Evolution and Evil

Gary51 said:

Is that relevant to a human making an informed choice to go against his natural instinct and give up his life for the sake of others?

Click to expand...

Why do you assume it's an informed choice? When I hear about heroes jumping in water to safe someone from drowning they frequently state that they did it without even thinking first.

Peter

Gary51 said:

Is that relevant to a human making an informed choice to go against his natural instinct and give up his life for the sake of others?

Click to expand...

Of course it is. We are social animals. A level of self sacrifice should be expected. It works on multiple levels:

- My self sacrifice may mean that more than one other person can live (and thus reproduce). I trade one life (my own) for the lives of several others. In terms of my social group, whether it be friends or my country, it is better off. Being social animals, we would expect behavior that more or less good for the entire social group to be present within a given social group. It's evolution.

- My self sacrifice may be better for my own genes. Let's say I risk my life to save others and manage to survive. I will be viewed by the rest of the community as important, and am more likely to be treated better. Thus, I am in the long run, more likely to survive and/or reproduce.

- Alternatively lets say there exists a gene that gives me the instinct to sacrifice myself in certain situations. Let's say my 3 siblings carry the same sort of gene. One day my siblings and I are walking in the woods and are attacked by a tiger. We realize that we're all probably dead unless someone sacrifices himself. Instinct kicks in and one of us sacrifices ourselves. Now, three people are guaranteed to survive and live and hopefully reproduce. Rather than potentially nobody surviving. As such, that self-sacrificing gene propagates better.

Again, I'm still wondering why it can't be instinct to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others, or what the problem is with having two conflicting instincts. But there is also the issue with internalized morality that may override whatever instincts we may have.

Evil is a human invention, a way to label things we stand against. Evil exists, but only in the things we label as evil.

Gary51 said:

Wiccan_Child said, "Humans live by instinct" as animals do.

Many humans have given their lifes for the sake of others. They have gone against the natural instinct of survival and choosen death.

Can animals do that?

Click to expand...

I've read a study where monkeys (Rhesus I believe) were given a moral dilemma. Initially they were trained to press a button that would trigger a mechanism giving them food. Once a monkey had gotten the hang of that another monkey was placed in a cage within sight of the button pushing trained one and hooked it up to a mechanism that would give it an electrical shock if the button for releasing food was pressed. So if the button monkey wanted food it would have to induce pain in the other. Many of the monkeys after learning that each time that they got food the other monkey would experience pain would refuse to press the button even if it took them to the brink of starvation.

Gary51 said:

Wiccan_Child said, "Humans live by instinct" as animals do.

Many humans have given their lifes for the sake of others. They have gone against the natural instinct of survival and choosen death.

Can animals do that?

Click to expand...

Yup. Altruism is not a soley human trait. That said, you presume that altruism is a choice. Who sits down and thinks about whether to save their child from a burning building? It is instinct.

Wiccan_Child said:

Yup. Altruism is not a soley human trait. That said, you presume that altruism is a choice. Who sits down and thinks about whether to save their child from a burning building? It is instinct.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But altruism itself can be a hedonistic thing as well. Altruism or in its most extreme form, "self sacrifice" can be conceived to be, as other posts have indicated, a "plus" for the matrix society the sacrificee provides.

But how does altruism work as a "hedonistic" principle? I am firmly of the belief we gain a survival advantage by keeping a safe, stable and equitable society for all.

But on the topic of "pure altruism" I have been wondering.

I jotted the following down a few weeks back to try to clarify my own thinking to myself and a friend who is a philosophy prof, and here I have a chance to roll it out for this discussion, please bear with. (I am sure I haven't ironed out all the wrinkles, and this is just my dos centavos):

I’m against altruism. That’s fun to say. It makes me sound like a monster though. So let me explain.

I’m a “nice” guy. I don’t want to hurt anyone. In fact I’d like to help everyone! I don’t want to antagonize my fellow human, nor do I want to put any stumbling blocks in his or her way. But I don’t believe in altruism.

Not that I believe it is a bad ideal. It’s a GREAT ideal! It is the highest! I just don’t believe it exists. I don’t believe it can exist.

Let me explain. I’m by nature a hedonist. I think I (and you too) do everything for the pursuit of pleasure/avoidance of pain. Even the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] who seeks pain does it because it brings them some form of “pleasure”, such as it is. If it is a desired goal then the fact that is a desired goal indicates that the “pleasure” is from achieving this desired goal.

But even apart from my personal beliefs I wonder why people do anything “nice” for others. Be it saving the life of a loved one, or helping a little old lady across the street or even “sacrificing” themselves for a cause or another person.

If you help a little old lady across the street, a stranger to you, you are doing it because, in some very real sense you feel GOOD about doing a good thing for someone. You may feel that by helping others, others may be more inclined to help you. Or you may just like the good feeling you get by doing good. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, you may feel “obliged” to help her. If you don’t the people around you will think less of you and you will feel bad about that. Both are examples of doing something good for someone else that in reality is really just doing something that makes you feel good or helps you to avoid feeling bad (ie the definition of hedonism).

