Study of similarities/differences in moral views of religious and non-religious people

[Strathos]

Well duh. You didn't read what I wrote very carefully (again). I said he was a complete stranger. I did not know anything about him except that he was obviously suffering and I was a bit curious to find out why he was risking his life to ride in such horrible conditions with snow and ice and below zero windchill. After I found out the reason, he rose in my esteem. You see I treat all people with a basic level of regard based on their potential. They either rise or fall on my hierarchy of values based on their character. See I'm a trader in all things. I got paid by the pleasure I got from helping a fellow human being. It was a bonus to find out he shared some of my values. Call it a profit. See I don't make sacrifices. Sacrifice is defined in my philosophy as giving up a value for a lesser value or for no value at all. I don't believe in win-lose relationships. I believe that all human relationships should be win-win.

Now if I came upon Hitler dying in the desert or Pol Pot or Mao I wouldn't help them.

I thought you said you put me on ignore. And thinking of human interactions solely in terms of profit and loss is pretty disturbing.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I thought you said you put me on ignore. And thinking of human interactions solely in terms of profit and loss is pretty disturbing.

Well, I changed my mind. I might change it again.

You are reading far too much into my statements. You don't know my worldview or the vast context in which it is validated. I never said that I treat human interactions solely in terms of profit and loss. I did say that all human relations should be win-win. Apparently, there is something wrong with this though I don't know what could be. Is this more disturbing to you than the master-slave relationship?

All I did was point out the fact that both Christianity and leftism share the same basic premise in regards to morality and that the results of the study were not surprising. And I also pointed out that the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism does not promote group cohesion and that it leads to tribalism and violence everywhere it is tried. History supports me on this.

 

[FireDragon76]

[T]he present research investigated whether there are reliable similarities as well as differences between believers and disbelievers in the moral values and principles they endorse.

[The studies] show that disbelievers (vs. believers) are less inclined to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion (the binding moral foundations). By contrast, only minor differences between believers and disbelievers were found in endorsement of other moral values

[R]esults also show that disbelievers (vs. believers) have a more consequentialist view of morality in both countries [US and Sweden]. A consequentialist view of morality was also associated with another presumed antecedent of disbelief—analytic cognitive style.

The paper is a bit dense with academese, but here is a summary in Live Science.

The moral compasses of atheists and believers are different in a few key ways, a new study finds.

In some aspects, the moral compass was incredibly alike between the two groups; they both highly rated fairness and protecting the well-being of vulnerable people, for instance, and both highly endorsed liberty but not oppression. However, the groups diverged when it came to matters of group cohesion, such as valuing loyalty and respecting authority, the study found.

"Virtually everyone," atheists and believers alike, scored high on these two values, showing that they valued protecting the vulnerable and being fair toward others; and they saw these values as moral issues, Ståhl said. However, he found differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous).

[Both] groups scored low on amorality, disagreeing with statements such as "I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed."

I'm not surprised that religious people in the US, who are going to be mostly Christian, are inclined towards authoritarian values.

If they had interviewed non Christians in China they'd have
gotten rather different results.

Of course, western values are pervasive in the US and Sweden, whether or not one identifies as religious.

 

[Strathos]

Well, I changed my mind. I might change it again.

Convenient.

You are reading far too much into my statements. You don't know my worldview or the vast context in which it is validated. I never said that I treat human interactions solely in terms of profit and loss. I did say that all human relations should be win-win. Apparently, there is something wrong with this though I don't know what could be. Is this more disturbing to you than the master-slave relationship?

All I did was point out the fact that both Christianity and leftism share the same basic premise in regards to morality and that the results of the study were not surprising. And I also pointed out that the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism does not promote group cohesion and that it leads to tribalism and violence everywhere it is tried. History supports me on this.

The assumption that I'm making is that you're a follower of Ayn Rand. If you're not, then I apologize.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I could not agree more FireDragon.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The assumption that I'm making is that you're a follower of Ayn Rand. If you're not, then I apologize.

I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand. She would be appalled at such a notion. I'm an Objectivist. I follow the philosophy of reason. There's nothing to apologize for. I don't consider it an insult.

 

[durangodawood]

....the morality of Altruism does not hold up to rational scrutiny because it does tell you to live only for others, never yourself....

