awol71 is offline awol71 Post #21  November 8,2009, 6:10am
awol71's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2009

Posts: 618

See profile

Comedian wrote :
awol, I don't think I understand your post.
Is it that atheists and theists can both be emotional and/or rational.
That would mean behavior is based primarily on emotion rather than religion.
In a way, I was suggesting yet another stimulus or reason for doing what we do (emotions), to go along with those you and others had already suggested (what we believe to be the gods' will, "evolutionary selfishness", etc.), and to which we could add more (peer pressure, the subconscious, etc.). But I would not say that any one of those motivations has precedence.

What I was claiming is that we can arrive at a "reasonable" answer by a rational process, and that this rational process will take into account our emotions, drives, knowledge, beliefs, etc. And I further believe that, if there truly is a "right" answer, then the rational process will lead us to it regardless of our religious beliefs (I did not make this last point in my previous post).

(I'll write a little more later, while I'm drinking my coffee this morning, about why I think there is no single "right" answer.)

As regards the quote. It kind of supports my opinions, but it's real objective was just to motivate further discussion based on a variation of the original situation you proposed. Often , modifying some parameters throws a new light. The logical guy (who traditionally comes off as the geeky wierdo not-quite-human atheist type) is talking to the emotional guy (who traditionally comes off as the generally well intentioned, but also righteous dogmatic duty-bound, all-too-human military-religious type). Parameters that changed : the population facing extinction is not innocent (it is even generally considered to be thoroughly evil), and the decision is being made publicly (given the general feeling about that population, the logical guy would be wise to keep his mouth shut).

(I also wish to point out, on an unrelated note, that evolution can be understood to favor some "altruistic" behavior, given a suitable definition of "altruistic".)
 
  Reply With Quote
awol71 is offline awol71 Post #22  November 8,2009, 7:46am
awol71's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2009

Posts: 618

See profile

And now for the long answer...

The question is fun to discuss, but it is also misleading (not intentionally, of course). It trades on some traditional problems in defining what counts as “altruism”, “selfishness”, “self-interest”, “self-sacrifice”, etc. These notions are used in a way to suggest that the action really is useless or even detrimental to the person (the argument goes, if it’s there’s anything in it for you at all, then it’s not “completely altruistic”, whatever that may mean). That’s why the situation typically involves giving up one’s life, presupposing the premise that this is actually detrimental (which everyone concedes without really thinking about it).

Trouble is, when you stop and question the very premises that the situation presupposes but doesn’t actually state, the whole question becomes much less clear. There are few (I actually doubt there are any) situations where an action (1) is reasonable and (2) only benefits other people. Also, taking it as a discussion between atheists (or, as was later suggested, “evolutionists”) and Christians, has its pitfalls as well.

About giving up one’s life : for this to be truly altruistic (insofar as altruism is actually intelligent), we need to establish that it outweighs all the good we will do for others if we stay alive. If our dying is of less benefit to others than our staying alive, then how is it more altruistic? Sure, it’s more poetic and dramatic and all, but is that a serious argument? And how will we establish this? We don’t sacrifice our lives “for no reason at all”, because that is detrimental to ourselves and to others.

About the Christian view : doesn’t the fact that God will reward us make it a self-interested gesture? How can the decision be really altruistic then? This isn’t a bad thing, but it does kind of defeat the question. We’re left with trying to come up with a better situation and we hang up on this : are there any actions that are good only if God exists? (I do believe the traditional example is sacrificing your son for no other reason than “god said so”. And to this I could only answer, nothing that qualifies as a god would demand such a thing.)

About the “evolutionist” view : evolved altruistic behavior is not impossible at all. Evolution doesn’t just consider the survival of individuals, it also considers the survival of the species. As long as self-sacrificial tendencies are in some cases advantageous for the species, then it may well be selected for. Obviously, if all individuals sacrifice themselves for no good reason at all, it doesn’t work. But we’re not talking “all individuals” and “for no good reason at all” here, are we? Furthermore, an organism sacrificing itself for another species (say, its own species’ main food source) can be very beneficial as well.

About the future consequences of one’s actions : how can we tell that an action is certainly of absolutely no advantage to us? I certainly wouldn’t sacrifice myself for a population of mosquitoes or amoebas, but hey, you never know. Maybe not saving some bacteria means that we won’t have a cure for the plague that wipes out humanity? So where do we draw the line?

In a very real sense (I mean, not just poetic), morally, what we do is what we vote for. The question boils down to “Would you rather live in a universe where people do X (say, sacrifice themselves under such and such conditions) or not?” And this is something we can discuss practically and meaningfully. And our real answer is not how we rationalize our behavior, but how we decide, what we choose, and how we act (whether we admit to it or not).
 
  Reply With Quote
WeDesignOurLives is offline WeDesignOurLives Post #23  November 10,2009, 8:15pm
WeDesignOurLi…'s Avatar

is 20% off this week only!

