altruism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2017, 07:01 PM
RE: altruism
(25-06-2017 03:01 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(25-06-2017 02:53 PM)Jeanne Wrote:  You don't think, Szuchow, that prisoners in other nations find religion?

As in find it in prison? I doubt that prisoners in any country finds religion, it seems to my admittedly uneducated eye that they claim to find Jesus or whatever to get better treatment or be admitted into some group.

But what I meant is that theist moral superiority is a myth - one just has to look into American incarceration statistics. I suppose it's the same with other countries but I didn't checked this.

They find God or Allah in prison. It is a big business there, gathering souls for the Creator Deity. And..why not, it looks good for parole. A captive audience that gets a check by their name for attempting to change their behavior. "I was an evil man, but then I found God/Allah and I am a changed person ready to take my place in society."

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2017, 09:50 PM
RE: altruism
(25-06-2017 07:01 PM)Jeanne Wrote:  
(25-06-2017 03:01 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  As in find it in prison? I doubt that prisoners in any country finds religion, it seems to my admittedly uneducated eye that they claim to find Jesus or whatever to get better treatment or be admitted into some group.

But what I meant is that theist moral superiority is a myth - one just has to look into American incarceration statistics. I suppose it's the same with other countries but I didn't checked this.

They find God or Allah in prison. It is a big business there, gathering souls for the Creator Deity. And..why not, it looks good for parole. A captive audience that gets a check by their name for attempting to change their behavior. "I was an evil man, but then I found God/Allah and I am a changed person ready to take my place in society."

Yeah, I'm sorry to both of you, but that's just an outright lie... or an "urban legend", so to speak. The religious programs are (and must be) open to anyone, of any faith, without discrimination... so there are few benefits to joining a religious group. I myself was invited to attend several of the church programs where outside groups brought food or other benefits to the inmate population, and enjoyed some great conversation with some very nice religious people-- those rare ones who actually listen to what Jesus had to say about the visitation and treatment of prisoners.

And Parole Boards don't give a flying fuck if someone claims to have "found Jesus" in prison; in some places, the Board is so cynical that such a claim will actually harm your chance of making parole. That line might sound good in movies, but it's not reality. (Same applies to the myth of everyone claiming they're innocent, on the inside.) I was in numerous prisons over nine years of incarceration, in two states, so I have a pretty good grasp I think of how that does or doesn't operate.

What usually happens is that the person was brought up religious, and once incarcerated, they start reflecting on how they've deviated from the path, so to speak. Most of the religious people I knew on the inside were quite genuine in their approach to religion. On the inside, religion is really something that occurs between inmates of shared faith, not between the inmates and the staff. There are those who come into the prison to spread Jesus (or whatever), but generally, the chaplains and guests of the chaplains are just there to minister to those who seek. There's very little pressure to be religious... there is discrimination if you try to form an openly atheist group, often, because those chaplains are the ones who must approve said groups, and because much of the upper administration (Warden, et al) tend to be religious fundamentalists, but as far as daily practice goes, there's nothing like what you're claiming, above.

On the other hand, the REALLY REALLY religious inmates are often terrifying individuals-- the worst predators often discover the power they can wield among their fellow inmates by talking the Jesus-talk, and it's a pretty good bet that if you see a guy carrying a Bible and talking about Jesus endlessly, he's someone you'd best watch your ass around. Literally.

But for the average inmate, that's simply not the case. The reason most inmates are religious is because most inmates come from low-income, low-education backgrounds... and those people tend to be highly religious, to start with. Once they grow up and the "love of money" outweighs their early religious indoctrination, they turn criminal, and upon incarceration start trying to be better people by falling back on the religious indoctrination of their upbringing.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-06-2017, 10:36 PM
RE: altruism
(25-06-2017 09:13 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  So i made a comment on a post i made about The Good Book about how i don't trust altruism. I don't want to divert that thread but i think its important to address an objection made. This is an area where i seriously have to criticize atheist. So many atheist i have talked to don't read the origins of various ideas and ask "where did this idea come from and why did this person believe it.". Altruism is a Christian idea,and its a bad Christian idea. To define altruism simply its the belief that the only moral actions are those in which the actor gets no benefit. Not only is this unrealistic it is contrary to human psychology. Even if the only reason someone does something is for a sense of moral superiority.