Sounds like a cartoon notion of altruism, in which there's room for no other motivations.

The welfare of others is one value among others. Wisdom is figuring out which values should prevail when.

 

[durangodawood]

...And I also pointed out that the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism does not promote group cohesion and that it leads to tribalism and violence everywhere it is tried. History supports me on this.

Yes, where altruism eclipsed every other value. Disaster.

But in successful places theres some sort of balance struck between the values of individualism and group participation.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Sounds like a cartoon notion of altruism, in which there's room for no other motivations.

The welfare of others is one value among others. Wisdom is figuring out which values should prevail when.

I can see how you would think that. But it's not a cartoon version. It is the accurate version. Do you know who coined the term and how they defined it? Today most people associate altruism with kindness and goodwill. That is wrong. And you can't treat a moral code as a primary. It can't be treated as the given as it rests on more fundamental principles. It's those principles that are the problem.

Why do most people think that capitalism is evil and socialism is good? It's because of the basic principle underlying altruism and its political corollary, collectivism.

 

[durangodawood]

I can see how you would think that. But it's not a cartoon version. It is the accurate version. Do you know who coined the term and how they defined it? Today most people associate altruism with kindness and goodwill. That is wrong. And you can't treat a moral code as a primary. It can't be treated as the given as it rests on more fundamental principles. It's those principles that are the problem.

Why do most people think that capitalism is evil and socialism is good? It's because of the basic principle underlying altruism and its political corollary, collectivism.

Ok maybe there is some history to the word "altruism" that Im unaware of. The word isnt necessary.

But the idea that the group has some claim on the individual seems like a natural fact of the human species.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I can see how you would think that. But it's not a cartoon version. It is the accurate version. Do you know who coined the term and how they defined it? Today most people associate altruism with kindness and goodwill. That is wrong. And you can't treat a moral code as a primary. It can't be treated as the given as it rests on more fundamental principles. It's those principles that are the problem.

Why do most people think that capitalism is evil and socialism is good? It's because of the basic principle underlying altruism and its political corollary, collectivism.

Yes, where altruism eclipsed every other value. Disaster.

But in successful places theres some sort of balance struck between the values of individualism and group participation.

The problem is the balance doesn't last. You can not compromise on principles. You can not mix oil and water. You will end up always completely undermining the good principle and adopting the evil fully. Can you look at America, which has tried to do a mixture of the two, individualism and collectivism, and not see the slide towards collectivism and away from individualism? Can you not see the rise of tribalism? This is the result of a mixed system. In any compromise on principle, it's always the evil that prevails. "The evil of this world is made possible by nothing more than your sanction"- Ayn Rand.

She was absolutely right.

You are operating under the misapprehension that there is a conflict between individualism and "group participation". There is none. Individualism does not mean living alone on a desert island and not having "group participation". It means treating individual rights as an absolute, not to be violated under any circumstances. It means treating individuals with respect. You can be a total individualist and you can have friends, love people, cooperate with others, work together on group projects such as charities, donate to the poor, do nice things for people.

The altruists, or progressives, or whatever they are calling themselves today have done such a thorough job of creating a package deal out of the word selfishness. If you look in older dictionaries from the late 1800s, you will see that the definition of selfish is concern with one's own interests. There is no moral component to this definition. It's after the progressive movement, which was enamored with communism, that the moral component was added to the definition so that now a person who is working hard to study to earn a degree and a person who robs a bank or commits fraud are lumped together in the same concept "selfish". What Objectivism does is unpack this package deal and restore the true meaning of altruism, which by the way was coined by Auguste Compte, the father of Logical Positivism. He was a totalitarian who believed that the people should subordinate their desires and goals and obey the scientists who would tell them how to live. The Nazis spoke of altruism all the time. Just read their speeches and see how often they used this and the terms sacrifice. Sacrifice for the volk or the group. Nazism would not have been possible on the principle that man, every man has a right to live for his own sake. The German citizens were thoroughly steeped in the morality of self sacrifice by the church and by the leading philosophers of the time, all derivatives of Kant, who said that anything you do should be done with total indifference to your own life, that if you even got pleasure from doing something it was immoral. "Give until it hurts" would have been his motto.