Can you imagine a true altruistic scenario such as this? Indeed. If you want true altruism there is nothing in it for you or it actively provides a net negative for you and thus something you cannot have as a desired goal. Then you are talking something that is truly non-hedonistic and would probably count as pure altruism. Say you had the opportunity to save Hitler’s life and keep him safe from prosecution all the while being wholly against the massive evil you knew he was responsible for and would continue with.

Of course then you become an accomplice, but never mind. The only way you could be considered altruistic is if you do something that actively hurts you and brings no concept of anything like a pleasure or even the achievement of a goal (as opposed to the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] mentioned earlier).

Well what about those people who sacrifice their lives for friends and loved ones? I will contend that indeed the love they feel would be pretty strong to act directly against personal immediate survival instincts. I can think of no conception of love in which the actual feeling of “love” qua love is “painful”. Sure there’s cases of unrequited love which hurts, but it isn’t the “love” that hurts, but rather the lack of reciprocity of that love. If you love someone enough to lay your life down for them, you are presumably achieving a good feeling.

Again, take the opportunity to put yourself in the place of being a staunch anti-communist pacificst laying your life down to help Joseph Stalin live and continue the evil he perpetrated. Otherwise you risk doing things that actually make you feel “good” at some level, or help you achieve a self-stated goal, no matter how derivative or secondary.

True altruism can only arise when the hedonistic calculus yields a value less than or equal to 0. To that end I would be very interested to know what conceivable case can be put forth in which that scenario plays out.

The Jesus Case (assuming he was real and the Gospels paint an accurate picture):
When I was younger I used to make a special case for Jesus. Jesus acted altruistically for all mankind. But then later I became an atheist and the question was brought up that Jesus’ existence was far from settled fact. But further, let’s look at it from the stand point of non-arianist standard-issue Christianity. Jesus is, as established by the Niceaen Creed homoisious with God. Jesus just is God and just is human. Of course for him to “sacrifice himself” to be salvation for mankind’s sins despite his having committed none himself would appear to be altruistic, until you realize that it really isn’t a sacrifice if you are God. To argue that Jesus was not God is to open a can of worms sealed shut nearly 2 millenia ago.

To argue that Jesus was somehow unaware of his own impending resurrection just shifts the question off to why did Jesus do this? It was because he was reporting to his “dad”, if you will. Jesus obviously loved God (Arians can follow along now) and prayed to him in Gethsemene asking for release from this contract, but ultimately realizing it was in God’s hands. This is little more than following orders from a respected superior. The respected superior obviously is being pleased by Jesus’ acquiescence, which in turn can be assumed to make Jesus feel good. Now, it would be very different if Jesus actively disliked God a lot, yet still did what God commanded. But I don’t see that anywhere in the Gospels. It would kinda wreck the whole game wouldn’t it?

Just a few notes from the bottom of my brain barrel...

Gary51 said:

That would mean instinct going against instinct.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would.

TemperateSeaIsland said:

I've read a study where monkeys (Rhesus I believe) were given a moral dilemma. Initially they were trained to press a button that would trigger a mechanism giving them food. Once a monkey had gotten the hang of that another monkey was placed in a cage within sight of the button pushing trained one and kooked it up to a mechanism that would give it an electrical shock if the button for releasing food was pressed. So if the button monkey wanted food it would have to induce pain in the other. Many of the monkeys after learning that each time that they got food the other monkey would experience pain would refuse to press the button even if it took them to the brink of starvation.

Click to expand...

Very cool. With this info, I was able to find a follow-up study on Google:
http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf

Really interesting stuff.

gary said:

I also think that we will never agree… so this will be my last post in this thread.

Click to expand...

Why ask 40 questions and then say won't reply any more?

Chalnoth said:

Very cool. With this info, I was able to find a follow-up study on Google:
http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf

Really interesting stuff.

Click to expand...

Try reading "The Moral Animal" for more insight into how the development of morality in humans works as a mutual survival mechanism.

Gary51 said:

Have you ever had a evil thought?

Click to expand...

All the time. I'm not a very nice person, sometimes. But once again, there is a difference between a subjective evil and objective 'Evil'.

Gary51 said:

What is the difference?

Click to expand...

A subjective evil is an act that you deem to be evil because your own personal moral code. An objective evil, on the other hand, is one deemed evil because it fulfills objectively verifiable criteria.

Since there are no objectively verifiable criteria for an action to be deemed 'evil', there is no such thing as an objective evil.

But by all means, demonstrate the existance of objectively verifiable criteria by which something may be deemed good/evil/amoral, if you disagree.

Reality check!!!!!!!!

Evil and sin are just words used to define a given condition based on the social and moral standards of society. They have nothing to do with atheism or religion. eg:

A soldier is considered a hero even though he killed many people. He is deemed to have committed a good and brave act.
On the other hand if you ask his enemies; he has committed atrocities and is a cold blooded killer.
Thus in the first case he has done no sin so he is not evil. In the second case he is a sinful person for having committed evil acts.

Since when does religion have a copyright to words that have existed before Christianity?

Atheists will judge whether something is good or bad simply by exercising their better judgment based on their social and moral criteria.

I do not need a book to tell me that something is good or bad.
I can think for myself!