Virtuoso

Joined: Dec 2007

Philly

Posts: 2,958

See profile

awol71 wrote :
doesn’t the fact that God will reward us make it a self-interested gesture? How can the decision be really altruistic then?
Darn right. Every action is selfish simply because we choose it.

Welcome to existential vs. conventional contexts.

I buy you a birthday card... why? Because I want to make you happier on your birthday (conventional) but it's all about me because I was the one satisfied that I was making you happier...I did the right thing (existential...all about me).

Conventionally Mother Theresa was a saint... existentially selfish as she was myopically committed to doing it her way and that's the end of it.

So words like selfish, selfless, and genuine/authentic can be easily misleading... patriotic too... If I fight my gov't am I a patriot or a troublemaker?
 
  Reply With Quote
Sassafras54 is offline Sassafras54 — Advice Official Moderator Post #24  November 10,2009, 10:40pm
Sassafras54's Avatar

Your Community Coordinator

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2009

San Pedro, CA

Posts: 8,283

See profile

You, my dear, are a troublemaker!
 
  Reply With Quote
awol71 is offline awol71 Post #25  November 11,2009, 5:29pm
awol71's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2009

Posts: 618

See profile

I think that words such as altruistic and selfish can have a meaning that isn’t necessarily contradictory or trivially incorrect. The following definitions are often agreed upon : an action is altruistic when, in deciding to do said action, one considers mainly the welfare of others (with little or no regard for one’s own); an action is selfish when, in deciding to do said action, one considers mainly one’s own welfare (with little or no regard for the welfare of others).

Notice that neither of these definitions imply that one does not benefit from the action : it is just that an action is more obviously disinterested when, had one actually thought about it, one would have refrained!

But, at the end of the day, neither of the two are well informed decisions. And, in the context of these uninformed decisions, most people will agree that the altruistic action is the best thing to do (it seems better to have little regard for your own well being than to have little regard for the well being of everyone else). And this is a pretty sound judgment.

It is the very very traditional analysis of virtues (I’m not talking about Christian virtues here). The usual case with traditional virtues is that an excess of virtue is better than a lack of it (because it is less common and more challenging). But, if you generalize the excess, you get major problems. What if everyone waited to eat until everyone else was fed? Sadly, everyone would die. Bad idea.

An excess of virtue is only good when it occurs in a picture where in the background most people don’t have enough. And then it stands out in contrast and serves as a beautiful dramatic example. But, the cold hard logical fact is that the excess is actually an uninformed decision. In an ideal world, one would have considered all the relevant factors. And one of these factors is that by benefiting yourself, you can benefit others (and, conversely, by benefiting others you can benefit yourself).

The best rational decision is right there in the middle, between selfishness and altruism, where the common good (the good of everyone, including yourself) is maximized.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply
  • Page 3 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


« Agreement is Almost a Miracle | Atheists, Humorists, and Science | Ask an Atheist »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Ask an Atheist ANDR3W Atheists, Humorists, and Science 71 November 12,2009 8:11am
Would You Date a Christian? rocchio Atheists, Humorists, and Science 112 September 24,2009 11:16pm
Atheist Issues of the Day DennisWisconsin Atheists, Humorists, and Science 90 August 4,2009 5:52pm
Debate Potholes... TaoShaffer Atheists, Humorists, and Science 28 August 4,2009 5:05pm
"she's just not that into you [Christians]" Chapter 1 grammar_gal Romance and the Freethinker 25 June 1,2009 5:25pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It's important to understand the way a site works. Rigidly assuming / insisting that eH works likes all the others you're used to isn't utilizing the site functions to your best advantage. No.... ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “First contact on eHarmony, smile, questions, email?” discussion

“ If you have yet to meet, you don't know him or whether you two will form a connection. Connections formed over e-mail tend to be fantasies. You will see this echoed over and over by experienced ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “How do i recoonect with him again?” discussion

“ Then it's a bit premature to worry about being friend-zoned. The first step is to go out on dates! What specific steps did you try? How many women did you ask out in person? Did you buy a ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “For women to answer: How to avoid the friend zone” discussion

“ This is an old thread. She asked this in 2010. By now they are likely very exclusive or very over. ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “is there a reason to ask if we're exclusive?” discussion

“ I'm sure he wouldn't get that. And I can't be sure that was the actual message. But it sems kind of likely to me.” –  boomer_gal

Join the “Why am I not successful?” discussion

“Hi eccemuliere and welcome to eHA.On an internet forum like eHA, you're going to get a wide variety of responses; some you'll like and some you won't. It's best to focus on the ones that speak to ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Being blown off, or something else?” discussion

“ Although I have ignored my gut at times, in hindsight it's always been right, in terms of recognizing bad choices. QUOTE] But once we realize our past mistakes, we can use our reason to clue us ... ” –  eccemuliere

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:21am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0