I only help people for selfish reasons. If its someone i know and care about i help them because i want them to be happy. If it is someone i don't know i help them because one day i might need help. I do not trust altruism, or people who claim to act from selfless reasons.

The origin of altruism was an attempt to provide a secular ethic in the context of comte's belief in the fallen nature of man. So many times we atheist either don't question how theist beliefs shape even atheist scientists ideas.

It's difficult to discuss altruism because there are so many different conceptions of what it is. There's the whole biological altruism, which really is self-interested at its base. The idea has been around for a lot longer than the biblical era. I think it does stem from more primitive times when we lived in tribes and serving the tribe really redounded to one's own benefit. You were dependent on the tribe for much of your well being. It is a primitive, pre-rational system. But we don't live a tribal existence any more. we've evolved past that. With the invention of money we now have a much more superior system called trade.

I too believe in helping others selfishly. I must get something out of the deal and it is not always money. It is some value though like admiration, inspiration, feeling like I've acted in accordance with my values. I won't help a bum who hangs out by the liquor store asking for money to buy booze to get drunk and destroy his mind but I will help someone who has had a tragedy or an illness or a premature birth. I don't get an equal return for my money either. I gain more than the money was worth to me, and that's how all human relations should be I think: win-win. The altruist model would say that they should be win-lose.

The morality of altruism, whether it is secular or religiously inspired has one motive: to instill guilt. It has as it's goal death because that is the noblest thing according to it because it is not about living and prospering but about sacrificing and giving up. I prefer the morality of life which is rational self-interest, productiveness, acheivment, good will and achievement of happiness. and yes, helping others when it is appropriate, always as a trade, value for value and never a win-lose proposition. That is the moral code proper to a rational being.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
26-06-2017, 12:39 AM
RE: altruism
(25-06-2017 09:50 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-06-2017 07:01 PM)Jeanne Wrote:  They find God or Allah in prison. It is a big business there, gathering souls for the Creator Deity. And..why not, it looks good for parole. A captive audience that gets a check by their name for attempting to change their behavior. "I was an evil man, but then I found God/Allah and I am a changed person ready to take my place in society."

Yeah, I'm sorry to both of you, but that's just an outright lie... or an "urban legend", so to speak. The religious programs are (and must be) open to anyone, of any faith, without discrimination... so there are few benefits to joining a religious group. I myself was invited to attend several of the church programs where outside groups brought food or other benefits to the inmate population, and enjoyed some great conversation with some very nice religious people-- those rare ones who actually listen to what Jesus had to say about the visitation and treatment of prisoners.

And Parole Boards don't give a flying fuck if someone claims to have "found Jesus" in prison; in some places, the Board is so cynical that such a claim will actually harm your chance of making parole. That line might sound good in movies, but it's not reality. (Same applies to the myth of everyone claiming they're innocent, on the inside.) I was in numerous prisons over nine years of incarceration, in two states, so I have a pretty good grasp I think of how that does or doesn't operate.

What usually happens is that the person was brought up religious, and once incarcerated, they start reflecting on how they've deviated from the path, so to speak. Most of the religious people I knew on the inside were quite genuine in their approach to religion. On the inside, religion is really something that occurs between inmates of shared faith, not between the inmates and the staff. There are those who come into the prison to spread Jesus (or whatever), but generally, the chaplains and guests of the chaplains are just there to minister to those who seek. There's very little pressure to be religious... there is discrimination if you try to form an openly atheist group, often, because those chaplains are the ones who must approve said groups, and because much of the upper administration (Warden, et al) tend to be religious fundamentalists, but as far as daily practice goes, there's nothing like what you're claiming, above.

On the other hand, the REALLY REALLY religious inmates are often terrifying individuals-- the worst predators often discover the power they can wield among their fellow inmates by talking the Jesus-talk, and it's a pretty good bet that if you see a guy carrying a Bible and talking about Jesus endlessly, he's someone you'd best watch your ass around. Literally.

But for the average inmate, that's simply not the case. The reason most inmates are religious is because most inmates come from low-income, low-education backgrounds... and those people tend to be highly religious, to start with. Once they grow up and the "love of money" outweighs their early religious indoctrination, they turn criminal, and upon incarceration start trying to be better people by falling back on the religious indoctrination of their upbringing.

