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.
Maybe I'm understanding compassion incorrectly. I tend to think of compassion as a sensitivity to suffering that goes past the 'me' factor. The golden rule or empathy, looks like a personal consideration of "I wouldn't like that so perhaps this other being wouldn't like it either". It seems that it could become limited pretty quick. What if there is somethig that you do like, but the other being doesn't like? Bigots are a good example. They don't like the idea of homosexuality, cannot relate to it, so it makes no difference to them if a homosexual suffers due to not being allowed to be who they are (sorry if that sentence reads disjointed). The golden rule simply doesn't apply in this case. Compassion OTOH isn't about how I would feel about something but how it's affecting the person outside of me.But the golden rule is compassionate; it acknowledges the fact a person often values himself above all others, thats all. It asks you to value others in the same way, most people don't really think of the golden rule as preparing for any of their possible eventualities.
But my point was, supposing th monkeys were of different species, if the one in the cage did not have empathy it would be better off.
Strong bonds are a survival trait, that's the whole point. If you have strong emotional bonds with other creatures (not even necessarily of the same species, read up on symbiosis), you can work as a team not as an individual.So, basically I'm asking why compassion and emotion are essential, or even slightly beneficial in our social development?
You can say because we could not form strong bonds without it; but if we had emotions there would be no need to feel any sense of a bond.
But my point was, supposing th monkeys were of different species, if the one in the cage did not have empathy it would be better off.
Just a note - if you knew people would only do favors when it had some overall benefit for them, you would do the same, it wouldn't be a matter of trust. You wouldn't feel any sense of trust, and neither would any one else, they would just be perfectly rational. But I see your point.
Fair 'nuff.
So some random evolutionary mutation [1] produced mirror neurons, which proved to cause the species to form stronger societal bonds, based on favor-swapping and another emotion(and act of intellect), trust, [2] and thus last longer than those species who had formed societies for pure benefit? [3]
Would that be a correct sum of your position?
And, as you say compassion is now not a really essential emotion anymore, and is often easily ignored, or deformed, by people. So are we potentially in the process of losing the emotion of compassion?
Whenever I make a similar statement to an atheistic evolutionist, they correct me and say "No, there is no end - so nothing evolved in order to achieve any end."
And I understand them, but then that raises the question sort of contained in the OP: why do humans percieve some things seen as "ends", as "goods" or "good" (even when these these things are in opposition to pure survival-oriented behavior)?
I mean we talk about a will to live, and about genes wanting to reproduce and pass themselves on, but unless we're real pantheists, we know genes don't "want" or "will" anything.
Cantata;
So compassion only really informs us about the sort of behaviour that prolongs the survival of certain genes?
Would you agree?
It's important to understand that actual compassion would be more likely to engender trust than obvious emotionless naked self interest.
People are more likely to trust you and cooperate with you if they think that you have some kind of emotional bond or loyalty with them rather than if they think you're simply acting in your own rational self interests. So simply having a naked emotionless rational self interest, is going to get you into trouble because other people will worry that you might stab them in the back if you ever feel it suits your interests.
It's much easier to trust someone who acts out of compassion or loyalty than one who acts out of rational self interest, so it is often in one's rational self interest to be compassionate rather than selfish.
Now this goes some way to providing an argument for Cantata as to how and why lying can be evolutionarily beneficial.
If you can fool other people into believing that you are compassionate and loyal then you can reap the benefits.
No.
It informs us about the sort of behaviour that used to prolong the survival of certain genes, before modernity came along and interfered.
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't see anything. Genes are concerned with surviving. That's what they do.Absolutely. You're getting it.
You have to remember that none of these are moral claims. They do not entail or imply value judgements. I admire compassion and loyalty as much as the next person. But evolution doesn't "see" it that way.
So compassion informs us of a certain type of behaviour that tells us something about what used to be important for the continued survival of some of our genes a relatively long time ago.
Methinks the materialist should not listen to compassion then and use some other guide to inform behaviour.
What do you think?
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't see anything. Genes are concerned with surviving. That's what they do.
Why do you and I admire compassion and loyalty though?
I disagree. It is our emotions that make us want to behave "morally". There are no other options.
Besides, the fact remains that I desire to listen to my feelings of compassion. If I didn't, I wouldn't. It's not a case of what the materialist should or shouldn't do. If you find you are moved by compassion, then that's just how it is.
From an evolutionary point of view, bodies are nothing but vessels for genes.
We admire these qualities because we feel them ourselves and our genes "know" it's a good idea to promote them.
And also because of a massive amount of cultural conditioning and both positive and negative reinforcement.
I'm glad you used quotation marks around morally there. You could quite easily have left the word out altogether though and the sentence would be better:
"It's our emotions that make us want to behave". Morally or imorally doesn't come into it does it?
We have already decided that for the materialist the emotions can only give us some outdated and morally neutral information about genetic survival so why mention morality?
Why do you desire to listen to your feelings of compassion?
Does reason inform this desire at all?
...and genes are nothing but vessels for atoms.
The hard part for me is, that evolution says things do what they do with no design or aim or choice, but no one praises or condemns things for doing what they can’t help but do. It would be absurd to call Jupiter admirable or contemptible for orbiting the sun. So if genes and monkeys and people all just do what they do, how and why would moral judgments arise?
You can't say "to encourage certain actions" because only a mind can "encourage". So we say we don't really mean "encourage", and when we remove all the metaphors like "encouraged", "geared towards", etc., we're left with the bare fact that whatever happened is what happened (in evolutionary history), then we're back to "then how can it be praiseworthy?".
Our genes "know" nothing. They promote such behaviour because such behaviour used to prolong the survival of such genes in the genepool. Is this a reason to admire such behaviour?
In the last sentence you allude to the next part of the equation in the atheist/materialist expalantion of compassion.
I'm guessing you are aware of the concept of memes?
I don't personally see a need to try to stop feeling compassionate, because I've been taught to think that it's a "good" feeling to have, and as such, I feel it very strongly.
We do everything because of how we feel.
No. I think you feel it very strongly because you are a good person with a conscience that that has been formed in the image of Love Itself and which you try to maintain because you are intellectually honest and you recognise the purity and goodness of the emotion that is in itself a beautiful and precious thing. I think you would probably still help the homeless person if it did not make you "feel" anything.
I am guessing that you do not feel the same intensity about other feelings that you were taught were "good" or "bad".
No. I have to disagree with you there. Either that or your use of the phrase "how we feel" encompasses a hell of a lot more than what I take it to mean.
I sometimes still feel like smoking a cigarette.
I sometimes feel so lacking in compassion and/or empathy when shopping in Ikea that I feel like kicking the person dawdling in front of me up the ****.
By God's good grace alone, my feelings do not translate into actions.
Why would I help the homeless person if I didn't feel anything?
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?