2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzThose definitions all refute your claim. You suck at semantics.
Strangely, answers.com gave the following definition of Selfish
"Concerned chiefly or only with oneself"
and Cambridge dictionary gave
"Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage"
Admittedly OED gave;
"concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others."
Note the word, e expense of someone else, only that you don't actively consider what is good for them.
It is merely your unsupported claim that humans in hunter gatherering (or for that matter ANY culture) are solely concerned with their own benefit. This absurd position is refuted by millions of altruistic acts every day. And you know better anyway; you don't think and act like that in your personal life and you know it (and anyone who did would be considered mentally ill). It's pitiful to see you making such an obviously flawed argument.
EDIT: I got my definitions from my handy dandy old hardcopy of Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. If you need it online, the same definitions are available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Originally posted by scottishinnzOf course, cooperating pays off for each individual member of the group. Duh. But that hardly makes the act of cooperation "selfish" by any definition of the word. You should have taken some English classes.
Imagine, for a second, a group of stone age hunters going after a woolly mammoth. No single hunter can bring it down. Only by working as a group can they bring it down. Each hunter could alternately spend their time hunting rabbits. The pay off for hunting a mammoth (in terms of food benefit, also perhaps fur), even despite the increased likelihood ...[text shortened]... yone else, except family (who share a higher than normal proportion of the individuals genes).
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really are deluded. You should learn how to think. My point is that whilst the net result may be apparent altruism, each individual is satisfying its own individual requirements first and foremost.
Those definitions all refute your claim. You suck at semantics.
It is merely your unsupported claim that humans in hunter gatherering (or for that matter ANY culture) are solely concerned with their own benefit. This absurd position is refuted by millions of altruistic acts every day. And you know better anyway; you don't think and act like tha ...[text shortened]... d it online, the same definitions are available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Originally posted by no1marauderThe difference between gravity and morality is that gravity is 100% consistent and you can measure it scientifically and objectively. Human behaviour is not consistent. If all humans were hotwired as you say then everyone would always behave morally and altruistically , but they don't.
Morality is a way of describing how humans are hotwired to act. You "see" it every single day played out in human behavior. Stop being so simple minded; gravity is real - you can't see it but you observe its effects. Ditto with human morality.
EDIT: Or is your claim that gravity is merely a "subjective conceptualisation"?
You can measure gravity with instruments and it matters not that you can't see it because you can feel it objectively with your body every time you walk. We also see things fall so we can reasonably extrapolate that there is an external objective force called gravity. You can also prove gravity mathematically. None of these things can be done with morality. All we can "see" is human behaviour , but there is no external force as such (without God) only internal concepts. You have no other evidence other than your subjective "sense" of morality.
If I were to say that morality doesn't exist and that all human altruistic behaviour can be explained by gene pool preservation and evolutionary forces then you can offer only your felt subjective sense as evidence against this. If I were to say that gravity doesn't exist then you would have many other objective ways to prove me wrong.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterHowever , if it was somehow God's will that morality was based on blancmange it would still be objective to US which is the main point. It would take it out of the realm of human opinion and argument. It would no longer be subjective to human beings.
I think ultimate morality is based on God's nature and therefore is not arbitrary. God is love . Ultimate objective morality is based on the law of love. God wills love to reign in the universe. However , if it was somehow God's will that morality was based on blancmange it would still be objective to US which is the main point. It would take it out of the realm of human opinion and argument. It would no longer be subjective to human beings.
No. At best, you are using the words 'subjective' and 'objective' idiosyncratically. A good indication of this is that you feel the need to qualify these words with phrases like "to us" or "to human beings". The nonsense about God's immutable love nature aside, you are an ethical subjectivist because, at root, you think moral claims are made true or false by certain observer attitudes. That these hypothetical attitudes are not human attitudes makes no difference: your account implies subjective, not objective, value. This is why I think you're such a comical figure -- going around extolling the virtues of your "objective" account; meanwhile any onlooker can see that it is a subjectivist account. Basically, you're like the emperor with his new clothes.