Thanks for explanation.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
26-06-2017, 05:48 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 06:03 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: altruism
(25-06-2017 09:20 AM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:Altruism is a Christian idea,and its a bad Christian idea.

CITATION NEEDED!
Citation needed? I am going to assume good faith. We are adults and the Internet can answer any question almost instantly. A quick search of google or wikipedia on the origin of Altruism will give a general answer. For a more specific answer your going to have to read the original works (Which I have done). Just as importantly though look at who articulated these ideas and their background. Were they religious, what did they believe, can you discern a possible reason for their belief?

It amazes me how skeptics are always skeptical except when it comes to pet beliefs. Put another way is Altruism in fact a good idea? I remind you that the worst socialisms of the 18th and 19th and 20th century had one thing in common. Altruism was at their core.

Quote:
Quote:To define altruism simply its the belief that the only moral actions are in which the actor gets no benefit.

NO ONE's claiming this.
Auguste Comte who coined the term made exactly this claim. Look I'm not saying go on faith, just the opposite. Read the original works of the guy. I have. This isn't second or third hand knowledge. The idea of Altruism being a good thing is spread all throughout our society yet no one is skeptical about it. "oh ya that sounds good." but they never stop to go "Wait? Does that sound good, or is it a nasty idea meant to sound good?".

This idea came out of a time when a non-theist world view was really first emerging on a large scale. Many of the people from this time were either Christian, or Christian Atheists (People who still held to Christian world views while denying the existence of a God). In fact if we go back further to the tradition that the non-theist world view grew out of we see that the Enlightenment thinkers were filled with either Christian Deist, or Christian Atheists. David Hume for example who was a major influence on philosophy and natural science was a proponent of the idea of original sin. He doesn't call it original sin or mans fallen state but instead speaks of mans brutish and bestial nature.

The problem that Comte and the altruists face however is the same one that theists face, they assume the premise. Is man's nature in fact brutish and bestial? Instead of asking that question however they just assume that man is a brutish beast and ask "Since man is a brutish beast how do we all keep from killing one another?". These philosophers do not even try to hide the fact that all they are doing is replacing the higher idea of a god with the higher idea of a State or Society. Again don't take my word for it read them.

Quote:
Quote:Not only is this unrealistic it is contrary to human psychology. Even if the only reason someone does something is for a sense of moral superiority.

The repeated use of the expression "moral superiority" shows ONLY your selfishness and lack of caring about others.
There is a quote from a book called "Jumping off planet" that I really like, "One should always apologize for being right.". There are a few ways that this quote can be taken.
1) That's absurd we should always try to be right.
2) Hmmm... That's an interesting statement. So your suggesting that there is a difference between right, and being right.

Or let me put it this way just because the other guy is wrong doesn't make you right. When someone feels moral superiority what they are saying is "I am better than you because I am right and you are wrong.".

Comte defined Altruism as self sacrifice, doing what was best for "Society" even if it was harmful to the individual. Can you even comprehend the amount of arrogance it takes to presume that you know what is best for a single individual, let alone an entire society. No seriously think about it for just a second. That is EXACTLY what the Christians do. I know what is best for me, and only me. The problems with society can almost all be attributed to positive ethics, "I know what's best for you so I'm going to make you do it even if I have to do it at gunpoint".

I put forward the idea that a selfish negative ethic is not only more rational, but also more just. Instead of "Do unto others" how about we "Do not do unto others".

Here's the thing about positive ethics. What happens when the other guy has the gun? Listen I get it, I really do. When the momentum is on your side, when the power has finally been taken away from the other guy and it's in your hands. It's a rush, and there is this desire to "get a little of my own back". There is a strong desire to hurt the person who hurt you. The problem is that this only feeds the victim cycle. Hurting the other guy doesn't show him he was wrong, it only proves to him he was right, and that he needs to push through to take the power and control back from this evil person who is hurting him.

