Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 16 of 97 (543923)
01-21-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
01-20-2010 1:06 AM


I'm surprised this thread didn't catch on better than it has.
It seems to me there are only a few possible positions to take on the morality issue:
1. Morality is God-given and inherent in all human beings.
2. Morality is God-given, but must be learnt from the Bible.
3. Some kind of mix of the first two.
4. Human morality is a result of evolution by natural selection
Oftentimes you'll see Creationists postulating that the inherent morality we humans have, can only be explained with the inclusion of a divine lawgiver. I find it strange then, that most of the commands put forth in the Bible are not inherent in the human species.
Do not kill, do not steal and do not lie are fine. We'd expect morality requisite for functional social behaviour to be inherent. Other commandments like "do not worship idols" or "you must only worship God (the same one that authored the commandments)" are not inherent in the human being. Otherwise millions of hindus would be walking about feeling guilt for worshiping idols and rejecting their Creator.
So when a Creationist talks about our morality being inspired by a "divine lawgiver", what morals are they talking about? What position do you take, slevesque? And how does one hold non-christians accountable for sins, when none of their moral code go against it?
For instance, how can it be a sin to worship Shiva, if the hindu has no inherent morality to tell him otherwise. What about stem cell research, abortion, homo sexuality, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc? Someone who doesn't hold to Christianity or any religious framework that condemns these things would have no way of knowing that what he/she is doing is wrong. How then can they be held accountable?
If humans were created supernaturally, would we not expect all morality to be inherent, rather than just some of it?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
PS. I gave it some thought, and came up with an allegory related to this topic.
An immigrant to the United States commits a crime, and while before the judge confesses that he didn't know US law, and therefore was unaware that he had committed a crime. The jury will still hold him acountable for the crime, even if he broke the law unwittingly.
However, the accused recognizes the existence of the jury, the US code of law, and the United States. He also recognizes its authority and is therefore fully able to read the law and understand what is legal and what is not.
For a non-Christian, the Bible would not be recognized as an authority on morality. Breaking a biblical commandment would be about as immoral as it is for a Christian NOT to pray to Allah five times a day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 1:06 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-22-2010 4:54 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 18 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 6:43 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 01-22-2010 6:10 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 17 of 97 (543936)
01-22-2010 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-21-2010 11:01 PM


Hi Meldinoor
I'm surprised this thread didn't catch on better than it has.
So am I! I sometimes wonder when I receive little response to a new thread whether it is because I made too good an opening argument or if it was so badly expressed nobody's interested.
The thing that really interests me on this subject is the consideration for why we care about things we label as moral issues. As I said, it's an emotional issue. This is why I see morality as having its basis in natural selection, because our emotions drive us towards certain types of behaviour, and natural selection would logically ensure that it normally drives us to behaviour that is advantageous to our survival.
I don't like to make the creationists arguments for them, but as I see it their idea of morality is that it comes purely from God's decisions, and to at least a large extent they admit to having no idea as to what God's reasons are for his decisions. I.E. God could say "x" is good, or he could say "x" is bad, and they would have no idea why? They just blindly follow orders. But the fact is they do care and show emotion about the things they consider moral issues, so the question is: if they don't understand why some things are good and some things are bad, why do they care? What does "good" and "bad" mean to them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-21-2010 11:01 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 18 of 97 (543942)
01-22-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-21-2010 11:01 PM


Meldinoor writes:
Oftentimes you'll see Creationists postulating that the inherent morality we humans have, can only be explained with the inclusion of a divine lawgiver. I find it strange then, that most of the commands put forth in the Bible are not inherent in the human species.
I think George Carlin summed up the whole 10 commandments issue quite well:
George Carlin writes:
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?
You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:
About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.
Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.
Let's start with the first three:
I AM THE LORD THY GOD
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH
Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:
HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER
Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.
Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.
And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE
Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital fidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.
But when you think about it, honesty and fidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS
This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL
Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:
Thou shalt always be honest and faithful
to the provider of thy nookie.
&
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course
they pray to a different invisible man than you.
Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself
text found here. I'm pretty sure it is spot on with his routine (I'm at work and am unable to verify this currently).