The Nazis just cashed in on this foundation. Kant is the dominant influence on philosophy today and on politics. He single handedly killed the enlightenment. Today, our politicians are cashing in on the same foundation laid here in America.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Ok maybe there is some history to the word "altruism" that Im unaware of. The word isnt necessary.

But the idea that the group has some claim on the individual seems like a natural fact of the human species.

But the word stands for a concept. The usage of the word has changed to now be synonymous with kindness or goodwill. But the underlying principle hasn't changed. That principle is that man has no right to live for his own sake, that he must put his own needs aside and concern himself with others happiness first.

Now there is one word that can smash this notion to smithereens. That word is why. Why is it wrong to live for one's own sake? Why must one sacrifice his values? Why is happiness good when others experience it but not yourself? If it's wrong to create a value and keep it, why is it good to accept that same value if it is sacrificed. Why does the fact that you created a value give you no claim to it but does give a claim to those who have not produced it? No rational answer to these questions has ever been put forward. No rational answer ever will be. Here's why.

Life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. Life is inherently selfish. This means that an organism (for it's only living organisms which must act or perish) must be the beneficiary of it's own actions or it will perish. It will cease to exist. Any living organism which consistently sacrificed it's values would die. Altruism means otherism. It means to live for others, to put others first as beneficiary of one's actions. This is incompatible with the facts of life.

Now under individualism, one can act consistently in one's own interest because there is no reason why the good of others can not be in one's interests. But it can not be the primary purpose of life because all organisms must be the primary beneficiary of their actions.

Any moral code which makes what a man must do to be moral, the opposite of what the facts say he must do to live, is evil.

The group has no claim on the individual because the group is simply an abstraction. It doesn't exist. What exists is a collection of individuals, all of the same basic nature. Other individuals do have a claim on you. You grant them this claim when you make the choice to live. That claim is the same claim you have on yourself. It is to act rationally and never seek to obtain any value by means of the initiation of force. That is the claim that others have on you. It is a chosen obligation.

 

[durangodawood]

But the word stands for a concept. The usage of the word has changed to now be synonymous with kindness or goodwill. But the underlying principle hasn't changed. That principle is that man has no right to live for his own sake, that he must put his own needs aside and concern himself with others happiness first.

I'm not seeing where altruism, if real, must describe the only valid mode of being. It is a mode that people from time to time exhibit and seem quite satisfied with even if self satisfaction wasnt their goal.

Now there is one word that can smash this notion to smithereens. That word is why. Why is it wrong to live for one's own sake? Why must one sacrifice his values? Why is happiness good when others experience it but not yourself? If it's wrong to create a value and keep it, why is it good to accept that same value if it is sacrificed. Why does the fact that you created a value give you no claim to it but does give a claim to those who have not produced it? No rational answer to these questions has ever been put forward. No rational answer ever will be. Here's why.

Because human societies are a group effort, from which the individual can greatly benefit.

Life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. Life is inherently selfish. This means that an organism (for it's only living organisms which must act or perish) must be the beneficiary of it's own actions or it will perish. It will cease to exist. Any living organism which consistently sacrificed it's values would die. Altruism means otherism. It means to live for others, to put others first as beneficiary of one's actions. This is incompatible with the facts of life.

Now under individualism, one can act consistently in one's own interest because there is no reason why the good of others can not be in one's interests. But it can not be the primary purpose of life because all organisms must be the primary beneficiary of their actions.

No organism? I think this is blatantly false. In ant colonies it seem the single organism is more a group component than a self directed, self satisfied entity. Im not at all saying thats a good model for humans. Just that there are organisms for which "otherism" or "groupism" does seem the natural model. More generally I'm not even sure that other organisms have any bearing on how human morality operates best.

The group has no claim on the individual because the group is simply an abstraction. It doesn't exist. What exists is a collection of individuals, all of the same basic nature. Other individuals do have a claim on you. You grant them this claim when you make the choice to live. That claim is the same claim you have on yourself. It is to act rationally and never seek to obtain any value by means of the initiation of force. That is the claim that others have on you. It is a chosen obligation.

That seems like really naïve simplistic observation in which the only things that are real have some sort of corporeal separation. Look at a jury. Its a real thing we humans made out of 12 individual people. It causes change in the world that none of the individuals alone can perform.

