Compassion and empathy

[Oneofthediaspora]

Because presumably acting in a certain way causes a release of dopamine (or inhibits its re-uptake) in the nucleus accumbens and pre-frontal cortex parts of the brain?

 

[Chesterton]

Absolutely! That's where our feeling that it is nice, and our admiration for it, come from.

I don't think that's the source of it, because there are things which are evolutionarily useful which we don't feel are nice and admirable, and some things which are not evolutionarily useful which we feel are nice and admirable.

 

[cantata]

I don't think that's the source of it, because there are things which are evolutionarily useful which we don't feel are nice and admirable, and some things which are not evolutionarily useful which we feel are nice and admirable.

Can you give me some examples?

 

[cantata]

Because presumably acting in a certain way causes a release of dopamine (or inhibits its re-uptake) in the nucleus accumbens and pre-frontal cortex parts of the brain?

You're the doctor.

 

[MaxP]

you seem to have acquired a strawman idea of evolution and it is very difficult to dispell.

Being in the cage with the lever does not make the monkey with the lever fit, from an evolutionary standpoint. It's only fit if it finds a monkey of the opposite sex and reproduces successfully.

I do not see how the odds of the monkey with the lever reproducing are increased by it being cruel to the other monkey in the cage.

Survival of the fittest absolutely does not mean that the fittest will kill or disregard the unfit, and it absolutely does not mean that animals which wantonly kill are more fit, and usually means the opposite. Being overly cruel is simply going to make enemies of other monkeys and will not increase the chance of successful reproduction.

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.


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. So why did we develop it?

 

[MaxP]

You bet me to it.

Actually a guy on the first page of this thread beat you both to it.

 

[MaxP]

Tell me why you think compassion is something given to us by God.

Well, I believe it is given to us by God(which doesn't mean it is not scientific, or it is not explainable, or it is not, perhaps, evolved) as much as natural law is given to us by God; so we can instinctively know the right and wrong, what God likes and what He doesn't.

 

[MaxP]

Because they are social species, so if another species spawned a mutation that led to compassion they would be more likely to adapt a social structure.

You seem to be stuck on the chicken and egg paradox.

Why does compassion make one more apt to a social structure?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

The unit of evolution is the gene.
Some genes code for proteins in the brain.
These genes are successful in that they affect the phenotype in such a way as to promote behaviour that prolongs said genes survival in the gene pool.
One way they might do this is by rewarding certain behaviour with increased levels of dopamine.

So "compassion" is "admirable" can be reduced to "certain genes code for certain neurophysiological pathways that provide reward for the behaviour that is most likely to prolong the genes' survival."

Is this your understanding of it?

 

[MaxP]

Well, isn't that the golden rule? Do unto others etc. Is the golden rule really about compassion? Doesn't seem so. Perhaps we shouldn't swap the terms empathy and compassion. I have, and I shouldn't.

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.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

You're the doctor.

I'm just a lowly GP Cantata.

There will be others here who will no doubt correct me if my neuroanatomy/physiology knowledge is lacking.

I only used those words in the hope of impressing you.
Were you impressed BTW?

 

[Chesterton]

Can you give me some examples?

Here's two of each:

Evolutionarily useful, but not nice and admirable: Flesh-tearing teeth, and the ability to lie.

Not evolutionarily useful, but nice and admirable: Diverting resources to care for the disabled, and poetry.

 

[cantata]

The unit of evolution is the gene.
Some genes code for proteins in the brain.
These genes are successful in that they affect the phenotype in such a way as to promote behaviour that prolongs said genes survival in the gene pool.
One way they might do this is by rewarding certain behaviour with increased levels of dopamine.

So "compassion" is "admirable" can be reduced to "certain genes code for certain neurophysiological pathways that provide reward for the behaviour that is most likely to prolong the genes' survival."

Is this your understanding of it?

Mine? Yes, it is.

I notice that evolution often has "sneaky" ways of making us do things that are useful for furthering our genes. For example, we feel the urge to have sex even when we don't want to have children on an intellectual level because evolution has made having sex enjoyable in order to get us to produce offspring. Evolution doesn't care about whether you know why you're doing things. All your genes want to do (if you'll excuse my anthropomorphising of a blind process) is make more of themselves. They're not bothered about informing your brain.