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-21-2010 11:01 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-22-2010 6:55 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 19 of 97 (543943)
01-22-2010 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by hooah212002
01-22-2010 6:43 AM


I'm pretty sure it is spot on with his routine (I'm at work and am unable to verify this currently).
I can confirm this routine is in his book "When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops", which I read only last month.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 6:43 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 20 of 97 (543997)
01-22-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
01-20-2010 11:16 AM


Hi everyone, I'm low on time right now so I haven't had time to anwer. But I did think about all this. JUP and Meldinoor pretty much say the same thing so I'll only answer once.
their are two ideas that came up, so I'll paraphrase them and say my little bit on each:
1- ''Empathy is the result of our intelligence''
As developped by Meldinoor, I understood it as that intelligence brought with it empathy. I would have liked to get more info of this supposed link between the two in the form of research because I feel skeptical that this is the case. Pigs are considered very intelligent, yet I don't know of it ever having any sort of empathical behavior. Same would go for crows, fish, etc.
2- ''Empathy is the result that we can imagine what the other feels, thinks, etc.''
I find that this does not logically follow. Empathy requires that we have this ability, but it does nothing to prove that it is caused by it. The case beign that we have individuals in society who are jsut as intelligent as anybody, just as able to project what I am feeling/thinking, yet do not feel any empathy. Obvious examples are serial killers, where some even like to do harm to others.
And so even if the two characteristics are linked, it is not a causal relationship.
I disagree because you're not looking at the big picture and the overall advantage of cooperation. As I said, who would want to live in a Logan’s Run society? If you had the choice between living in a society where you knew you’d be well looked after when you became sick and old, or one where you’d be thrown on the scrap heap the moment you passed your physical peak, which society would you choose to live in? Which society would be the most successful then? In modern society, would you bother to pay your taxes and be a good all-round citizen if you knew the moment you hit 60 or 70 you’d be shot in the head? Would you even make as much effort to care for your children and grandchildren if you knew they wouldn’t reciprocate when you needed their help? But I think the main factor here is that for most of our history — and in many societies even today — life expectancy was less than 30 or 40 years old. Once you became sick you’d either recover fairly quickly or you’d die fairly quickly. That’s why it was worth the effort to try to help the sick, because if you succeeded you had another fit and able body, and if you failed the burden would have been relatively brief.
There must be a massive advantage to the individual, at many levels, to know (either consciously or instinctively) that it is living in a relatively safe and caring society, because it can devote its energies and resources to other things than constantly worrying about its immediate survival. Just think how difficult life would be if every person you saw had to be considered a serious threat to your life, and how much easier it is that we can be fairly certain they will help us if we are in any difficulty. We couldn't possibly live in anything like the society that we do, and have 6+ billion people on the planet, without this huge advantage of cooperation.
Ok, the old people example I chose provides too many cope-outs form the point I wanted to make. Imagine the same two tribes scenario, but instead we are talking about deformed and/or weak babies. One tribe decides to keep them by empathy while the other decides to dispose of them. Such a behavior would have no negative repercussions on the social group itself (just think of the spartan society) but would give them a selective advantage against the other group, because they would preserve more ressources and production.
And on a final note to Meldinoor, I play CiV4 with both expansions. Currently I win frequently on the monarch level of play, and plan to go up another level soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-20-2010 11:16 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 01-23-2010 3:37 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-25-2010 6:05 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 97 (543998)
01-22-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-21-2010 11:01 PM


I have been thinking about good/evil and how it should be defined from a christians and biblical perspective, and this is where I am on the issue.
I do not think that something is good 'because God said it was good'. This idea seems to be popular amongst the christian comunity right now but I feel it is faulty and brings up numerous theological and logical problems.
So here's my view on all this. In the christian worldview, God is defined as being infinitely love,mercy,justice,holy,righteous, truth etc. These are all characteristics of his nature and are called ''good''. And so when God says a certain thing is 'good', it isn't simply because he said it, but rather because it is by itself a logical extension of his own 'good' nature. And so when he says something is bad, it is such because it is against his own nature.
Between these two, there certain things that seem to be in the in-between zone, but that God still calls good or bad. I'll take the example you brought up ''to worship other gods''. I like to view that God says this is bad simply because it is stupid. Thos other gods do not exist, and so it's a complete waste of time to worship them and this is why God tells us not to do it.
A sub-category of this would be that God says something is good or bad strictly because he knows it will have beneficial or harmful consequences. This category would include things such as homosexuality, abortion, pornography, drugs, etc. God created us with our own human nature and for a specific reason, and when we act against this nature, it will have harmful consequences on us. So God in fact tells us not to do it for our own good.
This is all on a theoretical level in my mind and I find little to no christians in my immediate surroundings that hold this view. This will explain why I just had a hard time putting it in a comprehensible text (in english doesn't make it any easier)
And just to make it explicit, the starting axioms of my positions on this is:
- God exists
- The Bible is God's word
- God is love,holy, etc. etc. and this is what should be called 'good'.
the rest as logical deduction from these axioms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-21-2010 11:01 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Iblis, posted 01-22-2010 6:28 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 01-23-2010 4:24 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 01-23-2010 4:39 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 63 by Minority Report, posted 02-09-2010 5:06 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 22 of 97 (543999)
01-22-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
01-22-2010 6:10 PM