Whenever you want to take a positive action ask yourself what are the consequences? If you claim a moral right to make people go along with what you think is right, then Christians have a right to impose their morals on you when they are in charge.

something you may want to think about. There is a strong push to get creationism taught in public schools. Have you ever looked at the origin of public schools? The purpose and history of education is not education it's indoctrination. It is religious sects fighting each other for control over who gets to shove their idea's into the heads of children. Then the Altruists came along and inserted themselves into the fight to control the indoctrination, based not on god, but on the fact that we are all cogs meant to serve the higher idea of society.
Read "Under Ground History of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto. Read it and come at it from the perspective of a skeptic.
Quote:
Quote:I only help people for selfish reasons.

Luckily, you ain't the world. Thank our non-existent god.
I challenge you to actually think about what I'm prosing rather than just attacking it. Approach both altruism and the selfishness I'm proposing from a skeptical view point.

Quote:If its someone i know and care about i help them because i want them to be happy. If it is someone i don't know i help them because one day i might need help. I do not trust altruism, or people who claim to act from selfless reasons.

So, what is the selfish reason behind this bastard risking his own life in order to help gangraped women? What a selfish prick, eh?
[/quote]
I cannot say for sure why he did it because I am not him. What I can do is look at what he did and ask "Why would I have done X?".
Selfish prick? I absolutely hope so.

Don't just react, follow my logic.
Here are some cynical reasons he could have acted.
1) He's a good guy.
2) He wanted praise.
3) He is sexist.

1 fails because we run into the circular question of what is good. Or if we take the altruist assumption that good is that which does the most good... well if you need me to I break down why this falls apart but ten minutes thought and the consideration of what happens to the minority ought to answer it. 2 while successful in this case leads to an ethic based on praise at it's root. Do I need to point out how dangerous that is?

Now I actually want to examine 3 in a bit more depth. Of the three answers so far I think if his actions were motivated by sexism this is profoundly disturbing. One of the most sinter and deeply rooted puritanical leftovers which is spread all throughout American society is sexism. There is an obvious sexism which people are rightly outraged about. Then there is a less obvious and subversive sexism. Women complain (and rightly) that they are treated like property. What isn't acknowledge is that men are also property in a "Normal" heterosexual relationship. It this perverse abusive thing where both partners are at the same time master and slave. In more "balanced" (excuse me while I vomit) relationships men control the money while women control the sex. In more "fundamentalist" (again vomit) relationships because the man kills himself working his reward is sex on his terms. In both cases the woman is prostitute. In the first she is her own pimp deciding how much the man must spend before he is granted access, while in the second the man is the pimp.

Men put up with all kinds of crap from women they wouldn't normally put up with from a man in order to get accesses to sex. While women put up with crap they wouldn't from other women in order to gain access to cash. Cynical? Absolutely. Am I wrong? That's the question. Further is what I said sexist in any way? I don't think so. Here's a tip on being less sexist "If this person was the same gender as me how would I act, what would I expect?".

In short if he helped her because she was a woman he is a disgusting human being because that meant he wouldn't have helped her if she was a man.



So now that we've gone through all that, would the man still have done what he did for selfish reasons? Absolutely. Selfishness is defined by doing what is in ones own best interest. Instead of trying to guess what was going through his head let me layout my own thinking as to why I would have helped her. I would have helped her because if I were in the same situation I would want someone to help me. In fact I have been raped and someone walked by me even though they saw what was happening and I asked for help. Now I could go "Well nobody helped me when I needed it.", except I am even more motivated to want to have someone help me if it ever happened again having already experienced it once. In the end I am acting for purely selfish reasons. I want someone to help me. Thank Jupiter(The planet).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 06:19 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 06:32 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: altruism
(26-06-2017 05:48 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Citation needed? I am going to assume good faith. We are adults and the Internet can answer any question almost instantly.

So you shouldn't have any problem with backing your claims. Don't expect others to do your work for you.

Quote:A quick search of google or wikipedia on the origin of Altruism will give a general answer. For a more specific answer your going to have to read the original works (Which I have done).

Which original works?

Quote:Just as importantly though look at who articulated these ideas and their background. Were they religious, what did they believe, can you discern a possible reason for their belief?

Which ideas?

Quote:It amazes me how skeptics are always skeptical except when it comes to pet beliefs. Put another way is Altruism in fact a good idea?

You didn't prove that it is wrong. In fact you just offered assertions and when asked to prove you said what amount to find it yourself.