So when you feel compassion for other human beings, that's your genes who have long ago discovered that intelligent, dexterous apes who protect and care for the other apes in their clan - and who have a culture of offering mutual favours - are more likely to survive and reproduce than apes who try to do things on their own. Of course, nowadays this particular intelligent, dextrous ape generally encounters far more people than it ever did when it lived in small clans of 100 people or more. But evolution can't be expected to have caught up. So you can potentially feel compassion for every human being you meet, and even human beings you only hear about, because as far as your genes are concerned, those other people might be in a position to do you a favour tomorrow.

 

[cantata]

I'm just a lowly GP Cantata.

There will be others here who will no doubt correct me if my neuroanatomy/physiology knowledge is lacking.

I only used those words in the hope of impressing you.
Were you impressed BTW?

Incredibly impressed!

Here's two of each:

Evolutionarily useful, but not nice and admirable: Flesh-tearing teeth, and the ability to lie.

Not evolutionarily useful, but nice and admirable: Diverting resources to care for the disabled, and poetry.

Ah, okay. I think we misunderstood one another.

Evolution has many ways of achieving an end. It is socially beneficial - that is, beneficial to our group, which in our evolutionary past was usually composed of our relatively close kin - for us to behave in certain ways, including behaving compassionately. That, by the way, explains your last example of diverting money to help disabled people. Our evolutionary history makes us feel compassion for those people even though it isn't useful for us to do so, because when we lived in small groups, if our kin were sick or disabled it was still in their and our genes' interests to help those people to survive until reproductive age.

Now, flesh-tearing teeth - well, I don't know about you, but I consider those to be morally neutral. They're not a behaviour, but a physical characteristic. Only vegetarians and vegans, I would suggest, think that flesh-tearing teeth have any moral implications at all.

I think you need to present an argument to show that lying is evolutionarily useful. Also, remember that compassion is evolutionarily useful not only to the person showing compassion, but to the person being shown compassion. Therefore it is unsurprising that we admire it. Lying, meanwhile, if it is evolutionarily useful, is only (usually) useful to the liar, and can be detrimental to the one who hears the lie. Therefore it's unsurprising that we feel inclined to condemn it.

And poetry - well, the evolution of aesthetic values is a very complex subject, and one I confess I know little about. But I would guess that most evolutionary psychologists would attribute love of poetry, art, and music to by-products of other evolved traits.

 

[MaxP]

Mine? Yes, it is.

I notice that evolution often has "sneaky" ways of making us do things that are useful for furthering our genes. For example, we feel the urge to have sex even when we don't want to have children on an intellectual level because evolution has made having sex enjoyable in order to get us to produce offspring. Evolution doesn't care about whether you know why you're doing things. All your genes want to do (if you'll excuse my anthropomorphising of a blind process) is make more of themselves. They're not bothered about informing your brain.

So when you feel compassion for other human beings, that's your genes who have long ago discovered that intelligent, dexterous apes who protect and care for the other apes in their clan - and who have a culture of offering mutual favours - are more likely to survive and reproduce than apes who try to do things on their own. Of course, nowadays this particular intelligent, dextrous ape generally encounters far more people than it ever did when it lived in small clans of 100 people or more. But evolution can't be expected to have caught up. So you can potentially feel compassion for every human being you meet, and even human beings you only hear about, because as far as your genes are concerned, those other people might be in a position to do you a favour tomorrow.

[emphasis mine]
But why does that imply caring?
Protection and caring are different things.
Also, without emotions, other animals would only do you a favor when they saw a potential benefit from it. Like preserving a sizeable group. So, without emotions, the othe ape would feel no need to return the favor you completed for him. So, in order for the ape to care whether you did him a favor in the factoring of whether he will do one, he'd first have to care, to have emotion. So that is circular. So compassion isn't necessarily a good evolutionary item, along with other emotions(besides fear).

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

So when you feel compassion for other human beings, that's your genes who have long ago discovered that intelligent, dexterous apes who protect and care for the other apes in their clan - and who have a culture of offering mutual favours - are more likely to survive and reproduce than apes who try to do things on their own.

I'd pull you up slightly here to say that genes code for certain things that makes those particular genes more likely to survive in the gene pool. They do not necessarily/always make an individual who will be fit to survive to reproductive age.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[cantata]

[emphasis mine]
But why does that imply caring?
Protection and caring are different things.
Also, without emotions, other animals would only do you a favor when they saw a potential benefit from it. Like preserving a sizeable group. So, without emotions, the othe ape would feel no need to return the favor you completed for him. So, in order for the ape to care whether you did him a favor in the factoring of whether he will do one, he'd first have to care, to have emotion. So that is circular. So compassion isn't necessarily a good evolutionary item, along with other emotions(besides fear).