God's Word
Telling us not to do something because it's "stupid" or "not good for us" is one thing.
Telling us to kill others for doing it is something else altogether.
Leviticus 24:10-16 writes:
And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan
And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.
That's a hell of a copyright right there, ain't it.
Edited by Iblis, : what kind of "god" needs a gangster code?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 01-22-2010 6:10 PM slevesque has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 23 of 97 (544060)
01-23-2010 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
01-22-2010 5:45 PM


Not having read other responses to your posited scenario:
In the old-folks scenario, we have a classic movie presentation of an Eskimo (or Inuit) family wherein the grandparent has gotten to the point he/she can no longer chew on the hide to make it wearable and so is no longer a productive member of the family. According to the movie, at that point the grandparent went out alone on the ice to be eaten by a polar bear so that that bear could then be killed by the family and eaten, thus continuing to provide for the family.
OK, that was a single family (and Hollywood). A single family or a very small tribe would be living on the edge, such that any single non-contributing member could seriously jeopardize the survival fo the entire social unit. Any social unit that is living right on the bloody edge of sheer survival cannot tolerate any non-contributing member. But that's not where every tribe is, now is it? Desperate measures are needed by social units in desperate situations, but they aren't all there, now are they?
Now, how can the elderly contribute? One obvious way is in helping to raise the young. Grandparents? Ever hear of them? Wouldn't keeping the grandparents around to help care for and raise the children be an advantage? Wouldn't you think?
Now, think of the very word, "elderly". Who is usually presented as being the sage counsel who run the entire community? The "ELDERS". One thing about the old people is that ... THEY KNOW THINGS! Our present society has lost this, because so much of the pertinent information in our present societies is only weeks or maybe months old (FaceBook? What the frak is THAT? -- and now even FaceBook is old), so only the young people know anything about it. But traditionally, the old people had all the information that the society needed. Who sits in counsel for the entire community? THE ELDERS! To indirectly quote from a popular US sit-com, old people KNOW STUFF! -- Cloris Leachman in particular. In the traditional communities where things didn't change that much, you learned everything you needed to learn from your (same-sex) parent and your parent had learned from their (same-sex) parent. So it was extremely beneficial for your entire community to have your and others' grandparents available. Because the only source of information you had was what was passed on to you ORALLY.
OK, so we have two different tribes. One tribe got rid of its elders when they could no longer contribute materially to the tribe, whereas the other tribe kept and maintained its elders. A situation arises which had happened before. The first tribe doesn't have a clue what's happening, but the second tribe's elders had lived through the same kind of situation before. Who has the advantange?
Now, in your revised version:
quote:
Imagine the same two tribes scenario, but instead we are talking about deformed and/or weak babies.
Now, the situation in such scenarios is necessarily how close to extinction the tribes are living. If they are right on the very edge of dying out, then keeping such babies would be the kiss of death. But if they can survive in spite of keeping such babies, then the extra benefit of such sensibilities would benefit them.
Now, if that has escaped you, in dire straits, then dire measures are needed. But if you have lee-way, then taking that leeway can make your society a much more beneficial society for everybody involved.
So, you can dream up all the dire straits scenarios you want to, but for social situations where those dire straits do not apply (which is most of them) then your scenarios would not apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 01-22-2010 5:45 PM slevesque has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 24 of 97 (544062)
01-23-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
01-22-2010 6:10 PM


OK, let's take some different premises:
none of the gods exist.
certain moral precepts are found to be beneficial for society and hence for the members of society, so that's what's taught.
Conclusions: we arrive at the same conclusions.
Did God decide that some behavior is beneficial or harmful, or did the elders of the society, through generations of bitter experience, decide that some behavior is beneficial or harmful? Either way, the end result is the same.
Now, consider two very different scenarios.
Two groups recognize a particular set of behavior as being detrimental. One group comes to this realization by considering the actual behavior and observing the consequences of that behavior. The other groups has a biblical teaching condemning that behavior.
Now, that second group is taught that if certain things are not true, things that are DEMONSTABLY NOT TRUE, then those biblical teachings condemning that particualr behavior are also not true. FURTHERMORE, that second group is taught that if ANY biblical teachings are found to be NOT TRUE, then ANY BIBLICAL CONDEMNATION is likewise found to be not true, then what happens? Clearly, that second group has been released for following any moral stricture.
OK, do you teach morality as being things that you should do and things that you should not do because of realistic consequences? Or do you teach morality as things that only apply if a particular supernatural entity exists, but that particular supernatural entity cannot exist if the universe is as we find it, so that particular supernatural entity in fact does not exist so we can do whatever we frakin' want to do.
Is morality necessary? Yes! HELL YES!
Does morality depend on any supernatural scenario that denies reality? OF COURSE NOT!
Is morality "good" because it works? OK, yeah.
Is morality good because God made it that way. OK, that could work.
Is morality good because it just plain WORKS? OK, that ALSO works.
If God does not exist, would morality still work? OF COURSE IT WOULD!
If God were to not exist, would morality cease to exist and to work? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!
HELLO??????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 01-22-2010 6:10 PM slevesque has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 25 of 97 (544063)
01-23-2010 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
01-22-2010 6:10 PM


