The link provided by apathist in the post several lines above this one appears to cover the biological aspect satisfactorily, if one takes the time to study it.
Personally, I think "nurture" and "nature" would both be represented. A child acquires genes from its parents, and also observes the behaviour of its parents. So a child inheriting the altruistic gene would have the reinforcement of observation of the behaviour of the parent who passed on that gene.
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by Kewpieand there is evidence of an altruistic gene? like the rather elusive gay gene. As an existentialist I reject wholeheartedly the genetic predisposition argument. Why? because we are free moral agents with recourse to the faculty of conscience and can act irrespective of a genetic predisposition because predisposition is not the same as a causation, unfortunately for those pandering the idea that it is. To think otherwise is to assert that we are automatons at the mercy of our genes.
The link provided by apathist in the post several lines above this one appears to cover the biological aspect satisfactorily, if one takes the time to study it.
Personally, I think "nurture" and "nature" would both be represented. A child acquires genes from its parents, and also observes the behaviour of its parents. So a child inheriting the altruistic ...[text shortened]... ld have the reinforcement of observation of the behaviour of the parent who passed on that gene.
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFMostly nature with some nurture. I think it can be shown that all complete psychopaths are that way because of a specific physical aspect of their brains - so not necessarily genetic, but still, in this context, to be counted as 'nature'.
To what degree do you think 'nature' and 'nurture' are responsible for the presence or absence (or degree) of altruism in someone's thinking and behaviour?
When it comes to day to day more subtle behaviour, that is more affected by nurture and we can see some differences between cultures (but not very significant differences).
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFGiven that this is the spirituality forum, you have posed a false dichotomy in that some respondents clearly believe in a third option (God).
To what degree do you think 'nature' and 'nurture' are responsible for the presence or absence (or degree) of altruism in someone's thinking and behaviour?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 30592
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm still not convinced sir you know what an 'existentialist' is.
and there is evidence of an altruistic gene? like the rather elusive gay gene. As an existentialist I reject wholeheartedly the genetic predisposition argument. Why? because we are free moral agents with recourse to the faculty of conscience and can act irrespective of a genetic predisposition because predisposition is not the same as a causation, u ...[text shortened]... a that it is. To think otherwise is to assert that we are automatons at the mercy of our genes.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think we should accept the possibility that you may never hear an explanation for altruism that satisfies you, and move on with our lives.
and there is evidence of an altruistic gene? like the rather elusive gay gene. As an existentialist I reject wholeheartedly the genetic predisposition argument. Why? because we are free moral agents with recourse to the faculty of conscience and can act irrespective of a genetic predisposition because predisposition is not the same as a causation, u ...[text shortened]... a that it is. To think otherwise is to assert that we are automatons at the mercy of our genes.
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by JS357A rather cheap ad hominem in contrast to my reasoned and measured post on why I have rejected the arguments proffered so far.
I think we should accept the possibility that you may never hear an explanation for altruism that satisfies you, and move on with our lives.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeExistentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe.
I'm still not convinced sir you know what an 'existentialist' is.
Which defines my world view to a T although I must point out that I am a Christian existentialist more like Kierkegaard as opposed to Satre who attempted to draw all possibilities form a position of 'consistent atheism.'