Quote:I remind you that the worst socialisms of the 18th and 19th and 20th century had one thing in common. Altruism was at their core.

What was especially visible in case of Soviet Union where altruism reached it's heights. Really Holodomor is such great example of altruism that I'm surprised that this idea isn't universally shunned Rolleyes

Quote:Auguste Comte who coined the term made exactly this claim.

So? Comte isn't end all authority.

Quote:Look I'm not saying go on faith, just the opposite. Read the original works of the guy. I have. This isn't second or third hand knowledge.

You realize that Comte definition of altruism isn't only one? He don't have monopoly on the defining of the term.

Quote:David Hume for example who was a major influence on philosophy and natural science was a proponent of the idea of original sin. He doesn't call it original sin or mans fallen state but instead speaks of mans brutish and bestial nature.

Given how bloody is the past from Julius Caesar genocide to Genghis Khan atrocities, from XXX years war to Armenian genocide, from Japan occupation of China to ethnic cleansing in Bosnian war it's hard to disagree with Hume.

As a side note maybe read Steven Pinker The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
26-06-2017, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 10:49 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: altruism
So here's the deal. I'm going to state this upfront. I'm interested in a conversation. An exploration of idea's. If your not that's fine. That being said if your just going to jump to "Your wrong". And not actually challenge me then I'm going to disengage.

Quote:
(26-06-2017 05:48 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Citation needed? I am going to assume good faith. We are adults and the Internet can answer any question almost instantly.

So you shouldn't have any problem with backing your claims. Don't expect others to do your work for you.
Instead of assuming the worst how about we assume the best of each other. I thought I could leave it up to individuals to actually take 30 seconds on Google before they just randomly jumped in with their assertion that I am wrong. Obviously being wrong I will take time to correct that with this gem.

From "A general view of positivism"
The only real life is the collective life of the race; individual life has no existence except as an abstraction.
*as a note what Comte means by race(skin color) is race not species (Human).

Or how about this from the catechism of positive religion
Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?

In just a few minutes I found two quotes and gave you their source. Mind you it's been about a decade and a half since I read Comte's original work in it's entirety. To be honest I don't really have the stomach for it.

But again it's also important to understand who influenced him and how. Thoughts and beliefs do not occur in a vacuum.
Quote:
Quote:A quick search of google or wikipedia on the origin of Altruism will give a general answer. For a more specific answer your going to have to read the original works (Which I have done).

Which original works?
Pick your poison, thought you might as well start with "A General View of Positivism"
Quote:
Quote:Just as importantly though look at who articulated these ideas and their background. Were they religious, what did they believe, can you discern a possible reason for their belief?

Which ideas?
Any ideas including your own. What do you believe. What is the source of this belief? Why do you believe it? Are their alternatives that make more sense? If not why don't they make more sense?
What does comte believe? Why does he believe it? What is the source of his belief? What was happening in the world around him at the time and how did that effect his thoughts?

What we are looking at is not only A thought but the history of that thought and how it came to be, otherwise we are attempting to understand a work out of time. By that I mean we impose a modern societal view, "The world is this way today so it will be this way tomorrow, and must have been this way yesterday.".

Quote:
Quote:It amazes me how skeptics are always skeptical except when it comes to pet beliefs. Put another way is Altruism in fact a good idea?

You didn't prove that it is wrong. In fact you just offered assertions and when asked to prove you said what amount to find it yourself.
Yes. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. I can feed you any line of shit I want. Instead what I am saying is go to the source and judge for yourself. I'm not going to distill an entire philosophy in a few thousand words or even less so instead I say "Go read it and find out if I'm full of it.". Don't read it second hand, don't read what someone else says about it. Read it yourself and tell me what you think.

Quote:
Quote:I remind you that the worst socialisms of the 18th and 19th and 20th century had one thing in common. Altruism was at their core.

What was especially visible in case of Soviet Union where altruism reached it's heights. Really Holodomor is such great example of altruism that I'm surprised that this idea isn't universally shunned Rolleyes
exactly right. Have you read Leon Trotsky? Do you even know who he is or do you just know the name? Are you aware of the Russian civil war in more than just broad outlines? Do you know what kicked it off? What did the Tsarist political system look like in practice? Why was it so hard to reform? What was the role of the orthodox church? Who was the head of the Orthodox church? Is that relevant?