OK, let me present this differently.
To two groups, you present the same moral teachings.
To the first group, you present the actual reasons why those moral teachings are good and necessary. To the second group, you teach them that those moral teachings are only valid if that one particular supernatural entity exists; furthermore, you teach that if that one particular supernatural entity does not exist, then none of the moral teachings you have imparted are true.
OK, you have set up some artificial tests for the existence of that particular supernatural entity, tests that are doomed to fail spectacularly (as is the nature of "creation science"). The first group who was not primed to expect much will still recognize the moral teachings as necessary. But the second group who was taught that any disproval of their particular supernatural entity also disproved morality would have no other option but to abandon morality.
So which is better? To teach morality in realistic terms? Or to teach that artificial disproval of a supernatural entity also disproves morality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 01-22-2010 6:10 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 26 of 97 (544259)
01-25-2010 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
01-22-2010 5:45 PM


Hi Slevesque
1- ''Empathy is the result of our intelligence''
As developped by Meldinoor, I understood it as that intelligence brought with it empathy. I would have liked to get more info of this supposed link between the two in the form of research because I feel skeptical that this is the case. Pigs are considered very intelligent, yet I don't know of it ever having any sort of empathical behavior. Same would go for crows, fish, etc.
I think our empathy comes from 2 areas. One is an instinctive sub-conscious part of our brain that, for example, reacts automatically to seeing someone else suffer, by making us feel sad. Sad is a "negative" emotion, so we are propelled to try and help the sufferer, so that we no longer feel sad. The other is our conscious cognitive mind that understands the concept that we are all the same, and when other people are suffering they are going through the same experience as we do when we suffer. And we are a lot more intelligent than pigs, crows or fish, which is a simple explanation for why we have this conscious ability and they probably don't.
2- ''Empathy is the result that we can imagine what the other feels, thinks, etc.''
I find that this does not logically follow. Empathy requires that we have this ability, but it does nothing to prove that it is caused by it. The case beign that we have individuals in society who are jsut as intelligent as anybody, just as able to project what I am feeling/thinking, yet do not feel any empathy. Obvious examples are serial killers, where some even like to do harm to others.
Psychopaths lack the functioning part of the brain that endows most of us with empathy. They do not necessarily lack other parts of the functioning brain, which explains why they can have exactly the same intelligence as us in all other respects.
Ok, the old people example I chose provides too many cope-outs form the point I wanted to make. Imagine the same two tribes scenario, but instead we are talking about deformed and/or weak babies. One tribe decides to keep them by empathy while the other decides to dispose of them. Such a behavior would have no negative repercussions on the social group itself (just think of the spartan society) but would give them a selective advantage against the other group, because they would preserve more ressources and production.
Exactly the same point that I made about the value of caring for the old and sick applies to the young and sick. More often than not, it is worth the effort to try and save a weak baby because the advantage of succeeding in saving it are so high, so our instincts are honed by natural selection to be (apparently) over-caring, because it is worth the effort. However, even in the case of a very sick or deformed baby, where your pragmatic conscious mind sees there is no realistic chance of it surviving, how do you turn off your instincts that drive you to care for it? I'm no expert in the chemical processes that drive our emotions and instinctual behaviour, but it would seem to be impossible for them to just get switched on and off according to the perceptions of our pragmatic cognitive minds. Even if that could happen, there would be a great danger if we suddenly lost our "caring" emotions in order to abandon a very sick child. A temporary loss of our empathetic and caring instincts could cause all kinds of dangerous behaviour towards others who are of great pragmatic value to us. So again, the point is that it is generally more useful to be (apparently) over-caring, than to live on an emotional edge between being caring and uncaring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 01-22-2010 5:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 6:37 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 59 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2010 5:04 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 27 of 97 (544261)
01-25-2010 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
01-25-2010 6:05 AM


