altruism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2017, 04:47 PM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 12:43 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 07:30 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Actually altruism is observable in nature friend.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

As I said before trying to prove altruism by observing animals is like trying to prove that circumcision prevents STD's by comparing statistics from the USA to African countries instead of European. There is no way to question an nonhuman species about it's hierarchy of values.
What are you getting at?

You made it seem as if altruism is a human construct.

It is not.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 04:51 PM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 01:22 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 12:43 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As I said before trying to prove altruism by observing animals is like trying to prove that circumcision prevents STD's by comparing statistics from the USA to African countries instead of European. There is no way to question an nonhuman species about it's hierarchy of values.

Animal behaviorists spend their careers studying animals. I tend to place more weight in their understanding of them than you, who obviously has not. If you did spend a little time doing actual research on this subject you might change your limited conclusions.

But no, you'd much rather assume you're correct (without any evidence) and ignore anything that you don't agree with.

Your kind is a dime a dozen. Drinking Beverage
What a clown.

You think I just made up altruism being observable in nature without actually researching if it was true.

Sad.

Orca

Wolves

Ants

Bees

Dolphins

Some are even cross species altruistic.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 04:52 PM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 01:22 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 12:43 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As I said before trying to prove altruism by observing animals is like trying to prove that circumcision prevents STD's by comparing statistics from the USA to African countries instead of European. There is no way to question an nonhuman species about it's hierarchy of values.

Animal behaviorists spend their careers studying animals. I tend to place more weight in their understanding of them than you, who obviously has not. If you did spend a little time doing actual research on this subject you might change your limited conclusions.

But no, you'd much rather assume you're correct (without any evidence) and ignore anything that you don't agree with.

Your kind is a dime a dozen. Drinking Beverage
Your kind is a dime a dozen. Drinking Beverage

Likewise.

And no... If I was like them they would accept me as such.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 05:10 PM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 04:51 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 01:22 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Animal behaviorists spend their careers studying animals. I tend to place more weight in their understanding of them than you, who obviously has not. If you did spend a little time doing actual research on this subject you might change your limited conclusions.

But no, you'd much rather assume you're correct (without any evidence) and ignore anything that you don't agree with.

Your kind is a dime a dozen. Drinking Beverage
What a clown.

You think I just made up altruism being observable in nature without actually researching if it was true.

Sad.

Orca

Wolves

Ants

Bees

Dolphins

Some are even cross species altruistic.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Why are you quoting me? BlkFnx is the one who believes altruism is from religion and not found anywhere else.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 06:47 PM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 05:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 04:51 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  What a clown.

You think I just made up altruism being observable in nature without actually researching if it was true.

Sad.

Orca

Wolves

Ants

Bees

Dolphins

Some are even cross species altruistic.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Why are you quoting me? BlkFnx is the one who believes altruism is from religion and not found anywhere else.
I'm guessing I miss understood your post, and/or didn't actually read all of it.

I am terribly sorry; I didn't realize you weren't against the position I had posted initially.

My haste is deserving of the humility; may it serve as a lesson for me.

Thank you for not lashing out in like kind. Showing what so few uhm...."religious" would believe; that being that morals can be and are generally intrinsic; and it is adrift societal norms that focus on greed and entitlement.

Again; sorry for the confusion on my part. Typical

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 07:20 PM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 06:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 05:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Why are you quoting me? BlkFnx is the one who believes altruism is from religion and not found anywhere else.
I'm guessing I miss understood your post, and/or didn't actually read all of it.

I am terribly sorry; I didn't realize you weren't against the position I had posted initially.

My haste is deserving of the humility; may it serve as a lesson for me.

Thank you for not lashing out in like kind. Showing what so few uhm...."religious" would believe; that being that morals can be and are generally intrinsic; and it is adrift societal norms that focus on greed and entitlement.

Again; sorry for the confusion on my part. Typical

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

It's ok.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
05-07-2017, 08:04 PM
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 12:39 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 10:56 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So it's a process?

Consider


Oh! It's a baseline?

Huh


And now it's an abstract?

Unsure

I think you're better off leaving 'Q' out of this.

This forum has had a history with Q and it wasn't pretty.

