Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 04:18 am, Dan Minette wrote: The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. So it's a bad thing to question authority because it might lead to chaos and anarchy? We'd all better just shut up and do as we're told then. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? L3
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? That makes little sense to me, could you step me through how (pseudo) altruism is circular? It starts with the premise that our characteristics are the result of evolution and therefore altruism must have arise via evolution. It's like arguing that the only reason to have a handgun is to commit a crime, therefore anyone with a handgun must be a criminal. But no one altruistic (or pseudo-altruistic if you will) act by itself is relevant. It is the community that, through religion or other means, began to codify their behavior and became more successful. This kind of behavior is evident to a lesser extent in lower animals - wolves have an alpha male and a pecking order, for instance. Do wolves need faith for their laws? I think we can see this two ways -- that faith is impossible for creatures that are not self-aware, since they cannot distinguish between faith and logic, or that they operate entirely on faith, since they have no awareness of logic! My response to imperfect knowledge is to believe that we should attempt to make it more perfect. Someone else answered similarly. I'm not sure if either of you think it is somehow contradictory to what I wrote, but it certainly isn't. It's like solving any other resource shortfall -- you can lower your dependency on it while increasing the supply. It's not an either/or proposition. There is nothing about faith that calls for one to stick one's head in the sand. Behavior like the church's response to Galileo shows a serious lack of faith in our own intelligence! I don't need faith because I believe it is an impediment. I do not believe that there are valuable ideas that cannot be understood rationally, con you give an example? Again, that's orthogonal. While I would agree that it makes sense that all can be understood rationally, that possibility is only available to an omniscient being. The rest of us don't even have complete access to our own subconsciousnesses, much less the rest of the universe. As a practical matter, we have either have to act with incomplete and imperfect information. I'm about to drink a cup of coffee that may be quite poisonous, but I have faith that it isn't. That's a faith that I surely could justify with statistics, but I don't go around doing that before acting. Perhaps what I'm exercising is better labeled intuition than faith, but what's the difference, as a practical matter? IMO, gods and religion have outlived their usefulness. We need to give credit to ourselves for our accomplishments rather than share credit with what in all probability is a figment of our imagination. Does giving credit to ourselves eliminate a place for God? I don't think it's a zero-sum game... If we use the word faith it should be in reference to ourselves as in I have faith that humanity can overcome it's differences and expand beyond the confines of this one infinitesimal planet. Again, doesn't that leave room for God? I can have the faith you describe and have faith in God. No matter what we discover, the mystery of the very existence of things remains. And if there is spirituality it is the result of many minds with a defined purpose and a laudable goal. Until we know everything, which seems logically impossible, we aren't going to know whether or not that's the whole story. Even if there is a god, it is irrelevant. Perhaps, if we choose. If God exists and choose to affect your life, it won't matter what you believe -- that darn omnipotence! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Isn't the reasonable response to imperfect knowledge to rationally (or scientifically) search for more knowledge, or to work on improving the accuracy of the knowledge you do have? Why do you think a reasonable response to imperfect knowledge is to assume that there exists some divine being for which there is no reasonable evidence of existence? In other words, your response to imperfect knowledge is to make your knowledge even more imperfect. One of my assumptions is that any step towards more perfect knowledge is useful. That is sort of a corollary from my wanting to progress towards a more Culture like society. But apparently, Nick, you don't want to always strive closer to perfect knowledge, you feel better when you add some comforting belief which is actually imperfect, poor quality knowledge. As for your questions, I can't really answer them because they seem to be all based on false premises. I don't recall anyone here posting that their morals were purely logical. I certainly didn't. Mine are subjective. But I have a lot of suggestive evidence that my moral system is a good one for the type of progress that I'd like to see. Did you do a web search or read the link that I posted about Tit-for-Tat strategies in iterated (repeated) game theory problems? In Axelrod's prisoner's dilemma competition, a Tit-for-Tat strategy (basically, with no information, tend to cooperate, otherwise do what your opponent did on the last turn) or slight variations therein consistently won the competitions. This strategy reminds me a lot of the Golden Rule. So, it seems that something like the Golden Rule could be favored by evolution. Is that proof of the superiority of such a moral system? Of course not. But it