1- ''Empathy is the result of our intelligence''
As developped by Meldinoor, I understood it as that intelligence brought with it empathy. I would have liked to get more info of this supposed link between the two in the form of research because I feel skeptical that this is the case. Pigs are considered very intelligent, yet I don't know of it ever having any sort of empathical behavior. Same would go for crows, fish, etc.
I think it important to note that various "animals" are well-known for their empathy - dogs for an everyday example, both in responses to other dogs as well as to humans.
There are also instances where it would appear quite clearly that the animals are distressed over the death of a sibling, parent or child - the most poignant I remember was an ape whose baby died and for many days she carried the baby with her and tried to get the baby to wake up - and it was also quite clear she knew the baby wasn't sleeping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-25-2010 6:05 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-25-2010 7:07 AM greyseal has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 28 of 97 (544264)
01-25-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by greyseal
01-25-2010 6:37 AM


Hi greyseal
I think it important to note that various "animals" are well-known for their empathy - dogs for an everyday example, both in responses to other dogs as well as to humans.
I think we need to be careful about what we define as "empathy". Up til now I've been using the term fairly generally and possibly quite wrongly. I don't think our instinctive emotional response is true empathy. Feeling sad or distressed is a natural response many animals obviously have. But I think true empathy is having the ability to put yourself in someone else's mind and imagine what they are feeling (or not feeling in the case of a deceased loved one). It is conceptual, and maybe only humans have this ability. As I said in an earlier post, it doesn't just serve to help feel sympathy towards another, but it can be used for other reasons, such as to perceive what their purpose is.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone can give specific examples of other animals demonstrating true empathy (i.e. having a real understanding of how another animal/person is feeling), rather than just making an instinctive emotional response to another's predicament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 6:37 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 7:50 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 29 of 97 (544270)
01-25-2010 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
01-25-2010 7:07 AM


empathy - more than an emotional response?
I think we need to be careful about what we define as "empathy". Up til now I've been using the term fairly generally and possibly quite wrongly. I don't think our instinctive emotional response is true empathy. Feeling sad or distressed is a natural response many animals obviously have. But I think true empathy is having the ability to put yourself in someone else's mind and imagine what they are feeling (or not feeling in the case of a deceased loved one).
So, the apparent distress and emtional response of an ape for her dead offspring is not empathy, but the apparent distress and emotional response of a human for her dead offspring is?
Based on what scale? Can you verify that to me in any other way than "it's obvious" or "I don't think it is the same"?
I agree it's a really difficult question, but if humans have an instinctual emotional response, and animals a similar instinctual emotional response, and you call it empathy in a human but an automatic response in an animal, why the difference?
I'm certain that humans can do more with their thoughts and feelings - but that's not empathy. Animals can plan their escapes and forsee a future outcome based on their observations - crows and squirrels and others for example have been seen using "tools" as WE would define them.
I think this "automatic response" idea is from a starting point of "animals are less than humans" which is the modern equivalent of "animals are automata" of two hundred years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-25-2010 7:07 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-25-2010 9:36 AM greyseal has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 30 of 97 (544285)
01-25-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by greyseal
01-25-2010 7:50 AM


Re: empathy - more than an emotional response?
I agree it's a really difficult question, but if humans have an instinctual emotional response, and animals a similar instinctual emotional response, and you call it empathy in a human but an automatic response in an animal, why the difference?
No, I don't call an instintive emotional response in humans "empathy". I had made that error in previous messages, but I thought I made it clear in my last post what the difference was.
All animals, including humans, have an instinctive emotional response to certain stimulae. This may include, for example, sadness and distress at losing your own child. That is not the same as empathy.
Empathy is having the ability to recognise that other beings have similar thoughts or emotions to us. It is understanding, for example, that someone else feels sad at losing their child in the same way as we would if we were to lose ours. In other words, empathy is not experiencing emotion, but understanding how another being is experiencing emotion.
It is undoubtedly the case, however, that when we understand how and why others are feeling happy or sad, we may then have an emotional response ourselves to the knowledge of their emotion. For example, we can feel happy or sad just based on news that we hear about someone we don't even know, or even to a story we know is fictional. I.E. We are making an instinctive emotional response to a concept. I don't think any other animals can react to the concept of another being's emotional state. They can only react to direct stimulae such as the sight of another suffering or getting excited.
Language must have played a big role in developing the ability within humans to grasp many concepts, including the ability to consider another's point of view or emotional state. As other animals don't have our extensive language skills, they don't have the ability to generate and convey concepts to each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 7:50 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 9:55 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024