I do understand your point here. But your contention is not that moral truths are objective, but rather something weaker -- merely that they are independent of human attitudes. Somehow you think this is specific to theism, but I think that only demonstrates an ignorance of metaethical theories. There are many atheists who are moral realists.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWas thinking about this on the way home from the lab today. If humans were really unconditional altruists, as you posit, then money for one thing, wouldn't exist. Perhaps you defend clients simply out of good will though?
Of course, cooperating pays off for each individual member of the group. Duh. But that hardly makes the act of cooperation "selfish" by any definition of the word. You should have taken some English classes.
Edit; Thinking about it, if humans truly are unconditional altruists as you contend, why does communism not work?
Originally posted by LemonJello"The nonsense about God's immutable love nature aside, you are an ethical subjectivist because, at root, you think moral claims are made true or false by certain observer attitudes"
[b]However , if it was somehow God's will that morality was based on blancmange it would still be objective to US which is the main point. It would take it out of the realm of human opinion and argument. It would no longer be subjective to human beings.
No. At best, you are using the words 'subjective' and 'objective' idiosyncratically. A good in ...[text shortened]... gnorance of metaethical theories. There are many atheists who are moral realists.[/b]
This is not what I think at all. God's nature determines objective morals because God's nature exists before the universe ever came into being. God's love and holiness is the primary objective reference point. If you stand against God's love you are standing against the ultimate reality of ALL existence. The known universe will fade away and God's love will still be there for all eternity. God's love and ethical nature is so real that one day the illusion we call life will melt away to reveal the reality behind it. So it's not so much of a philosophical question of moral claims being "true or false". The holiness of God is more like immense gravity , you try and defy it and ultimately you will fall.
Now you may disagree with this vision but you can hardly say it is subjective. All this will happen regardless of anyone's opinion.
Originally posted by LemonJello"There are many atheists who are moral realists."
[b]However , if it was somehow God's will that morality was based on blancmange it would still be objective to US which is the main point. It would take it out of the realm of human opinion and argument. It would no longer be subjective to human beings.
No. At best, you are using the words 'subjective' and 'objective' idiosyncratically. A good in ...[text shortened]... gnorance of metaethical theories. There are many atheists who are moral realists.[/b]
And they are trying to have their cake and eat it....in an effort to avoid the logical implications of Atheism . You see we all want a god in a way...we all want a firm moral objective locus so we can say certain things are objectively wrong and right....but we can't have one without a God. We can't have objective morality without rooting morality in something external to ourselves. Moral realism is like having a god without the God bit. I undertsand why Atheists do this , I used to do it myself , to really face up to the cold brutal reality of your beliefs can be incredibly anxiety provoking.
Originally posted by scottishinnz"Unconditional" is your word, not mine. I have defended many clients pro bono. I have done many things without any expectation of gain in any way. Are you saying you haven't? If so, you are either a liar or the biggest prick on the planet.
Was thinking about this on the way home from the lab today. If humans were really unconditional altruists, as you posit, then money for one thing, wouldn't exist. Perhaps you defend clients simply out of good will though?
Edit; Thinking about it, if humans truly are unconditional altruists as you contend, why does communism not work?
If by "Communism" you mean sharing resources within the group, this "worked" for most of human existence as you would know if you had taken a basic anthropology course. And our unique level of altruism led to our predominance over the planet.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterKeep saying it over and over and over again if it makes you feel better to believe something so obviously incorrect.
"There are many atheists who are moral realists."
And they are trying to have their cake and eat it....in an effort to avoid the logical implications of Atheism . You see we all want a god in a way...we all want a firm moral objective locus so we can say certain things are objectively wrong and right....but we can't have one without a God. We can't ...[text shortened]... ally face up to the cold brutal reality of your beliefs can be incredibly anxiety provoking.