Also I point you to the quote above from the guy who actually came up with the idea and whom Stalin, Trotsky, and the like would have been familiar with. I would put forward the idea that according to comte's they created an altruistic society. Again I refer you to comte above.

This is the problem with history as taught in schools "On this date this person went here and did this". Wow that says absolutely nothing at all. History is a story filled with lots of people doing lots of stuff for lots of reasons.

Quote:
Quote:Auguste Comte who coined the term made exactly this claim.

So? Comte isn't end all authority.
... I want you to stop and think about that for just a minute. I the individual of a word do not get to define that word... ... ... ...
I get the argument that language changes over time. The real problem here is that I don't think your actually paying attention to what I am saying, I just don't know if it's because you don't want to or if it's because of something else. Let me restate my original positions. 1) The concept of Altruism is evil. 2) The history and development of a thought even if altered over time is important to understanding a concept.

Perhaps I was not clear in my initial post on this point. If I wasn't I hope that clears it up. The understanding of conceptual evolution is AS important as the understanding of biological evolution, and for the same reason. Both are questions about who we are and how we got here, not where we are going but how we got to where we are at.

Quote:
Quote:Look I'm not saying go on faith, just the opposite. Read the original works of the guy. I have. This isn't second or third hand knowledge.

You realize that Comte definition of altruism isn't only one? He don't have monopoly on the defining of the term.
... ... ... We are having a discussion about a philosophical thought. Not only have you not provided an alternative definition and a source for that definition, it is clear that you don't understand how philosophical terms work. When a question about the definition of a philosophical concept arises you always refer to the earliest known definition and then refer to later expansion of the idea in order to clarify. Doing anything else is the equivalent of saying "Which one of your grandma's were a monkey, cause none of my grandma's were monkeys."

Quote:
Quote:David Hume for example who was a major influence on philosophy and natural science was a proponent of the idea of original sin. He doesn't call it original sin or mans fallen state but instead speaks of mans brutish and bestial nature.

Given how bloody is the past from Julius Caesar genocide to Genghis Khan atrocities, from XXX years war to Armenian genocide, from Japan occupation of China to ethnic cleansing in Bosnian war it's hard to disagree with Hume.

As a side note maybe read Steven Pinker The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

I have read Pinker's work. I completely disagree with his premise. This is where Darwin and his own personal belief's come into play as well as how they effected his work. Here are a few things I want you to consider. What evidence is there that man was nasty and brutish from the beginning? Look at the pro and con. Next I want you to examine the implication of Pinker's work. What does a war in rome have to do with south america? Yet what's implied is that this is a global event. Further when we begin to examine what wars actually looked like during most of human history (this isn't to say there aren't aberrations) we find out that war wasn't nearly as bloody as we tend to think. This isn't to say it didn't or couldn't get bloody, only that the actual number of deaths caused by fighting was surprisingly small.

Also lets look at something which today we would consider brutish. Human sacrifice. Could there in ancient times be a logical and legitimate reason for human sacrifice? Actually yes. Throughout most of history the majority of humans have only had small breeding pools to populate from. The purpose of human sacrifice then could be explained as a means to cleanse the gene pool of those who would be both a danger and a burden to the tribe. Remember it is only in recent times that humans have had the luxury of being able to support individuals who in another time would have been a sever drain in precious resources. This doesn't mean that I support killing those with genetic defects today. It is an observation of a possible necessary reason for human sacrifice, which outside of impossible tales seems to be something rarely practiced.

Most people who look at the saying "Survival of the fittest" seem to follow Darwin implied meaning of survival of the most brutish. Only that isn't what survival of the fittest means. What it means and the only thing it means is the most fit to survive. I am a firm believer in the cooperative theory of evolution. I do not believe nor does the evidence seem to support the idea that the various homo species were wiped out by a genocide carried out by modern humans or the ancestor of modern humans. Where did this idea of a demonic/bestial brutish man come from? Have scholars been operating on the assumption that somebody somewhere actually had good historical evidence for this assumption or has nobody just bothered to check the assumption.