Evolution, as I said above, often uses "sneaky" (i.e. unconscious or non-cognitive) ways to achieve an end, and often it doesn't use the way we would consider best, were we designing the system ourselves, to achieve it. (You only have to look at, say, the fact that we eat and breath through the same hole, causing thousands of us to die of choking every year, to realise that there are elements of bad "design" in almost every aspect of the evolution of our species and others.)

Compassion is one way of getting us to behave in a certain way. It would have been much more efficient in evolutionary terms at the beginning of human history when we lived in smallish groups of relatively close kin.

You have to understand that this is a non-rational way that our genes have found to propagate themselves. You say "without emotions we wouldn't do x", but that's the whole point. The emotions evolved in order to achieve the end.

I also think you misunderstand the evolutionary value of favour-giving. If I do you a favour, you know you can trust me. If you do me a favour back, I know I can trust you. If you and I each know that the other will help us in our time of need, then it is in our best interests to maintain that relationship by reciprocating. If you did me a favour and I never returned it, you'd feel less inclined to do me a favour again.

Evolution has oiled the wheels of that transaction by injecting compassion - the emotion which helps us to recognise the need for a favour and gives us the desire to offer help. Not only that, but compassion is geared towards getting us to look after our kin, who are likely to share more of our genes. It is in our own genes' best interests to look after our families. If you do a favour for your children or your siblings, and it is never returned, it matters less, as far as evolution is concerned, because if they survive to reproduce, some of your genes will probably be passed on.

I'd pull you up slightly here to say that genes code for behaviour that makes those particular genes more likely to survive in the gene pool. They do not necessarily/always make an individual who will be fit to survive to reproductive age.

Do you see what I mean?

Yes, my apologies - my phrasing was sloppy. I would add, however, that because of the reciprocal nature of compassion and caring, it was often specifically in one's own reproductive best interests to be compassionate, as well as the best interests of the kin-recipients of one's compassion.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Yes, my apologies - my phrasing was sloppy. I would add, however, that because of the reciprocal nature of compassion and caring, it was often specifically in one's own reproductive best interests to be compassionate, as well as the best interests of the kin-recipients of one's compassion.

True, but basically whatever sort of behaviour that is going to aid the survival of the genes that are involved in this process is the behaviour that said genes will manifest in the phenotype.

 

[MaxP]

Evolution, as I said above, often uses "sneaky" (i.e. unconscious or non-cognitive) ways to achieve an end, and often it doesn't use the way we would consider best, were we designing the system ourselves, to achieve it. (You only have to look at, say, the fact that we eat and breath through the same hole, causing thousands of us to die of choking every year, to realise that there are elements of bad "design" in almost every aspect of the evolution of our species and others.)

Compassion is one way of getting us to behave in a certain way. It would have been much more efficient in evolutionary terms at the beginning of human history when we lived in smallish groups of relatively close kin.

You have to understand that this is a non-rational way that our genes have found to propagate themselves. You say "without emotions we wouldn't do x", but that's the whole point. The emotions evolved in order to achieve the end.

I also think you misunderstand the evolutionary value of favour-giving. If I do you a favour, you know you can trust me. If you do me a favour back, I know I can trust you. If you and I each know that the other will help us in our time of need, then it is in our best interests to maintain that relationship by reciprocating. If you did me a favour and I never returned it, you'd feel less inclined to do me a favour again.

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.

Evolution has oiled the wheels of that transaction by injecting compassion - the emotion which helps us to recognise the need for a favour and gives us the desire to offer help. Not only that, but compassion is geared towards getting us to look after our kin, who are likely to share more of our genes. It is in our own genes' best interests to look after our families. If you do a favour for your children or your siblings, and it is never returned, it matters less, as far as evolution is concerned, because if they survive to reproduce, some of your genes will probably be passed on.

Fair 'nuff.
So some random evolutionary mutation 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, and thus last longer than those species who had formed societies for pure benefit?
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?

 

[Chesterton]

You say "without emotions we wouldn't do x", but that's the whole point. The emotions evolved in order to achieve the end.

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.