 

[durangodawood]

The problem is the balance doesn't last. You can not compromise on principles. You can not mix oil and water. You will end up always completely undermining the good principle and adopting the evil fully. Can you look at America, which has tried to do a mixture of the two, individualism and collectivism, and not see the slide towards collectivism and away from individualism? Can you not see the rise of tribalism? This is the result of a mixed system. In any compromise on principle, it's always the evil that prevails. "The evil of this world is made possible by nothing more than your sanction"- Ayn Rand......

Most western democracies seem to have found a balance. At one extreme, we've seen the obvious crash-and-burn where all was subsumed to the group motive. Would be great if, at the other extreme, there was just one pure individualist society out there for comparison. That lack doesnt prove failure of concept of course. But it sure makes me wonder.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I'm not seeing where altruism, if real, must describe the only valid mode of being. It is a mode that people from time to time exhibit and seem quite satisfied with even if self satisfaction wasnt their goal.

Of course they do this "from time to time" because they have been taught that this is what constitutes the good. They do it from time to time because it can't be practiced consistently. And also you are probably confusing kindness with altruism. Kindness and goodwill are perfectly compatible with rational egoism. I think that you need to study the origins of altruism. It will open your eyes. Natzism was fully compatible with altruism. Communism is fully compatible with altruism.

Because human societies are a group effort, from which the individual can greatly benefit.

Only when individual rights are protected. Notice how the United States and many other countries are becoming less and less a group effort and becoming an effort by one group to wield power over another. What power is it they seek to wield? Force.

No organism? I think this is blatantly false. In ant colonies it seem the single organism is more a group component than a self directed, self satisfied entity. Im not at all saying thats a good model for humans. Just that there are organisms for which "otherism" or "groupism" does seem the natural model. More generally I'm not even sure that other organisms have any bearing on how human morality operates best.

Without each individual ant there is no group. I've already said that individualism is fully compatible with people working together towards a common goal. So what's the fuss?

That seems like really naïve simplistic observation in which the only things that are real have some sort of corporeal separation. Look at a jury. Its a real thing we humans made out of 12 individual people. It causes change in the world that none of the individuals alone can perform.

A jury is made up of 12 individuals who do not all think with one mind. A single dissenter can overturn the other 11.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Most western democracies seem to have found a balance. At one extreme, we've seen the obvious crash-and-burn where all was subsumed to the group motive. Would be great if, at the other extreme, there was just one pure individualist society out there for comparison. That lack doesnt prove failure of concept of course. But it sure makes me wonder.

I said that the balance does not last. I asked you whether the United States is moving towards collectivism and away from individualism. You chose not to answer. Was that because answering truthfully would undermine your position? I agree that it would be great to have a purely individualistic society to compare. We've never had a pure example on either end of the spectrum. The closest example of a purely collectivist society is North Korea, I'd say. The closest to a pure individualist society was the U.S. in the late 19th century. Even at its best, there were glaring contradictions though. Look at North Korea and compare it to the enormous wealth and prosperity of the U.S. during that period, despite its many contradictions. How much greater and more prosperous would it have been had we not had slavery, which is a blatant and heinous violation of individual rights? But the seeds of destruction were baked into the American system because the founders tried to base their politics of individualism on a moral base of Altruism. Kant came along and published his Critique of Pure Reason about the time the founding fathers were signing the constitution and that sealed our fate. Kant's stated reason for developing his philosophy was to save the morality of Altruism. What did he have to save it from? Reason. He said I had to push reason aside to make room for faith. Faith and reason are incompatible and so are individualism and collectivism. They can't exist in the same country just like they can't exist in the same mind.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course they do this "from time to time" because they have been taught that this is what constitutes the good. They do it from time to time because it can't be practiced consistently. And also you are probably confusing kindness with altruism. Kindness and goodwill are perfectly compatible with rational egoism. I think that you need to study the origins of altruism. It will open your eyes. Natzism was fully compatible with altruism. Communism is fully compatible with altruism.

Ok thats just flat wrong. You can listen to peoples testimony and tell right away whether they are miserable or satisfied. Many who sacrifice some personal advantage for others now and again are quite genuinely satisfied. They arent faking it because of indoctrination. (Some do get caught up in indocrination, and they are miserable. Im sure you remember Ayn Rands blunt examples in her novels).