Originally posted by knightmeisterScientific laws don't have to be 100% consistent if you mean things ALWAYS have to act in a specific way. Look up quantum mechanics which is probably the most successful theory in history; it is based on probabilities. Your ignorance of science is sad.
The difference between gravity and morality is that gravity is 100% consistent and you can measure it scientifically and objectively. Human behaviour is not consistent. If all humans were hotwired as you say then everyone would always behave morally and altruistically , but they don't.
You can measure gravity with instruments and it matters not th ...[text shortened]... t gravity doesn't exist then you would have many other objective ways to prove me wrong.
No "external" force is necessary for humans to have objective morality built into them any more than an "external force" is necessary for our glands to regulate our level of blood sugar. That's just the way we are. Some people have physical problems and have their level of blood sugar at improper levels, but that does not mean that an internal regulating system doesn't exist. Ditto for our "hotwired" objective morality.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo "external" force is necessary for humans to have objective morality built into them any more than an "external force" is necessary for our glands to regulate our level of blood sugar. That's just the way we are.MARAUDER
Scientific laws don't have to be 100% consistent if you mean things ALWAYS have to act in a specific way. Look up quantum mechanics which is probably the most successful theory in history; it is based on probabilities. Your ignorance of science is sad.
No "external" force is necessary for humans to have objective morality built into them any m ...[text shortened]... internal regulating system doesn't exist. Ditto for our "hotwired" objective morality.
I could extract your glands and put your blood in a testube.(believe me it's tempting!!) but I cannot do this with this "objective morality" you speak of. Pray tell me , where is it? Can morality be located anywhere in space time? All I can objectively see is human actions.
I do not need to conceptualise a gland or blood or sugar. I can hold them in my hand . I can feel the physical effects of gravity also and prove it mathematically . None of these things can I do with morality.So your analogies are not accurate.
Tell me do you think "beauty" exists objectively also???
Originally posted by knightmeisterLook idiot, I've explained this to you several times. I can't help that you are stubborn and stupid. What you are calling "morality" is nothing but a description of how people act and how people act is dictated (more or less) by what they are. You CAN see the physical effects of the Natural Law as it relates to human behavior; you see it EVERY DAY. There is no difference between how the Natural Law reveals itself and the law of gravity reveals itself; both act on physical objects. I have no idea why you are so thick that this concept eludes you.
No "external" force is necessary for humans to have objective morality built into them any more than an "external force" is necessary for our glands to regulate our level of blood sugar. That's just the way we are.MARAUDER
I could extract your glands and put your blood in a testube.(believe me it's tempting!!) but I cannot do this with this "objecti ...[text shortened]... alogies are not accurate.
Tell me do you think "beauty" exists objectively also???
Originally posted by no1marauderSo far, you have described unconditional altruism, which is to say someone who just gives, gives, gives. It simply isn't a tenable position. You have defended clients pro bono? Doesn't surprise me really - but then, isn't it a condition of your bar association? And who would want to be known as the guy who doesn't do pro bono work? See, some prestige in doing pro bono work. No money, but still there is indirect reciprocity. And, again, lets think back to when we lived in small groups, the conditions under which our brains evolved. That prestige would have been good for your genes. Doctors, lawyers, learned people have been admired and respected for hundreds of years - and undoubtedly got some good tail out of it.
"Unconditional" is your word, not mine. I have defended many clients pro bono. I have done many things without any expectation of gain in any way. Are you saying you haven't? If so, you are either a liar or the biggest prick on the planet.
If by "Communism" you mean sharing resources within the group, this "worked" for most of human existence ...[text shortened]... opology course. And our unique level of altruism led to our predominance over the planet.
By Communism, I mean Communism with a big C. Like, well, Russia, North Korea or China. Societies where everyone in the country works to a common goal, with no individual property rights. "Sharing resources" as you describe is not communism - it's reciprocal altruism, possibly with a side order of kin selection.
Seriously man, go pick up a copy of Selfish gene.