is highly suggestive to me that much of the reason that humans have come to dominate their environment is because such behaviors evolved in humans. Another way of saying coming to dominate one's environment is progress. So far, such a strategy seems to me to be the best for promoting the most efficient progress. But if I learn of a better strategy, I would certainly be open to changing my own morals. In contrast to this, Dan has posted that his morals come from god. A mystical being for which Dan has no rational evidence of existence, nor any reliable evidence for its goals. Even if such a being did exist, which in itself is an extremely dubious assumption (if I started going around telling everyone that invisible pink unicorns told me how to behave, how long do you think I could stay out of a mental hospital?), without having rational evidence of the goals of this being, how does one know whether one should follow the decreed morals of this mystical being? So, on one hand, we have a moral system based on a stated subjective goal and some suggestive experimental and historical evidence. There is certainly no proof or certainty here, but there is some amount of rationality and empiricism, and also willingness to accept new evidence. On the other hand, we have people who, out of the infinite number of possibilities for which we have absolutely no rational evidence, randomly choose one and say IT EXISTS. It simply does. I can't explain how I know it exists, and you cannot perform any scientific experiment to test its existence, BUT I KNOW IT EXISTS. No evidence can convince me otherwise. Which is the more reasonable system? Don't get me wrong, I can understand why people feel the need for a powerful, all-knowing, benevolent figure in a world of uncertainty. When we are children, our parents fulfill this role. When our race was young, and knowledge and communication were much less, god may have usefully served this role. But children eventually realize that their parents are not all-knowing and all-powerful, and children eventually strike out on their own. I think humanity should have long ago outgrown the need for such unreasonable beliefs -- it is time for humans to start setting their own goals and living their own lives. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Reuter Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:24 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? Isn't the reasonable response to imperfect knowledge to rationally (or scientifically) search for more knowledge, or to work on improving the accuracy of the knowledge you do have? I never said it wasn't. I'm in favor of science, research, etc. I don't agree with head-in-the-sand religiosity. Faith doesn't require one to abandon science, does it? Why do you think a reasonable response to imperfect knowledge is to assume that there exists some divine being for which there is no reasonable evidence of existence? In other words, your response to imperfect knowledge is to make your knowledge even more imperfect. I never said it was reasonable. And I guess I'm not really assuming God's existence. I choose to put faith there, rather than assume it to be true. I'm well aware that I may be in error; I just don't think I am. Call it intuition. One of my assumptions is that any step towards more perfect knowledge is useful. That is sort of a corollary from my wanting to progress towards a more Culture like society. I agree. The truth will set you free, in fact. But apparently, Nick, you don't want to always strive closer to perfect knowledge, you feel better when you add some comforting belief which is actually imperfect, poor quality knowledge. Phooey. I've said quite the opposite and I believe quite the opposite. Did you do a web search or read the link that I posted about Tit-for-Tat strategies in iterated (repeated) game theory problems? In Axelrod's prisoner's dilemma competition, a Tit-for-Tat strategy (basically, with no information, tend to cooperate, otherwise do what your opponent did on the last turn) or slight variations therein consistently won the competitions. This strategy reminds me a lot of the Golden Rule. So, it seems that something like the Golden Rule could be favored by evolution. I've read about everything Axelrod has written, I think. And quite a bit more on game theory, not to mention chaos and complexity research. The more I know about math, biology, etc., the more I'm nonplussed by the arguments against religion. In contrast to this, Dan has posted that his morals come from god. Did he say that, or did he say that he's trying to follow divine teachings. I'm doing the latter, but behavior doesn't always reflect it. Being religious doesn't mean that I think I'm doing God's will, it means that I'm trying, and that I'm increasingly aware of how far short I fall. More later, if I have more to say about the rest of your message. No time to read it now -- deadline looms. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:47:42PM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Behalf Of Erik Reuter But apparently, Nick, you don't want to always strive closer to perfect knowledge, you feel better when you add some comforting belief which is actually imperfect, poor quality knowledge. Phooey. I've said quite the opposite and I believe quite the opposite. Wrong. If you believe in god with no rational evidence, then you are adding to poor quality, imperfect knowledge. High quality knowledge is empirically verifiable. Medium quality knowledge could be verified, but it is very difficult. Low quality knowledge, such as blind belief in god, can never be verified (by definition) -- in fact, it isn't really knowledge at all. So you are not consistently striving towards more perfect knowledge, you may be taking 2 steps forward, but you also take 1 step back. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
I Could the Week Anthropic Principle be the hypothesis that the Earth was created in seven days? The world was created in seven days, but it took 14 billion years or so for the OSHA and EPA paperwork to go through. William Taylor - The weak as if I cared princple. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? L3
Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger That makes little sense to me, could you step me through how (pseudo) altruism is circular? It starts with the premise that our characteristics are the result of evolution and therefore altruism must have arise via evolution. It's like arguing that the only reason to have a handgun is to commit a crime, therefore anyone with a handgun must be a criminal. That still doesn't follow, to me. If it is illegal to own a handgun, anyone in possession of a handgun _is_ a criminal (excluding extraordinary circumstances such as someone planted it on you of course). If our ethics are a product of evolution, any manifestations of those ethics, such as altruism, are also a product of evolution. I think we can see this two ways -- that faith is impossible for creatures that are not self-aware, since they cannot distinguish between faith and logic, or that they operate entirely on faith, since they have no awareness of logic! You're right, it's the latter because faith is the more primitive way of dealing with that which is not understood. Does giving credit to ourselves eliminate a place for God? I don't think it's a zero-sum game... If we use the word faith it should be in reference to ourselves as in I have faith that humanity can overcome it's differences and expand beyond the confines of this one infinitesimal planet. Again, doesn't that leave room for God? I can have the faith you describe and have faith in God. No matter what we discover, the mystery of the very existence of things remains. And if there is spirituality it is the result of many minds with a defined purpose and a laudable goal. Until we know everything, which seems logically impossible, we aren't going to know whether or not that's the whole story. I am not particularly anti-religion. I don't think religion in and of itself is evil. In fact, I believe it has made many positive contributions to our civilization. There are wonderfully selfless and compassionate individuals working in the name of their particular religion and they deserve all the encouragement we can afford them. But I do believe that religion is a manifestation of our inability to explain our circumstances, and that the more we are able to understand and manipulate those circumstances, the less we need faith in something to rationalize the unknown. There is no doubt in my mind that some religions, were they to dominate our world, would absolutely stifle progressive civilization. The fundamentalist branches of Islam and Christianity come to mind. I think it is essential that we guard against the ascension of such cults. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way. I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence). I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). I have faith because I am convinced that it leads to greater wisdom than logical processes alone. This doesn't just mean that I accept a lack of knowledge, it means that I believe that some valuable ideas just cannot be understood rationally. Perhaps this means nothing more than the fact that a society is smarter than its individuals and no member can assimilate all that it knows, so we are obligated to accept some of society's teachings on faith or live outside of society. Or perhaps it means that there is a God who has perfect knowledge, to which we have access in a less comprehensible way. I don't know, but I've made a choice and while it isn't the most logical, it is the most life-giving, to paraphrase Rich Mullins. Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. The week one, not the strong one. The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. There is no reason for it to be exclusive. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? No, our behaviors, or at least our tendencies for certain behaviors are genetic. Sorry, that is just the way it is. You might want to silence this idea becouse a few idiots might try and use this in an atempt to lagitimize raceism, but that will not change the reality of it (or the wrongness of racesism). We are what we are -in part- becouse we evolved that way. Like it or not, we all have differnt choices within our own posible range of normal behavior. Once again this does not lagitimize violence or damaging deviancy. But it does mean that differing forms of emotional expression should be tolerated, and that some individuals may be better suited to altruistic behavior than others. It does not mean that each indiciudal does not make their own choices, but that the range of choices avaialble to them on any particular axis may be limited. The further out of the bounds of those limits, the harder it is for that individual to make that choice. How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way. Yes you can. In the extream it is of course rediculous. Of course we do have free will. No one is saying we don't. And yes religion, and the propencity to be spiritual have been shown to increase ~some~ individuals happyness. I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. I se no logical problems above other than your own. (pardon me for saying) First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence). But is that craving from a desire to make things better, and being an instramental part of that betterment a sens of reward, or is it mearly the simple attention, bad or good? I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. I agree with that. I wonder how many here do? For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Why have faith at all? Shouldnt a state of not knowing be the appropriate response to imperfect knowledge? Of course I am not talking about the kind of faith you have in your own abilities or the abilities in others. I am not talking about the kind of wishful thinking faith when you make a decision based on incomplete data, but the kind of faith in a god or some extra-ordinary spiritualism. There are big differences in these kinds of faith. One is social group forming and confidence building, another allows you to stay focused and actually make decisions rather than spinning in an indecisive state. The last however makes no sense to be so I do not know what purpose it might serve. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). Why not simply accept that you do not ~yet~ understand, and the possibility and probability that you will never
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? L3
Nick Arnett wrote: I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? Except that some (most?) things we consider to be altruistic are to some degree, not. This due to the idea that cooperation is beneficial to all and thus selfish to some degree. The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. By that definition, crocodiles are successful. Doesn't the anthropic principal have something to do with intelligence? I'm not sure how I would define success, but it would include factors such as the ability to shape ones development (actually influence evolution), the ability to understand ones environment beyond what is necessary to survive, and the ability to expand ones influence beyond ones original confines. To dominate ones envoronment. The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? That makes little sense to me, could you step me through how (pseudo) altruism is circular? How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way. I have no doubt that religion has contributed to the success of our species. I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence). Yes, pseudo altruism. I volunteer several hours a month, and the work I do is often drudgery, disgusting, and even dangerous, but I have no doubts that the reasons I do so are not purely altruistic. I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. But no one altruistic (or pseudo-altruistic if you will) act by itself is relevant. It is the community that, through religion or other means, began to codify their behavior and became more successful. This kind of behavior is evident to a lesser extent in lower animals - wolves have an alpha male and a pecking order, for instance. Do wolves need faith for their laws? For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). I have faith because I am convinced that it leads to greater wisdom than logical processes alone. This doesn't just mean that I accept a lack of knowledge, it means that I believe that some valuable ideas just cannot be understood rationally. My response to imperfect knowledge is to believe that we should attempt to make it more perfect. I don't need faith because I believe it is an impediment. I do not believe that there are valuable ideas that cannot be understood rationally, con you give an example? Perhaps this means nothing more than the fact that a society is smarter than its individuals and no member can assimilate all that it knows, so we are obligated to accept some of society's teachings on faith or live outside of society. Or perhaps it means that there is a God who has perfect knowledge, to which we have access in a less comprehensible way. I don't know, but I've made a choice and while it isn't the most logical, it is the most life-giving, to paraphrase Rich Mullins. IMO, gods and religion have outlived their
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
At 12:48 PM 7/7/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. The week one, not the strong one. I realize it was a typo, but it got me wondering: Could the Week Anthropic Principle be the hypothesis that the Earth was created in seven days? ;-) If So I Talked About It In Class Tonight Maru --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm answering Erik's message in pieces, because it was extremely long. I' I'll start it with a general question, do people here think that there is rarely a real conflict between one's own interest and the interest of others? - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to a society that almost no one would want to live in. It depends on what is desired from morality. Some are better than others for reaching particular goals, certainly. But, that naturally leads to the question what goals? It's easy to label your goals rational and another's goals as irrational. However, that requires a definition of rational that differs from mine. Rational, to me, involves things like a reasoned deduction from axioms. Typically, in science, we have a model and compare the model with observation. A more general use of irrational is stating a set of priorities and performing actions that are inconsistent with those priorities. An example of this is smoking, while being very concerned about health risks from background radiation. If the small risk from background radiation is important, why isn't the large risk from smoking? But, some actions are arational. Choosing to sacrifice one's life defending another is inherently neither irrational or rational. It depends on one's set of priorities. If one is only concerned with one's own self interest, it is an irrational action: unless the alternative is a fate worse than death. However, if one believes in principals, then those principals can be worth dying for. If everyone went around indiscriminately hurting or killing each other, it would be an awful world indeed. Also, some moralities are parasitic, in that if everyone followed those morals, the desired result would not obtain I won't argue with that, but I don't think that's the question at hand. The question at hand is what will the plusses and negatives for that individual if that individual performs the action in question. You appear to argue that there is no significant conflict between rational self-interest and the greater good for all. I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of different people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self interest is served by considering the needs of others as just as important as one's own), then you will have reduced the question of morality to a question of accurately gauging one's own self interest. But, that premise really doesn't match observation. The question is complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually falsify that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is against it. Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the premise, you have set yourself a very high standard for proof. The existence of win-win situations, where the predominant strategy for the individual benefits all is not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to show that win-lose scenarios do not exist to any significant extent. I seems to me that you are both right, in a way. While it seems reasonable...:) to believe that a set of individuals in a group, all acting on their own self intrests, will ~eventualy~ do what is best for the greater good, the process of getting to that state on any particular axis will not necisarily be good for every individual independently. It has allways been my assumption that Morals (or ethics depending on your deinitions) are an attempt, all be it perhaps often unintentionaly, to direct the group in such a way that progress on any particular axis toward a state where everyoe is acting for the greater good without removing the benifiting for any one individual. No set of morals seems to work tword this end to such a degree that I personaly find stisfactory, but this dous provide a basis on which to compare one set against others. Further more, it is not just the idea as stated which is important for this comparison, but the system in actual practice, emergant properties and all. I have my own code hich I try ad live by, but I must admit that even that code is hard to follow. Hypocracy can create very interesting emergeant properties. So it seems to me that a good set of morals or ethics or..whatever you want to call it, should be constructed with enough insight that it is resilliant to hypocracy. Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 8:14 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? Dan Minette wrote: Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. He had to be taken to the hospital. It wasn't a little risk. I certainly would not have risked my life just so that I could be called a hero on TV. I hope I would have the courage to risk my life so others wouldn't die. The first is nothing more than the type of stupid glory seeking; the latter is heroic. The moment will fade, and he will have few, if any, tangible rewards for his actions. The real reward is that he understands that he did the right thing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:13 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. You are seriously arguing that I'm going to be on TV if this looks good, so I'll risk death is a more likely motive than My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.I know, Gautam risked his life to save another...do you want to ask him if it was a bid for glory? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. You are seriously arguing that I'm going to be on TV if this looks good, so I'll risk death is a more likely motive than My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.I know, Gautam risked his life to save another...do you want to ask him if it was a bid for glory? Read what I wrote, Dan. It is ingrained upon us by our culture that saving others is a good thing. If I were a goat or a chicken, sensed danger and saw a way out (and none of my offspring were threatened), I'd bag ass because nothing in my upbringing taught me that I should help the other chickens, or that it was a good thing. Indeed, many humans (most?) fall back upon these instincts when their life is threatened. Why does he say My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.? Would the stories he's been told from youth about the good guy saving lives - the television shows, the movies, the real life stories on the news at least be a factor? We're taught, hell, _trained_ that to be the hero is the right thing to do and has its rewards. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? humans (most?) fall back upon these instincts when their life is threatened. Why does he say My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.? Would the stories he's been told from youth about the good guy saving lives - the television shows, the movies, the real life stories on the news at least be a factor? We're taught, hell, _trained_ that to be the hero is the right thing to do and has its rewards. Well I certainly wasn't. I was taught to do the right thing because it was right. I was also taught that there was often a very stiff penalty for doing the right thing, but one should do it anyways. The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Faith has nothing to do with it, IMO. Cooperative behavior is successful, that's why we are who we are. Saving lives is a manifestation of cooperative behavior. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:36 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? Dan Minette wrote: The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Faith has nothing to do with it, IMO. Cooperative behavior is successful, that's why we are who we are. Saving lives is a manifestation of cooperative behavior. Right, and raping and pillaging is an example of exploitive behavior. They are both part of human nature. Saving lives is good, raping and pillaging is bad. Now, I can't prove that; its a matter of faith for me. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Because the reason people cooperate is, typically, because they share principals. For example, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People have sacrificed their lives for these principals. It was not a matter of enlightened self interest. They believed them to be true. Now, obviously, they cannot be proven empirically. The question is, do you believe they are true, or not? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: ... Right, and raping and pillaging is an example of exploitive behavior. They are both part of human nature. Saving lives is good, raping and pillaging is bad. Now, I can't prove that; its a matter of faith for me. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Because the reason people cooperate is, typically, because they share principals. Yeah, I remember in High School, we all shared the same awful Principal. We cooperated to make his life Hell... : ) For example, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People have sacrificed their lives for these principals. It was not a matter of enlightened self interest. They believed them to be true. Now, obviously, they cannot be proven empirically. The question is, do you believe they are true, or not? Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:12:18AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! William already pointed out that God is irrelevant to that system as described by Dan. But Dan did not reply. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:12:18AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! William already pointed out that God is irrelevant to that system as described by Dan. But Dan did not reply. Yes, I've got that. But why do we believe in Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or whatever? I read Dan's post as saying that this was also faith. I pretty much agree. So how is it different from deistic faith? It does FEEL different to me, but I can't pin down the difference. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. Doug You know, I voluntere on a regular basis for psitions which might place me in danger and might have a significant benifit for others. (Floor safty warden at work for instance) I don't think I once considered glorification or reward. I also do not beleive that any of my associates consider this either. I know that if I had been in the position of the gentalman in question, I would have felt -responsible- for the lives of those people who didn't know. I would have continued as long as possible becouse of duty and responsability rather than a desire for fame, social status, or reward. It is actualy... shifted down, I would have felt guilty if I hadn't, I would not have been able to live with myself. What I really don't understand is how anyone else could be any different. In my experiance they are not, so I will have to disagree with you. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Faith has nothing to do with it, IMO. Cooperative behavior is successful, that's why we are who we are. Saving lives is a manifestation of cooperative behavior. Right, and raping and pillaging is an example of exploitive behavior. They are both part of human nature. Saving lives is good, raping and pillaging is bad. Now, I can't prove that; its a matter of faith for me. Why can't you prove that? I think that it is rather self evident, but certainly you could set up an experiment to prove the above. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Because the reason people cooperate is, typically, because they share principals. For example, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The reason people cooperate is because they are more successful when they do. I'm sure that you wouldn't argue that cooperative behavior in any of a number of daily endeavors, from making breakfast to a project at your place of employment, is more successful than uncooperative behavior. Morals are just an extension of this basic principal. People have sacrificed their lives for these principals. It was not a matter of enlightened self interest. They believed them to be true. Now, obviously, they cannot be proven empirically. The question is, do you believe they are true, or not? I think that the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming but why couldn't they be proven? You can't conceive of a series of experiments, given adequate time, that would pit a moral societies against immoral ones? Impractical but not impossible. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, I voluntere on a regular basis for psitions which might place me in danger and might have a significant benifit for others. (Floor safty warden at work for instance) I don't think I once considered glorification or reward. So you wouldn't feel rewarded with a perfect safety record? I also do not beleive that any of my associates consider this either. I know that if I had been in the position of the gentalman in question, I would have felt -responsible- for the lives of those people who didn't know. I would have continued as long as possible becouse of duty and responsability rather than a desire for fame, social status, or reward. It is actualy... shifted down, I would have felt guilty if I hadn't, I would not have been able to live with myself. What I really don't understand is how anyone else could be any different. In my experiance they are not, so I will have to disagree with you. But even if your only reward is that you performed your duty, that is still a reward of sorts. And why is it your duty? Because your duty is an example of cooperative behavior and we have learned that cooperative behavior is successful. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? humans (most?) fall back upon these instincts when their life is threatened. Why does he say My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.? Would the stories he's been told from youth about the good guy saving lives - the television shows, the movies, the real life stories on the news at least be a factor? We're taught, hell, _trained_ that to be the hero is the right thing to do and has its rewards. Well I certainly wasn't. I was taught to do the right thing because it was right. I was also taught that there was often a very stiff penalty for doing the right thing, but one should do it anyways. The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Even if one points out that some story or another is a lie or myth, does not effect the reality of right and wrong. If you throw away the crutch of the myths and lies and are left with nothing but the hard reality right is still right and wrong is still wrong. The strength in that is far grater than any strength on can recieve from blind faith. Not only that, but it is infaliable, where as faith is not. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:12:18AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! William already pointed out that God is irrelevant to that system as described by Dan. But Dan did not reply. Yes, I've got that. But why do we believe in Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or whatever? I read Dan's post as saying that this was also faith. I pretty much agree. So how is it different from deistic faith? It does FEEL different to me, but I can't pin down the difference. What if there is not faith involved at all. Doing the right thing makes the world a better place to be, and makes you feel good. Not doing the right thing makes you feel bad, and makes the world a worse place to be. Where is the faith? Faith is a lie told to the un-ivolved to try and get them to mimick the intelegant. An intelegant person has no use for faith. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, I voluntere on a regular basis for psitions which might place me in danger and might have a significant benifit for others. (Floor safty warden at work for instance) I don't think I once considered glorification or reward. So you wouldn't feel rewarded with a perfect safety record? Absolutly. But there is a difference between that and doing it for some public reward. I know that as a waredn I am more likely to die in the building becouse I am valunteering to be one of the last out. But I do it becouse I have seen what happens when everyone simply runs for the exit in panic and without guidance. I also do not beleive that any of my associates consider this either. I know that if I had been in the position of the gentalman in question, I would have felt -responsible- for the lives of those people who didn't know. I would have continued as long as possible becouse of duty and responsability rather than a desire for fame, social status, or reward. It is actualy... shifted down, I would have felt guilty if I hadn't, I would not have been able to live with myself. What I really don't understand is how anyone else could be any different. In my experiance they are not, so I will have to disagree with you. But even if your only reward is that you performed your duty, that is still a reward of sorts. And why is it your duty? Becouse I am capable of keeping my head and others are notSo maybe I do it out of a sense of superiority, or becouse of some alfa or T type tendancies. There is definatly reward in that :) But it seems to be my duty becouse others do not want, or can not perform the function. I was one of the people on my flour who got the calm in face of danger trait whether it is genetic or learned behavior. The knowledge of that makes me responsibile. Because your duty is an example of cooperative behavior and we have learned that cooperative behavior is successful. yes, I know it is the successful model and I am interested in more successful models being reslized. Still I don't volunere becouse I want to be looked on with approval. Having that orange vest hanging in my office is more of a source of ridicule than respect. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
