Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Survival (to reproduce) is necessary to pass on your genes. "good" is the wrong word.
It's not a question of good or bad so much as a question of natural selection.
There is no other logical answer.You assume that survival is good when you have no reason to;
The how is the only part of relevance.You're only explaining what in fact happens (if evolution is true), while the OP wants to know why we make a quality judgment about what happens;
Euthanasia is not immoral.And genocide and euthanasia would also help some groups survive yet we find them immoral. (There, so you won't need to ask for the Godwin)
I can't discuss this until I see the experiment results and method.That is completely illogical and by the way the other species is the fox which is inferior to many other species in the way of intellect.
So our intellect is not different in us than other animals?Personal conjecture does not hold up to science.
You are deliberately ignoring many of the previous posts which relate it to social species, and you are quickly becoming a waste of time. But we also know that your attempts to use illogical philosophy do nothing to support your baseless assertions.
I shudder just thinking of it.Probably. Although I always thought of them as the ones that make us wince when someone gets hit with a ball in certain areas.
As I said, you still can think that God played a hand their exist.
Interesting things to consider...The latter (sp?) part of your post shows the muddy line between humans and non-human animals in the way of empathy. Some animals will lend a helping hand regardless while others will not. Another member posted info that it can be learned though I don't think that tells the whole story. It's probably multifactorial.
Yes, just before eating it's head. LOL This video cracked me up by the way - I was completely startled and really did lol when the hippo did that. My kids came over to watch and wanted to know why the hippo did that - I don't have a clue. If anyone knows, please pm me so I can tell them.I believe animals can show compassion...here is a video of a hippo saving an antelope from the jaws of a crocodile.
I meant objectively bad in their treatment of the person in question, or their general effect on the world.lol @ "objectively bad"
On the bright side, at least she doesn't express her displeasure in the same odious manner.
Yes, just before eating it's head. LOL This video cracked me up by the way - I was completely startled and really did lol when the hippo did that. My kids came over to watch and wanted to know why the hippo did that - I don't have a clue. If anyone knows, please pm me so I can tell them.
I know that animals do have feelings. One of my tabby cats, years ago, would come to comfort me or the kids if she thought we were upset. Also, if you p'd her off, she would p on you - or something that belonged to you. Marvelously smart cat, btw.
I have a tabby now that I swear understands English. And I'm not just talking about "do you want to eat?". She is also marvelously smart, but completely lacks compassion for everyone & everything except the toddler. On the bright side, at least she doesn't express her displeasure in the same odious manner.
I don't get why compassion, or emotions in general, would help.
It makes us unproductive when something bad happens.
They often cause rash action(yeah, you can ignore this one, since it is pertaining to intellect, more).
Compassion seems detrimental, also, to the killer instinct often necessary for survival. So those without compassion would more quickly kill those with it, and those with would die out more quickly.
That two species kill for no reason other that pleasure does not need to have a model.I can't discuss this until I see the experiment results and method.
Different yes as in all species are different from each other, superior no.So our intellect is not different in us than other animals?
Positing a greater intellect is not logical and since emotion and intelligence are not linked that is also illogical. And yes philosophy is inherently illogical.This thread has jumped 4 pages in 20 minutes. I'm trying to keep up, cut me some slack.
And how is positing our greater intellect changes our emotional response illogical philosophy?
As I mentioned in another thread, we are social animals. We rely on our communities for survival. In this way, it makes sense that emotions play a role. eta: that's not to say that it's the best method/component, but it's what we have.Interesting things to consider...
But I still think emotions are detrimental to survival. If everyone had no emotions, we wouldn't do many stupid things.
So did we only develop the trait after we starting living in giant cities?It's all situational. As you pointed out, humans have compassion and emotions while some animals don't. So in some situations compassion is advantageous in other situations it isn't.
Obviously a lion attacking it's prey is not going to have compassion for it's prey. However, since we get all of our food from grocery stores people can still be compassionate to animals and get away with it.
But my point is you sortof have to have a certain ammount of compassion for other people if you want to get along in civil life. Empathy or understanding where the other person is comming from, is a rather useful trait for resolving differences. You talk about the "killer instinct" but how is having a "killer instinct" a useful trait if you're living in a city with thousands of other people.
Well, you can have a strong unit in the city without compassion, but when it comes to hunting down and killing rival cities, no compassion is needed, compassion is, in fact, detrimental. Also, you would need compassion to buy groceries. You just tell the man behind the counter what you want, he gives it to you, you leave. So while the killer instinct may not be necessary there, neither is compassion.Unless you're city has resorted to cannibalism there's better ways to get the necessities of life than having a killer instinct.
But why does civic life necessitate emotion? Why not cold, stark, communication of fact?Life and death situations where compassion is dangerous are rare in civic life, and many people wouldn't have compassion in those situations anyway, as fear is generally a stronger emotion than compassion.
But compassion isn't necessary for the raising of one's children. The argument can be made parents that are too compassionate do not properly prepare their children for life. Thus, wouldn't the compassionate children die out sooner?Furthermore, the brain pathways are already there.
Nearly everyone is compassionate towards their children, for obvious reasons.
It's not a very large evolutionary jump to go from compassion for one's own children to compassion for people (or beings) in general, as it would re-use a lot of the same wiring.
I don't get why compassion would be a factor in sexual selection. Why would a compassionate being go for another compassionate being?So, since you're not just building it all from scratch, a lot of the more extreme examples of compassion may be a result of sexual selection.
But just without emotions, wouldn't our societies be more efficient?As I mentioned in another thread, we are social animals. We rely on our communities for survival. In this way, it makes sense that emotions play a role. eta: that's not to say that it's the best method/component, but it's what we have.
I'd like to see the experiment.That two species kill for no reason other that pleasure does not need to have a model.
Then why aren't apes building cities and civilizations and making us extinct?Different yes as in all species are different from each other, superior no.
Our intellect effect the lens through which we experience EVERYTHING.Positing a greater intellect is not logical and since emotion and intelligence are not linked that is also illogical. And yes philosophy is inherently illogical.
You guys and us? What is this, kindergarten? Instead of circling the wagons and closing ranks with others, I'd prefer to focus on the topic. Ideas will either stand or fall on their own merits, not by who's on what team. Let's leave the groupthink at the door.That is, until you guys can disprove us.
That is a ridiculous hypothesis since we would not live in cities nor would we be social animals if it were not for compassion.But just without emotions, wouldn't our societies be more efficient?
No patriotism, we would simply be in the society that has the most benefit for us, and we would survive longer.
No anger, no pointless wars of ego.
No caring, just stark efficiency.
It goes on, but why aren't we all like computers, super-efficient, and unfeeling? Why would we evolve a thing that it would be best we didn't have?
Why not?That is a ridiculous hypothesis since we would not live in cities nor would we be social animals if it were not for compassion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?