think modern neuroscience backs you up on this. Some people are truly insane - they may have no impulse control, or have something else wrong with their brains that lead them to act in a way that should be described as more animalistic than human.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 09:27 AM |
|
|
I can read this as often as I like, I always miss RELEVANCE.
First of all, OP's post title and starting post makes this a MORAL problem: EVIL is a moral term.
However, GENETICS have nothing to do with MORALS. Everything which is genetically pre-determined cannot be described with moral terms.
Example: Let's assume a genetically hard-wirde survival "drive", which could be classified as "egoistic". Since it is hard-wirde, following that drive and AVOID potentially dangerous situations (as opposed to ACTING TO ELIMINATE them) can NEVER be considered evil.
The same is obviously true for the other side: If someone was helping another because it would be genetically determined to do so, it couldn't be classified in a moral way and would therefore be neither good nor evil.
However, it's not that easy, isn't it?
Humans have two contradictory impulses in them:
On one hand there is the individual and their egoistic interests, with the LONE predator at the end of the spectrum.
On the other hand there is the social being that needs to live in community with others of their kind, best symbolized by HIVE species, where the individual is nothing and the "common good" all, the other end of the spectrum.
A typical ego trait is survival drive (or instinct).
A typical social trait is care for the children (which may contradict survival instinct).
Which is the heart of where it gets interesting.
With animals there are obviously pre-defined preferences. A mother will fight for their cubs, even in the face of death.
That's obviously not so for humans. There may be those who would, and there may be those who won't.
To make this short, human behaviour comprises the whole spectrum of possibilities, and what a human actually does and how they behave is depending on the individual preferences of hard-wired behaviour patterns, and these preferences don't have anything to do with genetics at all.
The reason is simply, that, considering that genetics are PURPOSE-oriented - in most situation it's not possible to pre-determine what is best for the actual purpose as soon as there is more than one.
Example: You have 3 "cubs" all still dependant on protection, feeding and so on. One gets in serious danger, but helping it will seriously endanger mom. Now what?
Can there be an automatic decision here (in that a certain instinct kicks in overriding all others). Or does it make more sense to leave it to the discretion of the individual?
The general ability to analyze a given situation and act according to the result makes sense only, and this is important, when it comes with the ability to OVERRIDE any genetic predisposition.
Which means, that ultimately genetics can be reduced out of this equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's take a voluntary firefighter. Obviously, this is service for the sake of the community. Provided the service is done as it should be (and not abused for criminal purposes), it's not only a service for the good of society, sometimes this service will be dangerous and involves to save people from burning houses, risking health and life.
Is it relevant, which motives people have (again, provided there is no criminal action involved)? Is it important, whether a person does it BECAUSE the thrill of danger and the adrenaline kick that may be involved PLUS the fact that it's useful and may save lives? Would it matter, whether someone would do it because he actually LIKES to see things burning (but would nonetheless do anything to put the fire out and never kindle himself)?
I wouldn't think so - it STILL involves risking one's life, and it STILL involves saving the odd life, and that means - keeping all the above said in mind - that we have a rather useful combination of both sides of the spectrum.
Also you have to keep the following in mind: does something like a "general altruism" as in helping has highest priority because I want to help others make even sense? Even if yes - you'd have to start somewhere. And wouldn't it be folly to pick something at random just to prove the point? So you would always start with something specific and be it only because it was near at home...
Lastly, the idea of pure altruism - helping others under disregard of one's own life, health and advantage - might be considered disregard of one's own self and life which - in it's most extreme form - might not be sane.