When I look at a dictionary def of "altruism" it does seem to imply that its an exclusive sort of notion. Like its the one value that must crowd out all others. If thats so, then I agree with you: its obviously untenable.

Fine, altruism bad! But then I need a word for when people do find it right from time to time to defer or deny one's own advantage for the sake of another. Because that happens and its perfectly valid

Without each individual ant there is no group. I've already said that individualism is fully compatible with people working together towards a common goal. So what's the fuss?

Seems pretty evident that the ant's values are entirely for the groups prospects. They seem to sacrifice their own lives pretty frequently if required. I think youre trying to make all of biology fit your notions of human morality which is completely unnecessary for your argument, not to mention probably flat wrong.

A jury is made up of 12 individuals who do not all think with one mind. A single dissenter can overturn the other 11.

So ignore the "guilty" case, which can only emerge from this group we've assembled? A jury requires we assemble and empower a group. Just like voting generally is a collective action. No individual decision holds sway. Individual votes are grouped to form a collective decision.

I said that the balance does not last. I asked you whether the United States is moving towards collectivism and away from individualism.

If you get to use history to demonstrate the instability and difficulty of balancing collective and individual values, then I get to use it to demonstrate the implausibility of a purely individualistic society. I mean, if pure individualism is morally right & vastly appealing, then why do the extremes always seem precarious and tend toward some more stable compromise between individual and collective values?

(Nice bike, btw. What is it?)

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Sorry, it took me so long to get back to you. I'm getting really busy at work.

Ok thats just flat wrong. You can listen to peoples testimony and tell right away whether they are miserable or satisfied. Many who sacrifice some personal advantage for others now and again are quite genuinely satisfied. They arent faking it because of indoctrination. (Some do get caught up in indocrination, and they are miserable. Im sure you remember Ayn Rands blunt examples in her novels).

Then it's not a sacrifice as Objectivism defines sacrifice. It's a win-win. So there's no problem, perfectly compatible with my philosophy's ethics. A sacrifice is the giving of a value in exchange for a lesser value or no value. Lose-win. Evil according to my philosophy. Sacrificial animal territory.

When I look at a dictionary def of "altruism" it does seem to imply that its an exclusive sort of notion. Like its the one value that must crowd out all others. If thats so, then I agree with you: its obviously untenable.

Well, dictionaries are not great for precise definitions. They tell you what the current usage of the word is. When we are talking about morality, we are talking about principles, and a principle is an absolute which can not tolerate any concession to its opposite. I'm anthropomorphizing it here. But, principles are absolutes. They are of the form all S is P. In all instances it's immoral to sacrifice. Remember, sacrifice precisely defined means to give up a value in exchange for a lesser value or no value. It doesn't mean you skip poker night to take your wife out to dinner. Presumably your marriage is more important to you than poker. If it's not then it would be a sacrifice.

Fine, altruism bad! But then I need a word for when people do find it right from time to time to defer or deny one's own advantage for the sake of another. Because that happens and its perfectly valid

How about goodwill? How about kindness? How about I'm a happy person and I like seeing other people be happy, but not as a duty, not a happiness above one's own. Win-win. Not win-lose or lose-lose. I can't see how this could be at all hard to understand or controversial.

Seems pretty evident that the ant's values are entirely for the groups prospects. They seem to sacrifice their own lives pretty frequently if required. I think youre trying to make all of biology fit your notions of human morality which is completely unnecessary for your argument, not to mention probably flat wrong.

Actually I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all living organisms need values. How they get them, their mode of suvival, varies greatly. Man's is the most complex because it requires him to learn and hone and practice reason.

The ant is totally dependent on the colony for its needs. Therefore anything that helps the colony ultimately redounds to the good of the ant. Now I know what you are going to say. It's the same for humans. True! But unlike the ant, what's good for human society is not self-evident. Society is simply an aggregate of individuals. Whatever is good for the individual is good for society. What's good for the individual is to be left free to think, to produce, to trade or to keep what he produces for himself or give it away. What he needs to be free from is the initiation of force. And he needs a set of moral principles consonant with his nature as a man and his factual life needs. See, an objective moral value is determined by nature but must be discovered by man through a volitional process, reason. In order to make sure this process stays adherent to the facts of reality he needs to use logic which is the non-contradictory identification of facts. Ants need no method to adhere to reality because they live and act on the perceptual level of consciousness which is automatic. Actually, I'm pretty sure ants only live on the sensory level of consciousness. They simply react to stimuli. That's something I shall have to look into.