Laugh out load

No joke when i finished reading your response I actually said out loud "Holy shit you got it". You nailed exactly the problem I have when when people try to prove altruism. I honestly cannot understand why people feel the need to hold onto altruism with a death grip when things are explained without it just fine. I am dead serious about this. Atheists would never let Christians get away with the shit arguments that are used to defend god. And they are the exact same arguments when you get down to it. "It works just as well with or without it."

Thanks. Any time.

Gotta say, it took me a while to parse the various elements of the OP and various meanderings since. But boiling it down, is it not simply that you reject the construct (label) of "altruism" in favour of "reciprocal altruism"?

In which case, why didn't you say so?

It's confusing because of the mix of information layers: Semantic vs. Pragmatic vs. Social World

So, if you are placing "altruism" and (to use your comparison) gods/goddesses in the Social World layer, well, cool and everything. Although for future reference, it would have been beneficial, for your audience, to have addressed the Semantics first.

As an aside, I see that you've recently received a negative rep point that refers to the Syntactic layer. Almost like you're going for the full set.

Protip: Moms is the one with ultimate control over the Empirical Layer.
Do with that information what you will.

Rolleyes Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
06-07-2017, 04:59 AM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2017 05:08 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 08:04 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Thanks. Any time.

Gotta say, it took me a while to parse the various elements of the OP and various meanderings since. But boiling it down, is it not simply that you reject the construct (label) of "altruism" in favour of "reciprocal altruism"?

In which case, why didn't you say so?
This is one of those yes and no things. It's not just a matter of labels. There are lots of beliefs I have held over the years on a wide variety of topics. I would say that in most cases what I believe now is a variant of things I believed in the past only more refined as new information was gained, and as aspects of what I held to be true were proved false. I believe in a kind of "evolutionary thought" if you will. We live in a multi-verse. There is the actual(objective world), then there is the world as each one of us experience it. The only way to get closer to the actual world is through a scientific synthesis. If I am color blind I may not be able to see the color blue, but I can know it exists.

The reason I say yes and no to your question is because it depends on what the person means. I have zero problem with someone who wants to define altruism as "An action taken which appears to have no benefit for the actor.". This definition is radically different than the hard statement "An action taken which has no benefit for the actor.". The word benefit is a value judgment and value judgments are subjective. Reciprocal altruism is an "An action which has no apparent immediate benefit for the actor". This is not a simple "semantic" dispute but has real consequences as I will explain.

Quote:It's confusing because of the mix of information layers: Semantic vs. Pragmatic vs. Social World

So, if you are placing "altruism" and (to use your comparison) gods/goddesses in the Social World layer, well, cool and everything. Although for future reference, it would have been beneficial, for your audience, to have addressed the Semantics first.
I wish I would have done that first. I made some very basic assumptions that ended up turning out not to be true about people on this forum. Making assumptions about communities of people is unavoidable. I claim full responsibility for the assumptions I made, and will adjust them henceforth. (Yes I really do talk like this IRL).
Quote:As an aside, I see that you've recently received a negative rep point that refers to the Syntactic layer. Almost like you're going for the full set.

Protip: Moms is the one with ultimate control over the Empirical Layer.
Do with that information what you will.

Rolleyes Laugh out load
[/quote]
Rep system problem moved here

Sorry that went for longer than I wanted it to. Now to explain why the belief in altruism is an important question for me. Frankly I don't want to explain. I don't care for the nasty comment's I know are about to come after I explain. I think that it is more important that people actually think about the consequences of the idea's they promote and the impact that they have on people. I know it will go unheeded but please if someone has a nasty comment to make please keep it to yourself. If you have an honest question I will attempt to answer it.



The story of how I came to my ethical system.

So here's the deal. I am outside the bell curve and I realized this at a very young age. I don't just mean a little outside the bell curve either. I experience a wide range of emotions, love, fear, hate, joy. From a study that I was involved in some years back I appear to have a very high level of empathy. I also experience remorse (The desire and conviction not to repeat mistakes). There are concepts and emotions however that I don't have. One of the reasons I ended up in the study was because a friend of mine who is a therapist (but not my therapist) asked me to participate in the study after discovered I don't experience guilt. It's not that I don't repress it, it's that I don't experience the emotion at all. It took me a lots of research to believe people actually experienced guilt. Before that I thought it was a mass psychotic delusion. It only made sense, after all if the mass of people could be delusional about the existence of a god why couldn't they be delusional about an emotion?

