On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/2/2013 4:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes >> we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best >> interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have >> two main sources: >> >> 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more >> chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The >> exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for >> people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. >> There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects >> are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share >> more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from >> experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness >> and different races with evil. >> >> 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a >> society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the >> individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to >> that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if >> they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a >> positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the >> prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. >> >> All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the >> universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: >> good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. >> >> Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the >> religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings >> that is not supported by evidence. >> > > Isn't it supported by, "In the long term, the DNA of the species as more > chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree." Maybe, if you're willing to wait a couple million years for biological evolution to catch up with modern society. > I think it's useful to distinguish "good for society" or ethics from > "what individuals take to be good". Altruism is good for society but for > individuals it's only good relative to those near and dear to them. The > great problem of cultures is to resolve tensions between what individuals > intuitively take to be good and what works well for nation states orders of > magnitude larger than the tribal societies in which evolution developed our > intuitions. > > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.**com<[email protected]> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ > **googlegroups.com <everything-list%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
