The God Delusion

Originally posted by Halitose
Really? So essentially you are saying that if something is "natural", that of itself cannot be used as justification for doing it? It's good to know; I'll keep this for later use, thanks.

Yes thats what I was saying. I am sure thought that you already agreed with it.

On what grounds then, as an atheist, do you differentiate "right" from "wrong"?
I don't have any 'grounds' nor do I need any.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The article explains quite nicely how altruism has evolutionary benefits, so to speak.

I'm not sure you read the article--here's another example:
Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators. (altruism outside the "family unit"😉

And
Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers
(extra-species altruism!)

So...you were saying?

I did read the article, hence my question: it gave the "kin-altruism" and the undeniable evolutionary benefits (which I agree with). It then continued to give further examples, some of which you cited, but failed to show the evolutionary benefit.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why do dogs sometimes adopt the young of other species?

Not all behaviors are directly beneficial. Many behaviors (and physical characteristics) of organisms are simply side effects of something else. If they are not too detrimental they may survive. An altruistic tendency or mothering instinct may not necessarily distinguish between young of the same species and young of another species.
That does not rule out a benefit however. There is definitely some benefit to humans keeping pets. In general pet owners are healthier both physically and psychologically than non-pet owners
The act of caring for young may actually help the survival of a mother dog by both assisting her psychologically and by keeping her in practice for her next litter.
A similar question may be raised with homosexuality. Is it a side effect or beneficial?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes thats what I was saying. I am sure thought that you already agreed with it.

[b]On what grounds then, as an atheist, do you differentiate "right" from "wrong"?
I don't have any 'grounds' nor do I need any.[/b]

I don't have any 'grounds' nor do I need any.

You can't possibly mean what you say here.

Just a little earlier you held a position of moral outrage at certain cultures/religions being racist. Do you just randomly get morally incensed, depending on the chemical composition of your breakfast maybe?

Originally posted by Halitose
I did read the article, hence my question: it gave the "kin-altruism" and the undeniable evolutionary benefits (which I agree with). It then continued to give further examples, some of which you cited, but failed to show the evolutionary benefit.

"When apparent altruism is not between kin, it may be based on reciprocity. A monkey will present its back to another monkey, who will pick out parasites; after a time the roles will be reversed. Such reciprocity will pay off, in evolutionary terms, as long as the costs of helping are less than the benefits of being helped and as long as animals will not gain in the long run by "cheating" - that is to say, by receiving favours without returning them. How this can be so is elaborated on in game theory and specifically the prisoner's dilemma as social theory."

Originally posted by Halitose
Just a little earlier you held a position of moral outrage at certain cultures/religions being racist. Do you just randomly get morally incensed, depending on the chemical composition of your breakfast maybe?

A common answer would be that certain behaviours are self-evidently wrong; perhaps our basic moral perceptions are hard-wired (as a result of evolution).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"[b]When apparent altruism is not between kin, it may be based on reciprocity. A monkey will present its back to another monkey, who will pick out parasites; after a time the roles will be reversed. Such reciprocity will pay off, in evolutionary terms, as long as the costs of helping are less than the benefits of being helped and as long as animals ...[text shortened]... is elaborated on in game theory and specifically the prisoner's dilemma as social theory."[/b]

I'll concede again. 😀

We're debating the wrong issue here due to my inability to correctly formulate my point. Let me try again (bear with me here):

I don't deny that there are "natural" forms of altruism where a certain amount of "evolutionary benefit" is accrued.

I do contend, however, that there are cases of "unnatural" altruism where no evolutionary benefit is accrued. What say you about these?

Originally posted by Halitose
I do contend, however, that there are cases of "unnatural" altruism where no evolutionary benefit is accrued. What say you about these?

You'll have to give an example.

Originally posted by Halitose
Just a little earlier you held a position of moral outrage at certain cultures/religions being racist. Do you just randomly get morally incensed, depending on the chemical composition of your breakfast maybe?

Just to set the record straight, I never said that certain cultures/religions were racist.
Why does 'moral outrage' require grounds for right and wrong? Surely it only requires a 'sense' of right and wrong.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A common answer would be that certain behaviours are self-evidently wrong; perhaps our basic moral perceptions are hard-wired (as a result of evolution).

Uhm... are they self evident to those who hold to the "wrong" behaviour?

How are these normative perceptions hard-wired?

Originally posted by Halitose
Uhm... are they self evident to those who hold to the "wrong" behaviour?

How are these normative perceptions hard-wired?

Usually yes.

Try to have a "normative perception" without a physical brain.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just to set the record straight, I never said that certain cultures/religions were racist.
Why does 'moral outrage' require grounds for right and wrong? Surely it only requires a 'sense' of right and wrong.

Why does 'moral outrage' require grounds for right and wrong? Surely it only requires a 'sense' of right and wrong.

You're squirming again. Grounds; sense; same thing. Get with the program.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You'll have to give an example.

Why?

Originally posted by Halitose
Uhm... are they self evident to those who hold to the "wrong" behaviour?

How are these normative perceptions hard-wired?

I don't know--your question's too general. Some wrong-doers feel guilty...In some cases the wiring is faulty (eg. sociopaths).

I don't have the energy to research how normative perceptions are hard-wired, not being a neurologist. I think they are really emotional in nature.

Originally posted by Halitose
Why?

Please?