The trick with all this is THE BALANCE, not the extreme, and good and evil deals with extremes.
|
|
tsar-ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 12:35 PM |
|
|
Altruism is good or evil based on the situation really, trying to form a rule/law around this is pointless, the situation will call for certain measures and this will be looked on as good/evil, I call it a personal necessity (at the time anyhow) regardless of outcome, which people will judge as good/evil, but in the end your the only judge. So no altruism isn't evil.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 03:56 PM |
|
|
@JJ
You know I've never been fond of the terms "good" and "evil", because I feel those are subjective and categorical human value judgements. Nevertheless, though I see what you're saying - you're going to have to work to convince me that what causes us to label certain activities as "good" or "evil" has nothing to do with genes or evolution. You can start with - if it's not evolution/genetics, what is it?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 04:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
You know I've never been fond of the terms "good" and "evil", because I feel those are subjective and categorical human value judgements. Nevertheless, though I see what you're saying - you're going to have to work to convince me that what causes us to label certain activities as "good" or "evil" has nothing to do with genes or evolution. You can start with - if it's not evolution/genetics, what is it?
I'd like to clarify your question - are you asking for my explanation of why people are using the terms good/evil at all (and then somewhat differently, depending on time, culture, situation, religion and so on), or do you ask why (of all things) specific activities are labelled that way (like what? I'd suspect "altruistic" or "selfless" behaviour here).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 04:31 PM |
|
|
Humans appear to be unique in that they make value judgements at all. Other species do not have concepts of good and evil. Most species also don't appear to factor long term consequences into their decisions. They make choices mostly based on whatever the immediate risks and benefits will be, often instinctual. Concepts of good and evil, and quality evaluations of future actions in general, must serve some purpose. If it's not our genetics that cause us to evaluate our activities in this way, then what is it?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 04:46 PM |
|
|
|
I'd feel a bit more comfortable, if we could transfer this into a separate thread. Can you open a new thread, labelled, for example, Origins of Good and Evil or something like that and transfer your last post as a starting post into that one?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 04:53 PM |
|
|
As ever, your wish is my command, JJ. 
To everyone else, please direct posts on this particular topic here, lest we have two threads on the same topic going at the same time.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Altruism is to do something for somebody else."
The quote above is not consistent with the quote below:
Quote:
"Here is the thing: A altruistic action is a action for somebody else, and by killing people for somebody else, without thinking about it, you are doing something that qualifies for some really pure altruism"
Because there are not 2 people in the equation, there are at least 3. There are the one doing something (the altruist), there are the one wanting someone, and then there's the third person who you don't want to kill.
Unless the third person wants you to kill him/her, then by the definition presented, the example seem to not be an act of altruism at all.
Further more, there's not much logic in claiming people to only help others to help themselves. Sure there's a matter of choosing to do what you want to, and you can even call that a purpose beyond helping others, unless that exact choice is based upon helping others and voila, non-egoistic altruism for you.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 06:52 PM |
|
|
OhforfSake: Worst nitpick so far.
____________
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 07:14 PM |
|
|
I think it's an inconsistency between the very definition of a word, which is the basis of the subject of the thread, and the example which is the premise for the entire thread.
You think it's nitpicking?
OT rant ahead:
I even took the time to explain for what reasons I think altruism is not something "evil", and here I mean "evil" by the standards presented by the opening post. So if you dislike my criticism, that's fair, but you respond to an on topic reply to the question you started in your own thread with a off topic reply. That's not very fair, if you ask me. Heck I find it similar to my initial thought when I read the OP, which was:
"You can't be serious, right?"
But that would accomplish absolutely nothing. It'd be very disrespectful, at least as long as I think you're serious, which I do. What would you gain from this? It'd be showing my discomfort in an effortless, yet useless way. Which is exactly what you, in my opinion, did.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 21, 2011 11:57 AM |
|
|
Here is how you do it:
Word means X, so I think the consequences/end results of it is Y.
But I think the word can mean Z, so hence I can also think the consequences/end results is A.
Etc.
If altruism is helping others for the sake of others, it will look good until you realize that it lacks any condition to make sure the end result is good.
If you redefine altruism to something else, for example ACTUALLY HELPING others, or change the condition of "helping others" to "helping all", then one must separate that from the initial word.
____________
|
| |
|
|