On a final note. I like your Christian tactic of ignoring the inconvenient. you completely ignore my response when I show how it is valid if not a better principle to build one's ethic on. This is a thread about Altruism and how its evil and how a selfish ethic is the only one that can be trusted. Well come on I showed you why I would selfishly have saved that woman from being gang raped. How is that wrong? Further why should it not be assumed that I had selfish reasons? And lastly what is your beef with being selfish?

Other people have actually made good points that I want to respond to. I will wait to see if you make them in your next post before I respond to their particular objections
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 11:22 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 12:47 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: altruism
(26-06-2017 10:43 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Instead of assuming the worst how about we assume the best of each other.

Instead of assuming provide sources for your assertions. It's not up to me to search for something that will back your words.

Quote:I thought I could leave it up to individuals to actually take 30 seconds on Google before they just randomly jumped in with their assertion that I am wrong.

I hoped that instead of being whiny child you will provide what you should have provided when you started this thread.

Quote:Obviously being wrong I will take time to correct that with this gem.

At least you realize that you're wrong. Though as lower parts of your post show it is only ruse.

Quote:From "A general view of positivism"
The only real life is the collective life of the race; individual life has no existence except as an abstraction.
*as a note what Comte means by race(skin color) is race not species (Human).

Or how about this from the catechism of positive religion
Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?

In just a few minutes I found two quotes and gave you their source.

Should I clap? Sing your praises?

Also what these quotes are supposed to prove and why I should care about them? To you Comte may be some end all authority whose words are beyond question but I don't see it this way.

Quote:Pick your poison, thought you might as well start with "A General View of Positivism"

Would it be hard to mention this book at the beginning?

However why I should care what Comte has to say about altruism? He isn't only one writing about it.

Quote: Any ideas including your own. What do you believe. What is the source of this belief? Why do you believe it? Are their alternatives that make more sense? If not why don't they make more sense?
What does comte believe? Why does he believe it? What is the source of his belief? What was happening in the world around him at the time and how did that effect his thoughts?

I have one more question - why such fixation with Comte? Fits your narrative perhaps?

Quote:exactly right.

Exactly right? So what Stalin did was willingness to do things that bring advantages to others, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself? You even realize how foolish you sound or your arrogance precludes you from seeing your own idiocy?

Quote:Have you read Leon Trotsky? Do you even know who he is or do you just know the name?

Is he this guy that head of who we see in KFC commercials?

Quote:Are you aware of the Russian civil war in more than just broad outlines? Do you know what kicked it off? What did the Tsarist political system look like in practice? Why was it so hard to reform? What was the role of the orthodox church? Who was the head of the Orthodox church? Is that relevant?

Do asking that many questions and being arrogant enough to assume that whoever you talk to know less than you can be called gish gallop? Or it's just simple idiocy?

Having written Master's thesis about Russian Revolution I suppose I can say that I knew who Trotsky was and I even dare to claim some knowledge of Russian Civil War o enlightened one.

Quote:Also I point you to the quote above from the guy who actually came up with the idea and whom Stalin, Trotsky, and the like would have been familiar with. I would put forward the idea that according to comte's they created an altruistic society. Again I refer you to comte above.

Comte may be your pope seeing as you refer to him constantly but it takes extreme naiviety to think that Soviet aparatchiks lived for the others. Early bolsheviks may had been idealists but it didn't took long to corrupt them. See Montefiore Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.

Quote:This is the problem with history as taught in schools "On this date this person went here and did this". Wow that says absolutely nothing at all. History is a story filled with lots of people doing lots of stuff for lots of reasons.

Really? Thanks for illuminating poor fool with Master's Degree in history. I always though that history is just about memorizing dates not seeing connections between the events Rolleyes

Quote:I get the argument that language changes over time. The real problem here is that I don't think your actually paying attention to what I am saying, I just don't know if it's because you don't want to or if it's because of something else. Let me restate my original positions. 1) The concept of Altruism is evil. 2) The history and development of a thought even if altered over time is important to understanding a concept.

I don't agree with you about altruism being evil no matter how many times you will bring Comte into discussion.


Quote:We are having a discussion about a philosophical thought. Not only have you not provided an alternative definition and a source for that definition, it is clear that you don't understand how philosophical terms work.

You're stupid enough to not be able to click on blue words being link to definitions? Or you just have no compunctions against lying?

