Question for Non-Believers

[Cyrus]

Fine, so the initial moral constructs were the result of the necessity to live in a society. But this morality takes care of rudimentary interactions.

The big question is whence springs the morality that cannot be explained by egotistical objectives nor by social contracts. In a world devoid of an ultimate authority and arbiter of morality, such as God, does something like altruism exist in humans and, if it does, why ?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, so the initial moral constructs were the result of the necessity to live in a society.

[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't a "necessity" to live in a society. Snakes don't, for example. I don't know whether I'm nitpicking or not because I don't know exactly what you're getting at in that sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
But this morality takes care of rudimentary interactions.

[/ QUOTE ]
It evaluates some extremely sophisticated interactions as well.

[ QUOTE ]
The big question is whence springs the morality that cannot be explained by egotistical objectives nor by social contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of the type of moral principle you have in mind? Is it an "egotistical objective" for a mother to risk her life to save her children? (And any "social contract" is a fiction. You won't catch me using that term.)

[ QUOTE ]
In a world devoid of an ultimate authority and arbiter of morality, such as God, does something like altruism exist in humans and, if it does, why ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course altruism exists. It's almost a direct implication of the TIT-for-TAT strategy. If I'm nice to you, you'll be nice to me; and the best way for my genes to get me to be nice to you is for them to cause me to be sympathetic and thus altruistic toward you. (This is necessarily a tremendous oversimplification, of course.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the initial moral constructs were the result of the necessity to live in a society.

[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't a "necessity" to live in a society. Snakes don't, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't say about snakes (where you know my cousins from??) but Man survived through forming packs/groups/societies. ("It was necessary" in that sense, and not in any kind of crass historical-deterministic sense!)

From the formation of human societies, certain social understandings about rudimentary rights and obligations (contracts) sprang.



[ QUOTE ]
Is it an "egotistical objective" for a mother to risk her life to save her children?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it mainly derives from the instict to pass on one's genes.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course altruism exists. It's almost a direct implication of the TIT-for-TAT strategy. If I'm nice to you, you'll be nice to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tit-for-tat is not altruism. Altruism does not depend on reciprocity.

So, my question remains: In a world devoid of an ultimate authority and arbiter of morality, such as God, does something like altruism exist in humans and, if it does, why ?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that torturing innocents for pleasure is objectively wrong .... Someone who tortures innocents for pleasure lacks the kind of empathy and sense of fairness that we look for in people we are willing to trust.

[/ QUOTE ]
I grab living creatures and make sure they are alive and with their full senses when I drop them in boiling water, in order that they die a boilng water agonizing death. Then I devour their meat.

I get the greatest of pleasures out of this, every single time, provided their meat is fresh and the boiling is done right.

What can one say objectively about such behavior ?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Tit-for-tat is not altruism. Altruism does not depend on reciprocity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Altruism doesn't, but the biological evolution of an altruistic impulse does. My answer was consistent with that.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I grab living creatures and make sure they are alive and with their full senses when I drop them in boiling water, in order that they die a boilng water agonizing death. Then I devour their meat.

I get the greatest of pleasures out of this, every single time, provided their meat is fresh and the boiling is done right.

What can one say objectively about such behavior ?

[/ QUOTE ]
That it's making me hungry?

But you're not getting pleasure out of torturing those cockroaches. You're getting pleasure out of eating their meat. That doesn't make you a sadist; it makes you an omnivore.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Altruism doesn't, but the biological evolution of an altruistic impulse does [depend on reciprocity].

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do we explain pure altruism?

A chimp might leave another injured chimp to die without lifting a finger to help (eg drag him out away from the sun; take him to the water). It can even be to the benefit of the chimp to allow the injured chimp to fall behind so that the predators can eat the other fella!

When humans behave completely differently than this, and without any seeming benefit to them, what gives?

Note that, since we have evolved from purely animalistic behavior (we were exactly chimps once), our "ancestors' habits" are not in play here.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're not getting pleasure out of torturing those [lobsters]. You're getting pleasure out of eating their meat. That doesn't make you a sadist; it makes you an omnivore.

[/ QUOTE ]

No pleasure ? Well, I don't exactly get sad, now, am I? Nor am I indifferent, neutral, when I cook 'em. In fact, I'm excited and flush with anticipation. I'm salivating when I turn the heat a notch, at the appropriate interval.

I make sure they are getting cooked just right and I sometimes giggle when they clumsily try to escape their boiling little hell. Last night, when a particularly pesky specimen managed to drop out to the kitchen floor, the whole of our party burst out laughing hysterically, especially when my wife screamed.

We are not Nazis! We are in real estate.

...I'm afraid you are addressing some very niche, if imaginary, market of pure sadists, there, the ones that supposedly torture for the hell of it and then go home. Not useful this. Let's talk about the banality of evil, instead.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Altruism doesn't, but the biological evolution of an altruistic impulse does [depend on reciprocity].

[/ QUOTE ]
So how do we explain pure altruism?

[/ QUOTE ]
My original answer still stands. TIT-for-TAT means that there will be some level of reciprocity. And in a world with some level of reciprocity, altruism is rewarded. So genes causing an altruistic impulse will be successful. Again, this is a horrible oversimiplification, but it's all you need to make a mathematical model for altruism work.

[ QUOTE ]
A chimp might leave another injured chimp to die without lifting a finger to help (eg drag him out away from the sun; take him to the water).

[/ QUOTE ]
He might; so might a human. But I don't think that's normal behavior for either one. Chimps tend to help other chimps in need of help (provided the chimp in need isn't an unapologetic free-riding bastard).

[maurile]

Evil sure is banal, wouldn't you say?