Have you heard of kin selection. Sometimes animals will commit suicide when times are lean. Like a baby bird will throw itself out of the nest when there isn't enough food. This is not a moral behavior since it is instinct and not chosen. On the surface this might seem altruistic and biologists do call it that, but they also state that the bird or whatever does it to further its own genes because its siblings carry those same genes or close. That's why it's called kin selection. Anyway, the action ultimately redounds to the benefit of the one who kills himself. So it would not be a sacrifice as Objectivism defines sacrifice. Something like an ant does not have morality, it does not possess a volitional consciousness. Therefore it needs no code of principles to guide its choices the way man does. It's choice that brings morality into the picture. That's why people who deny free will and want to also talk about morality, Sam Harris comes to mind, are committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.

So ignore the "guilty" case, which can only emerge from this group we've assembled? A jury requires we assemble and empower a group. Just like voting generally is a collective action. No individual decision holds sway. Individual votes are grouped to form a collective decision.

No, don't ignore it. It does not require that we empower a group. Judges make decisions all the time by themselves. Even though we do form groups for juries, this does not give them any powers of cognition except what each individual brings. It's not a collective decision, it's a unanimous decision, which means an aggregate. Some people are very eager to grant special rights to groups like factory workers or women or immigrants. I only recognize the rights of man as legitimate. Each individual man or woman. If your neighbor votes to take your car for himself it's wrong, right? If the whole block gets together and votes the same unanimously, it's still wrong, right? does it change if we expand that to the city? How about the whole country? How about the whole world?

If you get to use history to demonstrate the instability and difficulty of balancing collective and individual values, then I get to use it to demonstrate the implausibility of a purely individualistic society. I mean, if pure individualism is morally right & vastly appealing, then why do the extremes always seem precarious and tend toward some more stable compromise between individual and collective values?

That would be wonderful but alas it has never come to pass. That's probably because humans aren't perfect. They make mistakes. They are free to think for themselves and accept ideas that aren't true. I don't think that it would ever be possible to have a society that was perfectly individualist, I mean where every member was 100 percent consistent with individualism. But we can do a lot better than we are doing, even than America at its most individualistic. I mean first, we'd have to teach people how to reason effectively. We don't do that. I was never given a definition of reason in my entire school career including college, much less lessons in how to do it. I hate to say it, I know I'll get flack, but what is needed is to teach everyone Objectivism.

(Nice bike, btw. What is it?)

That is a Salsa Journeyman and it's the love of my life. Don't let my wife hear.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok thats just flat wrong. You can listen to peoples testimony and tell right away whether they are miserable or satisfied. Many who sacrifice some personal advantage for others now and again are quite genuinely satisfied. They arent faking it because of indoctrination. (Some do get caught up in indocrination, and they are miserable. Im sure you remember Ayn Rands blunt examples in her novels).

When I look at a dictionary def of "altruism" it does seem to imply that its an exclusive sort of notion. Like its the one value that must crowd out all others. If thats so, then I agree with you: its obviously untenable.

Fine, altruism bad! But then I need a word for when people do find it right from time to time to defer or deny one's own advantage for the sake of another. Because that happens and its perfectly valid


Seems pretty evident that the ant's values are entirely for the groups prospects. They seem to sacrifice their own lives pretty frequently if required. I think youre trying to make all of biology fit your notions of human morality which is completely unnecessary for your argument, not to mention probably flat wrong.

Members of social insect species engage in a great deal of altruistic behaviors that often result in their own deaths.

 

[durangodawood]

Sorry, it took me so long to get back to you. I'm getting really busy at work.

No problem. Im busy too. Probably too busy to give your very generous posts the attention they deserve. But I'll try to hit the highlights.

Then it's not a sacrifice as Objectivism defines sacrifice. It's a win-win. So there's no problem, perfectly compatible with my philosophy's ethics. A sacrifice is the giving of a value in exchange for a lesser value or no value. Lose-win. Evil according to my philosophy. Sacrificial animal territory.

Well, dictionaries are not great for precise definitions. They tell you what the current usage of the word is. When we are talking about morality, we are talking about principles, and a principle is an absolute which can not tolerate any concession to its opposite. I'm anthropomorphizing it here. But, principles are absolutes. They are of the form all S is P. In all instances it's immoral to sacrifice. Remember, sacrifice precisely defined means to give up a value in exchange for a lesser value or no value. It doesn't mean you skip poker night to take your wife out to dinner. Presumably your marriage is more important to you than poker. If it's not then it would be a sacrifice.

How about goodwill? How about kindness? How about I'm a happy person and I like seeing other people be happy, but not as a duty, not a happiness above one's own. Win-win. Not win-lose or lose-lose. I can't see how this could be at all hard to understand or controversial.

Ok. I'm into the win win. I agree its no good for people to just miserably give for nothing in return. If people want to give or even suffer to further some end they value, fine. And if "altruism" is the wrong word for that, I can find another.

The ant is totally dependent on the colony for its needs. Therefore anything that helps the colony ultimately redounds to the good of the ant. Now I know what you are going to say. It's the same for humans. True! But unlike the ant, what's good for human society is not self-evident. Society is simply an aggregate of individuals. Whatever is good for the individual is good for society. What's good for the individual is to be left free to think, to produce, to trade or to keep what he produces for himself or give it away. What he needs to be free from is the initiation of force. And he needs a set of moral principles consonant with his nature as a man and his factual life needs. See, an objective moral value is determined by nature but must be discovered by man through a volitional process, reason. In order to make sure this process stays adherent to the facts of reality he needs to use logic which is the non-contradictory identification of facts. Ants need no method to adhere to reality because they live and act on the perceptual level of consciousness which is automatic. Actually, I'm pretty sure ants only live on the sensory level of consciousness. They simply react to stimuli. That's something I shall have to look into.

Re the ants, Im responding to a few claims of yours:
1. Any living organism which consistently sacrificed it's values would die. Altruism means otherism. It means to live for others, to put others first as beneficiary of one's actions. This is incompatible with the facts of life.
2. The ant is totally dependent on the colony for its needs. Therefore anything that helps the colony ultimately redounds to the good of the ant.
3. all organisms must be the primary beneficiary of their actions.
Given the propensity of ants to die for the group cause (and your kin selection examples as well), you must be making the claim that the individual ant's interest IS the groups interest, to the point of individual extinction. The group is hyper-real for the ant. So I dont know why you'd consent to use that example as instructive in your particular argument about human morality

No, don't ignore it. It does not require that we empower a group. Judges make decisions all the time by themselves. Even though we do form groups for juries, this does not give them any powers of cognition except what each individual brings. It's not a collective decision, it's a unanimous decision, which means an aggregate. Some people are very eager to grant special rights to groups like factory workers or women or immigrants. I only recognize the rights of man as legitimate. Each individual man or woman. If your neighbor votes to take your car for himself it's wrong, right? If the whole block gets together and votes the same unanimously, it's still wrong, right? does it change if we expand that to the city? How about the whole country? How about the whole world?

Seem like you simply want to define-away "collective". Of course any group is made of the individuals. But the particular set of individuals also is a group, a jury, a team, and army, a whatever. It does group things that no individual can accomplish. Groups are real things in the world. I cant "unsee" them

That would be wonderful but alas it has never come to pass. That's probably because humans aren't perfect. They make mistakes. They are free to think for themselves and accept ideas that aren't true. I don't think that it would ever be possible to have a society that was perfectly individualist, I mean where every member was 100 percent consistent with individualism. But we can do a lot better than we are doing, even than America at its most individualistic. I mean first, we'd have to teach people how to reason effectively. We don't do that. I was never given a definition of reason in my entire school career including college, much less lessons in how to do it. I hate to say it, I know I'll get flack, but what is needed is to teach everyone Objectivism.

IYes, we should teach reason for sure. Objectivism is full of terrific reasoning. But I disagree with at least one basic premise, as I noted: the non-reality of human groups.

That is a Salsa Journeyman and it's the love of my life. Don't let my wife hear.

Excellent. I'm riding an All City Gorilla Monsoon as my all-round bike. Have done some real epic days on it.