In case of stupidity I again posted definition in this post.

Quote:I have read Pinker's work. I completely disagree with his premise. This is where Darwin and his own personal belief's come into play as well as how they effected his work.

And this is where I suppose your personal beliefs come into play.

Quote:Here are a few things I want you to consider. What evidence is there that man was nasty and brutish from the beginning? Look at the pro and con.

Seems that Pinker wrote about it [page 24 of Polish 2015 edition]. You already forgot or it doesn't fit with your narrative? There is also Nature article though I go only by short synopsis as it is behind paywall.

Here is other article in full. Doubt it will convince you, but some of us don't shrink from putting some work in answering.

Quote:Next I want you to examine the implication of Pinker's work. What does a war in rome have to do with south america? Yet what's implied is that this is a global event.

It's implied where? Show me some citation and we can talk.

Quote:Further when we begin to examine what wars actually looked like during most of human history (this isn't to say there aren't aberrations) we find out that war wasn't nearly as bloody as we tend to think. This isn't to say it didn't or couldn't get bloody, only that the actual number of deaths caused by fighting was surprisingly small.

Seems that you missed Pinker point about percentage. What you wrote is just fucking stupid - less people, less advanced weapons and no ideology or infrastructure to spur total war surely didn't played a role in keeping the number of victims "low" or low Rolleyes.

Quote:Also lets look at something which today we would consider brutish. Human sacrifice. Could there in ancient times be a logical and legitimate reason for human sacrifice? Actually yes. Throughout most of history the majority of humans have only had small breeding pools to populate from. The purpose of human sacrifice then could be explained as a means to cleanse the gene pool of those who would be both a danger and a burden to the tribe. Remember it is only in recent times that humans have had the luxury of being able to support individuals who in another time would have been a sever drain in precious resources. This doesn't mean that I support killing those with genetic defects today. It is an observation of a possible necessary reason for human sacrifice, which outside of impossible tales seems to be something rarely practiced.

Have some proof of this?

Also didn't you considered that those with "bad genes" could be disposed in other way? Sparta comes to mind.

Quote:Most people who look at the saying "Survival of the fittest" seem to follow Darwin implied meaning of survival of the most brutish.

Was it Darwin who implied such or it's you who just sling shit at Darwin?

Quote:Only that isn't what survival of the fittest means. What it means and the only thing it means is the most fit to survive.

Or perhaps this mean survival of those most fit to certain environment?

You realize that uttering such categorical statements make you look like a clown? Why your interpretation should be only correct?

Quote:Where did this idea of a demonic/bestial brutish man come from?

From you when you intended to make straw-man that will be easy to refute perhaps?

Or maybe Caesar, Genghis Khan, Attila or numerous other warlords had something to do with it?

Alternatively it may have something to do with Thomas Hobbes.

Quote:This is a thread about Altruism and how its evil and how a selfish ethic is the only one that can be trusted.

This is thread about why you think altruism is evil and why you think that selfish ethic is only one that can be trusted.

Quote:Well come on I showed you why I would selfishly have saved that woman from being gang raped. How is that wrong?

You can stick this nonsense where sun doesn't shine troll. I didn't commented on you tales about saving women so from where you get the inane idea that I deem it wrong?

Quote:Further why should it not be assumed that I had selfish reasons?

You do realize that I wrote nothing about it, do you?

Quote:And lastly what is your beef with being selfish?

You have some problems with reading comprehension? Where I showed my alleged beef with being selfish?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
26-06-2017, 11:25 AM
RE: altruism
Oh my. I missed where he asked Szuchow if he'd even heard of Trotsky.

Yes, new guy... DO tell our resident historian, who specializes in the history of the Soviet Union, about Trotsky.

Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-06-2017, 11:57 AM
RE: altruism
(26-06-2017 05:48 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I challenge you to actually think

DITTO.

Tip: Pulling head out of ass would help. Immensely.

Quote:about what I'm prosing rather than just attacking it.

So, enlighten me, what are you prosing?

The rest of it is such ignorant, arrogant bunk, I won't waste even a millisecond more than I already did reading it.

You've got to be this tall smart to talk to me and you ain't nowhere near the minimum requirements, cupcake Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: