Interestingly, in the same altruism article
"Humans are not exclusively altruistic towards family members, previous co-operators or potential future allies, but can be altruistic towards people they do not know and will never meet. For example, some humans donate to international charities and volunteer their time to help society's less fortunate.
It strains plausibility to claim that these altruistic deeds are done in the hope of a return favor. The game theory analysis of this 'just in case' strategy, where the principle would be 'always help everyone in case you need to pull in a favor in return', is a decidedly non-optimal strategy, where the net expenditure of effort (tit) is far greater than the net profit when it occasionally pays off (tat).
According to some, it is difficult to believe that these behaviors are solely explained as indirect selfish rationality, be it conscious or sub-conscious. Mathematical formulations of kin selection, along the lines of the prisoner's dilemma, are helpful as far as they go; but what a game-theoretic explanation glosses over is the fact that altruistic behavior can be attributed to that apparently mysterious phenomenon, the conscience. One recent suggestion, proposed by the philosopher Daniel Dennett, was initially developed when considering the problem of so-called 'free riders' in the tragedy of the commons, a larger-scale version of the prisoner's dilemma.
In game theory terms, a free rider is an agent who draws benefits from a co-operative society without contributing. In a one-to-one situation, free riding can easily be discouraged by a tit-for-tat strategy. But in a larger-scale society, where contributions and benefits are pooled and shared, they can be incredibly difficult to shake off.
Imagine an elementary society of co-operative organisms. Co-operative agents interact with each other, each contributing resources and each drawing on the common good. Now imagine a rogue free rider, an agent who draws a favor ("you scratch my back"😉 and later refuses to return it. The problem is that free riding is always going to be beneficial to individuals at cost to society. How can well-behaved co-operative agents avoid being cheated? Over many generations, one obvious solution is for co-operators to evolve the ability to spot potential free riders in advance and refuse to enter into reciprocal arrangements with them. Then, the canonical free rider response is to evolve a more convincing disguise, fooling co-operators into co-operating after all. This can lead to an evolutionary arms races, with ever-more-sophisticated disguises and ever-more-sophisticated detectors.
In this evolutionary arms race, how best might one convince comrades that one really is a genuine co-operator, not a free rider in disguise? One answer is by actually making oneself a genuine co-operator, by erecting psychological barriers to breaking promises, and by advertising this fact to everyone else. In other words, a good solution is for organisms to evolve things that everyone knows will force them to be co-operators - and to make it obvious that they've evolved these things. So evolution will produce organisms who are sincerely moral and who wear their hearts on their sleeves; in short, evolution will give rise to the phenomenon of conscience.
This theory, combined with ideas of kin selection and the one-to-one sharing of benefits, may explain how a blind and fundamentally selfish process can produce a genuinely non-cynical form of altruism that gives rise to the human conscience.
Critics of such technical game theory analysis point out that it appears to forget that human beings are rational and emotional. To presume an analysis of human behaviour without including human rationale or emotion is necessarily unrealistically narrow, and treats human beings as if they are mere machines, sometimes called Homo economicus. Another objection is that often people donate anonymously, so that it is impossible to determine if they really did the altruistic act.
Beginning with an understanding that rational human beings benefit from living in a benign universe, logically it follows that particular human beings may gain substantial emotional satisfaction from acts which they perceive to make the world a better place."
Of course, I'd disagree with Dennett on this occasion. International charities are a recent invention, but they are playing on an evolved instinct to help other in need, since they may help you back in the future. Remember, we evolved in small, generally fairly closely related groups, where this type of behaviour would be basically a form of extended kin selection. We would evolve the tendency to "feed hungry children", and get an endorphin rush for our trouble. I would say that the "international charity problem" is merely a (unconscious in most people) misfiring of a genetically selfish rule.
Originally posted by no1marauderI just re-read this. You need to think about this more carefully.
You misunderstand both my and Scot's argument and say he is right!
I am perfectly willing to concede that human altruism is a product of evolution. Scot is saying altruism doesn't exist at all; that Man in intrinsically selfish. The research busts him on every level. And if you actually bothered to look at the source materials I've cited, yo ...[text shortened]... to manipulate others is the very basis for the evolution of our large brain.[/b]
Dawkins lists 4 altruistic reasons;
1) Kin selection - genetically selfish, promoting your own genes, evn if in another individual.
2) Direct reciprocal altruism - genetically selfish, I want something done, and the "cost" to me of doing something nice for you is less than the "benefit" to me of having that thing done,
3) Reputation - indirect reciprocal altruism verging on sexual selection. By my reputation alone I can get others to help me out, also, because I'm big and powerful I can have any woman I want. Genetically selfish.
4) Conspicuous generosity. Indirect reciprocal altruism. The individual is advertising "I'm good to help, because I will reciprocate in kind". Also, to members of the opposite sex (esp females), they are advertising "I am a caring nurturing individual, who will make a good parent and mate". Genetically selfish.
All of these things are strategies by the genes to promote their own reproduction, to maximise their "benefit", even at the expense of modest "cost".
Originally posted by scottishinnzOpposing altruism to selfishness in this context must have a precise meaning.
I just re-read this. You need to think about this more carefully.
Dawkins lists 4 altruistic reasons;
1) Kin selection - genetically selfish, promoting your own genes, evn if in another individual.
2) Direct reciprocal altruism - genetically selfish, I want something done, and the "cost" to me of doing something nice for you is less than the "be ...[text shortened]... n reproduction, to maximise their "benefit", even at the expense of modest "cost".
"Selfish," when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word – but "selfish" isn't it.
- Richard Dawkins
So altruistic, as opposed to this "genetic selfishness" would simply imply that it does not possess the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process.
I agree with no1, equating this 'altruism' with social altruistic attitudes is falling in a fallacy of equivocation. If you want to push the argument further to include social meanings of altruism then you must go beyond Dawkins' arguments.
Originally posted by PalynkaI can see where Dawkins' is coming from in that the very term "selfish" itself is riddled with the suggestion that there is some conscious thought processes or decision making. However, it is only a suggestion, and something can have the properties we would associate with selfish behaviour without any thought processes at all. This is what is being referred to when Dawkins' talks of "selfish genes". I, on the other hand, am taking behaviours (in the way that E.O. Wilson et al would) and showing that the net result of that behaviour is an increase (or at least a potential increase) in gene frequency, which could only be said to be a "genetically selfish" behaviour.
Opposing altruism to selfishness in this context must have a precise meaning.
[i]"Selfish," when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ou ...[text shortened]... o include social meanings of altruism then you must go beyond Dawkins' arguments.
Ask yourself this; when a company advertises, is it simply for the good of the consumer, or is it out to make money from its investment?
Originally posted by LemonJelloTake my statement that I have hands, which expresses a truth. Me, I always thought it expresses a truth because the propositional content corresponds to a fact about the world. You say that it's because it bears some sort of relation to God's character. What do you mean?
Upon which part of the statement are you hung? The words are straight-forward, the intended meanings of the same are not hidden. Are you looking for examples?
I'm asking you to clarify what you mean when you say that moral truth (well, now it's all truth) is dependent upon, or "reflective" of, God's character. Yes, maybe an example would help. ...[text shortened]... hysics, moral truths are not independent of such attitudes and are thus not objective.[/b]
Although your statement is one more of presumed fact than truth, the physicality of your hands relates to the reality of God's creation. We can get as metaphysical and hypothetical as the vagrant winds will allow, but when the final decisions are rendered, there will be no mistaking that God--- at some specific point--- acted in time. This physical world, your physical being will serve as testimony of His real work.
The immediate and obvious moral truth which could serve as an example would be freedom. It is an obvious moral truth that man desires freedom, and its parallel is found in the various freedoms God grants man as shadows of His autonomy. As was numerated in a previous post, human history is the stage within which the will of man and the sovereign will of God co-exist: two autonomous and unfettered wills, each an example of choice and opportunity while their co-existence serves as (among other things) an example of God's genius.
Explain to me how any agent (your God is an agent, isn't He?) can possess a character that is devoid of propositional attitudes.
I would say that depends upon your definition of 'propositional attitudes.' I am under the impression that most PA's are emotionally-based. God does not emote.
My "standard" is just the usual sense of objectivity -- as constitutive independence from observer attitudes.
Or, in other words, obectivity is based upon an unswaying reality totally independent of perspective. This coincides with the immutability of God. Irrespective of observation, others' existence or even physical reality, God's character simply is. The moral truths thusly connected to His character are necessarily objective as well.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think we would enter a nature vs nurture discussion here that would be too long for the time I'm willing to spend here. In my personal opinion, the diversity of cultural differences around the world cannot be explained simply through genetic selection (notably the time-frames involved seem unlikely fast) and therefore one should be at least cautious when explaining behaviours (such as altruism) simply through genetic selection. Even an 'increase' implies an 'increase' with respect to something.
I, on the other hand, am taking behaviours (in the way that E.O. Wilson et al would) and showing that the net result of that behaviour is an increase (or at least a potential increase) in gene frequency, which could only be said to be a "genetically selfish" behaviour.
Ask yourself this; when a company advertises, is it simply for the good of the consumer, or is it out to make money from its investment?
But what? Is society evolving to more or less selfishness? Although I don't have a proper basis to say it (I doubt one even exists), I'd actually say less, even if the mainstream perception of it seems to be the opposite. And even if it is to more selfishness it seems rash to suggest these relatively fast changes are genetically driven and not culturally.
PS: The company's example isn't really adequate as it is an example of conscious decision making.
Okay, Scott and No1M ASSUMING your athestic (or whatever) worldview is right than the aswer is simple.
In order to have socity morality would have to be natural/gentic. Humans that have a socity have outrageous advatange agianst other humans. And will thus be able to dominate them. Thus after a while morality will become natural. The moral genes will selfishly make more of themselves by making a strong moral socity.
But evoultion is inpecfect. So we have some moral behavior that is not gentically selfish. For example the Jonestown killings. Evoultion makes morality and morality is supposed to be gentically selfish. They thought what they did was moral. They were wrong it was clearly not gentically selfish.
The S dude will say that this is not moral behavior. But it is. It is a bad out growth caused by morality. The following of something greater than you is a moral behavior. An amoral cold thoughtful person would never fall for cult traps.
For any example of good morality anyone can cite. The S dude will just say it will help the community so (this is right) will indirectly help the person's genes. However, there has never been any moral choice that was not based on a human socity directly or indirectly. The only way to solve this problem would be a thought experiment about aliens. For example you could press a blue or yellow button. A blue button will kill 10,000 aliens that are smart. A yellow button will kill 10 humans. There will be no repreconssions ether way after the killings. A bunch of people would pick the blue button. This is not gentical selfish.
People are not totally gentical selfish because evoulution is inpefect. Pefect evoulution would have people be moral when it is good for their long term genes and amoral when its good. It has not been able to do this.
Flame me now.
Originally posted by PalynkaNot sure where you are going with "cultural differences". Is murder wrong only in selected cultures, or only ours? Most of the animal kingdom never fights to the death either. Is food sharing, for example, going out for a meal with friends merely something that happens in the West? No, not at all. Such a practice helps to cement the reciprocal ties that help us to survive and pass on our genes.
I think we would enter a nature vs nurture discussion here that would be too long for the time I'm willing to spend here. In my personal opinion, the diversity of cultural differences around the world cannot be explained simply through genetic selection (notably the time-frames involved seem unlikely fast) and therefore one should be at least cautious when e ...[text shortened]... mpany's example isn't really adequate as it is an example of conscious decision making.
Is society becoming more or less selfish? Is this a valid question? Does it matter? I've already shown on numerous occasions that pretty much all human altruistic behaviour is either (a) direct reciprocal altruism, (b) indirect reciprocal altruism, (c) prestige building (indirect reciprocal / sexual selection) or (d) cooperative, which is not altruism at all (rather more probably indirect reciprocal altruism, by sharing food (for example) we have a minimal cost, and am "purchasing" future cooperation). A society can become more "altruistic", of course, but it boils down to an ultimate genetic selfishness, an increase in the propagation of genes in the gene pool, or getting a better mate with which to pair your genes.
Also, other cute thought experiment. Some dude is oftered to get $100,000 (and give it to chairty) or be a dad to 100 extra babys. Some dudes would take the $100,000. This is not gentical selfish. This is non- genticlay selfish act would sometimes be caused by morality.
Sence evoultion is inpefect somethings we do that happen to be moral are not gentically selfish.
Other good example is people not having children because they cost too much. This is not gentically selfish. A great example is a women chosing not to have children because she has to pay for her sick mother.
Originally posted by MJW1234123Also, other cute thought experiment. Some dude is oftered to get $100,000 (and give it to chairty) or be a dad to 100 extra babys. Some dudes would take the $100,000. This is not gentical selfish. This is non- genticlay selfish act would sometimes be caused by morality.
Also, other cute thought experiment. Some dude is oftered to get $100,000 (and give it to chairty) or be a dad to 100 extra babys. Some dudes would take the $100,000. This is not gentical selfish. This is non- genticlay selfish act would sometimes be caused by morality.
Sence evoultion is inpefect somethings we do that happen to be moral are not gentic ...[text shortened]... reat example is a women chosing not to have children because she has to pay for her sick mother.
$100,000 = future reproductive opportunity.
100 babies, depends upon the cost of nurturing them I suppose. Men go out all the time and cheat on their wives - it's a genetic predisposition we have to maximise the number of children we produce. Women tend not to. Babies are a very large cost to the woman - she has to gestate them for 9 months, then feed them and take care of them for a few more years. Women tend to sexually select the "best" mates out there. And how do they tell the best mates? Prestige.
Other good example is people not having children because they cost too much. This is not gentically selfish. A great example is a women chosing not to have children because she has to pay for her sick mother.
I disagree. There is nothing wrong, nothing unselfish, about delaying having children. Children are expensive to have, and most people will only have one or two in their lifetime. It makes perfect sense to wait until you have all the resources you need to make a success of it. Nowadays, it's less of an issue, but even a couple of hundred years ago that'd have been the difference between life and death for most infants. A dead infant is a huge loss to a mother, because she's invested lots of resources in that child.
As for your "sick parent" scenario, well, there are whole theories around the importance of grandparents in child rearing in humans. Take a theoretical female with a child. If she is alone she must attend to the child 24/7, with no respite. She must defend and feed that child herself with no help. Grandparents represent a second pair of hands. Helping an unwell parent to get better may be "purchasing" future cooperation in child rearing, or even just securing the resource of child rearing labour. For a real test, lets pit the life of a parent versus the life of a child. The parent will choose their child over their parent every time, and yet there is no genetic reason for that - they are both genetically equally related (50 % ). The difference is that the child represents future reproductive ability (also there are the genetically encoded "nurture" response in there too), whilst the parent does not. Bees and other social insects are a good example of this - females are more closely related to each other than to the parent - as a result, it seems that siblings "farm" their mother to produce sisters,
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do not have the energy to grind on semtics and little detials. In order to have a complex debate like this. It is my resonsablity to have that energy. You seem to have a lot more than I do. In oder to have a debate with an out come we would have to dissucs lots of boring details. I don't like that and I don't care what people think of me so I won't waste my time. But in my last post I'll note that to refdations are silly. There is no way on earth anyone can get over 100 badies. And while it is smart to yourself to not to have to support 100 badies it is still not gentically selfish to do so. They will not die because of wellfare from the govermeant. No doudt you will go on about quaity of qunaity. But the supported poor (in america) have the highest birth rate anyway.
[b]Also, other cute thought experiment. Some dude is oftered to get $100,000 (and give it to chairty) or be a dad to 100 extra babys. Some dudes would take the $100,000. This is not gentical selfish. This is non- genticlay selfish act would sometimes be caused by morality.
$100,000 = future reproductive opportunity.
100 babies, depends upon rent - as a result, it seems that siblings "farm" their mother to produce sisters,[/b]
I implied in my second example that the younger women was at the end of her breeding cycle so this was her last chance to have children. Oh well, No1 will no doudt jump on you again. We guys will bury this tread under a topic that no one else really cares to agrue about. Play along now. And what about a response to the post that I crossed posted with you?
Originally posted by MJW1234123You have to remember that the welfare state is a recent innovation, although stems from our reciprocally altruistic past. People pay into the system so that, when they need it, they will get the help that they require if they are suddenly made redundant. No man would every try to support 100 babies himself - to try and do so would lead to death through exhaustion, although men do tend towards infidelity. In your post, you may have implied that the woman was towards the end of her breeding cycle, but I didn't get that - perhaps spending a little time on your composition might help clarify these things. And if you are right, well, her genes will be deleted from the gene pool - see what I did there? A cast iron refutation of your argument, since those "altruist" genes would only lead to their own demise.
I do not have the energy to grind on semtics and little detials. In order to have a complex debate like this. It is my resonsablity to have that energy. You seem to have a lot more than I do. In oder to have a debate with an out come we would have to dissucs lots of boring details. I don't like that and I don't care what people think of me so I won't wast ...[text shortened]... about. Play along now. And what about a response to the post that I crossed posted with you?
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would say that that is a ridiculously contrived argument. Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Interestingly, in the same altruism article
"Humans are not exclusively altruistic towards family members, previous co-operators or potential future allies, but can be altruistic towards people they do not know and will never meet. For example, some humans donate to international charities and volunteer their time to help society's less fortunate.
...[text shortened]... erely a (unconscious in most people) misfiring of a genetically selfish rule.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOf course, you've "shown" no such thing. You've given your interpretation of behavior though you've presented no actual reasons to believe that interpretation is correct. You've also went out of your way to ignore points raised; for example, are you still sticking to your "reasoning" that firemen rush into a burning building to rescue total strangers because they think that this will enhance the possibility that they might get laid? I'd be curious to see if in a poll of firemen this came out to be the no1 reason!
Not sure where you are going with "cultural differences". Is murder wrong only in selected cultures, or only ours? Most of the animal kingdom never fights to the death either. Is food sharing, for example, going out for a meal with friends merely something that happens in the West? No, not at all. Such a practice helps to cement the reciprocal ties gation of genes in the gene pool, or getting a better mate with which to pair your genes.