I am not sure if it's because I don't experience guilt or some other reason but I am amoral. Let me repeat something I said above, this does not mean I don't experience remorse. I am fully capable (and do) look back at past actions and realize that I should not have done or said something. This is not an emotional experience however it is a logical one.

Now when I was young and a Christian being amoral wasn't an issue, I just followed the word of god and I wouldn't suffer eternal torment. When I rejected belief in god however I faced a huge crisis. I was told that the only source of morality was god, only god didn't exist. I also understood that nihilism (I didn't have a name for it) would quickly lead to imprisonment or death. I had a sit down with a youth preacher and he pointed me to altruism. It took me about days of reading an examination to conclude that altruism was the death cult of Christianity without Christ. If people actually lived by that code then the entire species would be dead. When I began to look deeper into it I also noticed who it was that preached altruism and what they were saying about it. What it came down to is the individual is nothing and the group is everything. I was and am incapable of believing this. Not don't want to. Not wont. Can't. It's impossible, I actually tried anyway. The experiment didn't go well at all.

I attempted to adopt a legalistic code next. The law says what is right and wrong. That lasted only a minute when I thought about slavery and the many other laws that have come and gone. Keep in mind that objection at the time was not that slavery was wrong (I didn't have enough information to make that decision), only that what was legal and illegal seemed to be arbitrary. After lots of trial and error I came to the simple conclusion "Don't be a hypocrite". This is a very self centered and selfish ethic. Yet at the same time everything and everyone repeatedly told me that selfishness excluded both virtue and "goodness". I didn't buy what was being sold.

What I would do is imagine the person I liked least in the world was about to do to me what I was considering doing to or with someone else. As time went by my ethic evolved from don't be a hypocrite to include if possible increase the happiness of others. Because of the realization that when people around me were happy I was happier. I don't rape, I don't murder, I don't steal for the most selfish reason possible, because I don't want those things done to me.

Here is why this is important though. What would have happened if I had believed people that being selfish was wrong, or at the very least not possible for the foundation of an ethical code? Nothing very good. I could be a unique aberration yet I don't think so. And if I am not a unique aberration do you really want to go around telling people that selfishness is wrong? If you do then fine. But be aware the consequences are on your head.

Being a good(ethical) person means not being a hypocrite, that is what we as a society need to teach people.

**
My personal relationship with altruism

I have what could almost be described as a morbid fascination with the concept of altruism. People keep telling me it exists and yet I don't see what they keep saying it is. I honestly don't see how it is possible to prove for altruism because one would have to prove a negative. How is it possible to prove that the actor did not in fact perceive some benefit?

When people throw out "look at this animal or that animal that is altruism" it doesn't fit the definition they give. The definition given is that of receiving null or negative benefit. How can you say what a dogs value judgment is? If however what they mean is "An action taken which appears to have no benefit for the actor." then okay that works for me.

**
As to your tip about moms...
Thanks for the knowledge? Not sure it can really change anything though. My first real run in with her was on this particular thread. I have re-read through her first several posts on this thread. In her first post rather than explain why she thought I was wrong or ask me to clarify she asserted that elephants have empathy. While I didn't think it contributed to the conversation I didn't really take issue with her over the comment. Her second post however is where it started to go down hill. Rather than say "If that's the definition you're using then I agree with you, but here's mine." or "I agree with that definition and here's the proof (not assertion).

Now I could be wrong but I just went back over the posts she made here as well as on the christofascism thread. The first time she actually addressed me it was on page 13 of this thread and the post was condescending and amounted to "They are the experts" without addressing my legitimate objections to the experts. While I am sure that if we sat down IRL over a cup of coffee we could have some interesting and productive conversation I find my interactions with her here to be less than fruitful.

That being said while I am/will not deliberately attempt to piss her off, I have very frustrated feeling about someone who insists in speaking past someone they disagree with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: