What are the evolved reasons for our motivations and impulses?

[TheFaithfulStone]

???

<Sigh> Never read up on the fellow.

Perhaps you could expand in laymen terms for me

 

Unless you like subclauses an awful lot, count your blessings.

 

Basically it's the argument that socialists use when they try to convince you that you are oppressed. (That's funny, I don't feel oppressed... You're so oppressed you don't even feel oppressed!)

 

Your argument has the same structure.

 

1) People are inherently selfish.

2) People sometimes act against there own interests.

3) Therefore, there must be some deeply ingrained selfish reason why this should be so.

4) Denial of this reason does not disprove 1. Therefore, it must be taken as evidence of 3.

 

In my opinion false consciousness arguments are a form of tautology, because denial of it's truth is taken as further evidence of it's truth. (I speak the truth because it is acknowledged as truth, or I speak the truth because lack of acknowledgment indicates it's hidden truth. Either way you speak the truth...) Yours is actually pretty subtle, since there is actually a grain of truth to it. Some people do only act morally because they fear repercussions, guilt or whatever. Few people will in fact admit to NOT feeling guilty when they act selfishly.

 

Hell, it may even be TRUE. But it's still an unprovable argument dependent upon circular reasoning and you knowing something that you cannot possibly know, namely the motives of the actors involved.

 

That said, I have to give you credit for the most sophisticated "virtue is selfishness disguised" argument I've ever seen.

 

And like I said, it's impossible to refute, because any objection to it is taken as further proof it's truth. The postulate is that people are by nature inherently selfish. THEREFORE, any thing which goes against their selfish nature must be explainable as a selfish act.

 

Don't believe me that your argument is basically a matter of faith? Try debating with yourself that your NOT oppressed. Whenever you think - "I don't feel oppressed..." think "I'm just so oppressed I don't even know I'm oppressed!"

 

You'll end up depressed. And you'll hate hippies.

 

BTW:

 

The masses are merely a collection of exceptions to the rules that apply to everyone else.

 

UMMM.. YES.

 

Sure it's true. Everyone is an exception to some rule. There is no one who is "average" The average person does not exist.

 

There are situation in which any person can be a hero. There are situations in which any person can be a villain.

 

Talking about what "the average person" would do is odd in this situation, because it's unpredictable based on any independent criteria.

 

It may be true, that on average, people are selfish. But it is also true, that on average, people (and animals) are capable of extraordinary bravery and self-sacrifice.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

The Banana Man says:

 

I do it all for sex, even if I don't realize it. :shrug:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[Cedars]

The Banana Man says:

 

I do it all for sex, even if I don't realize it. :shrug:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

Thats what all bananas say.

[Kayra]

I made the case in the first 15 posts. The topic originated in what motivates people to gamble and is was suggested that it be moved, so it was.

 

:)

I have been so focused on our latest posts that I have not reviewed the earlier ones. I will review them tonight.

 

Evolution is driven by mutation. Procreation is a method of implementing the changes. The mutation can happen before (to the parents genes via enviromental factor) or after procreation (in womb/egg/spawn etc).

 

If mutation is the driving force of evolution(and I agree that it is), then procreation is the destination.

[niin]

Altruism is the practice of placing others (Humans) before oneself

Why is it only used with humans.?

Have you ever placed a pig before yourself? Most people would not. Why?

Becaurse they are selfish. They know that the benefits of helping a pig (in a altruistic way) would be non-existent.

How many example is there where a human sacrifices his life to save one pigs life?

[Kayra]

Um....

Why do I get the feeling that I came to a verbal gunfight with a small unpointed stick?

 

I suspect I am waaaaayyy out of my league here :)

 

It took me many hours of reading just to try to get some idea of what your argument was, let alone respond to it.:confused:

 

 

Unless you like subclauses an awful lot, count your blessings.

 

Basically it's the argument that socialists use when they try to convince you that you are oppressed. (That's funny, I don't feel oppressed... You're so oppressed you don't even feel oppressed!)

 

Your argument has the same structure.

 

1) People are inherently selfish.

2) People sometimes act against there own interests.

3) Therefore, there must be some deeply ingrained selfish reason why this should be so.

4) Denial of this reason does not disprove 1. Therefore, it must be taken as evidence of 3.

 

I keep re-reading this part, hoping to see a flaw in it.

Replace "People" with "All life at all levels" and it really does state what I was getting at.

Kudos for finding the logic from so much of my rhetoric. You distilled it nicely down to its basis (even though I had no idea of it myself). My position was truly only based on the first statement, and the rest just seemed to fall from it.

 

In my opinion false consciousness arguments are a form of tautology, because denial of it's truth is taken as further evidence of it's truth. (I speak the truth because it is acknowledged as truth, or I speak the truth because lack of acknowledgment indicates it's hidden truth. Either way you speak the truth...) Yours is actually pretty subtle, since there is actually a grain of truth to it.

 

"false consciousness". Had to look that one up.It is a pretty deep and involved subject for a poor uneducated person like myself. I kept getting lead from one area to another, but I think I understand some of the basics.

Please do not make me read up on any more of that stuff for a few days :)

 

The subtlety was unintentional as I am not a subtle person. I was hoping to find that there was more then a grain of truth in it though :(

 

Hell, it may even be TRUE. But it's still an unprovable argument dependent upon circular reasoning and you knowing something that you cannot possibly know, namely the motives of the actors involved.

 

I hate thinking of my entire argument as circular, but your brutally logic dissections shows it for what it is :(

 

 

That said, I have to give you credit for the most sophisticated "virtue is selfishness disguised" argument I've ever seen.

 

High praise indeed considering how soundly you "opened up" my argument. Thank you.

Small note: I had no idea that there had been so many other "virtue is selfishness disguised" arguments :). This was my first.

 

And like I said, it's impossible to refute, because any objection to it is taken as further proof it's truth. The postulate is that people are by nature inherently selfish. THEREFORE, any thing which goes against their selfish nature must be explainable as a selfish act.

 

I had thought for certain that someone would refute it by showing a commonly performed altruistic action (no matter how small) that had no positive feedback to the individual.

 

BTW:

 

The masses are merely a collection of exceptions to the rules that apply to everyone else.

 

UMMM.. YES.

 

Sure it's true. Everyone is an exception to some rule. There is no one who is "average" The average person does not exist.

 

There are situation in which any person can be a hero. There are situations in which any person can be a villain.

 

UMMMM.. UHOH, I misread.,, I thought you said rule, not rules :)

You are 100% correct.

 

 

Talking about what "the average person" would do is odd in this situation, because it's unpredictable based on any independent criteria.

 

It may be true, that on average, people are selfish. But it is also true, that on average, people (and animals) are capable of extraordinary bravery and self-sacrifice.

 

I would also hazard a guess that most people do not even understand their own motivations.

 

Well, Circular unprovable logic or not, I think that there is a fundamental truth in there about the nature of life and evolution. It has the "Feel" of being right, in my mind at least, it not completely distasteful. I can not say that my wife shares my viewpoint, and I suspect she is a tad upset that I believe all of my actions towards her and my children are purely selfish :( (really takes the romance out of things)

[niin]

It may be true, that on average, people are selfish.

But it is also true, that on average, people (and animals) are capable of extraordinary bravery and self-sacrifice.

You seem to imply that the above two statements are contradicting each other.

"Brave" and "self-sacrifice" is descriptive words that do not exclude the actions from being selfish.

[TheFaithfulStone]

"Brave" and "self-sacrifice" is descriptive words that do not exclude the actions from being selfish.

 

Bravery maybe, but self-sacrifice is by definition the opposite of selfish.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, Circular unprovable logic or not, I think that there is a fundamental truth in there about the nature of life and evolution. It has the "Feel" of being right, in my mind at least, it not completely distasteful.

 

Truthiness?

 

There may very well be a fundamental truth in there, I find that a lot of fundamental truths tend to be succinctly expressed by tautologies and circular reasoning. There is also generally a way to express them without said material fallacies. Perhaps you're starting with the wrong assumptions?

 

As for commonly performed altruistic actions, how about holding the door open for people? Confers no benefit. I don't feel guilty if I don't do it. I don't feel particularly good if I do do it. Everyone has done it at one point or another.

 

Why do I get the feeling that I came to a verbal gunfight with a small unpointed stick?

 

:confused: Nah. At least you're not quoting Ayn Rand!

 

TFS

[niin]

Bravery maybe, but self-sacrifice is by definition the opposite of selfish.

Self-sacrifice is a two part word.

Sacrifice means to give up something in hope of getting something in return.

Self-sacrifice means to give up your life in return for something ells.

 

Selfish describe something (usually an action) that serve your interests above others.

 

What are your interests?

If you say that people are allways most interested in surviving...then selfish could be considered to be the opposit of self-sacrifice.

From your previus post i would think that you don't believe that.

So your statement (the one i quoted) are illogical.

[TheFaithfulStone]

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

self-sac·ri·fice (slfskr-fs) n.
Sacrifice of one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of others or for a cause.

 

I'm using it as a synonym for selflessness. I don't necessarily mean suicidal.

 

TFS

[Kayra]

There is also generally a way to express them without said material fallacies. Perhaps you're starting with the wrong assumptions?

 

Any help there would be appreciated :)

 

As for commonly performed altruistic actions, how about holding the door open for people? Confers no benefit. I don't feel guilty if I don't do it. I don't feel particularly good if I do do it. Everyone has done it at one point or another.

 

Sadly, learned and social responses would have to be excluded as they come from a completely different mechanism. It would have to be something that would likely occur anywhere in the world regardless of culture. I can see that would make the entire situation quite difficult :(

[niin]

self-sac·ri·fice (slfskr-fs) n.
Sacrifice of one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of others or for a cause.

 

I'm using it as a synonym for selflessness. I don't necessarily mean suicidal.

okay...i see.

That would be wrong.

They are not different words with similar or identical meanings and are not interchangeable

It is possible to self-sacrifice with the intent to hurt someone ells. I would not call hurting someone selfless.

Logicaly the words can not be synonym.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Fine then. If you want to argue with the dictionary.

 

People are also capable of selflessness.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Those of you pondering the issue of self-sacrifice here might do well to explore the concept of reciprocal altruism.

[Kayra]

InfiniteNow, that was a VERY interesting subject, thanks.

 

Now I see what TFS was getting at when he spoke of the "virtue is selfishness disguised" arguments.

 

Much of what is said in that entry meshes nicely with my earlier post, (#28 in this thread) or at least does not oppose it.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, how to "prove" that selfish animals like humans act morally.

 

Like InfiniteNow mentioned, the concept of reciprocal altruism is basically a "quid pro quo" kind of arrangement. I do nice for you, so that someday, if I need it you do nice for me. (This is also the principal that insurance works on. More on why the idea of a for-profit insurance company is anathema to a moral society later.)

 

Unfortunately not all actors can be counted upon to play by the rules. Basically, I may scratch your back, but then later, you may not scratch mine. So what do we do? We kick out the cheaters. People who take favors, but don't return them.

 

This tends to select for people who do NOT cheat. (Good actors.) Good actors get to pass on their genes, and liars and cheats do not. Basically, tit for tat kind of altruism leads to genuine altruism. The trait not-being-a-sociopath, in other words tend to get your genes passed on. Any animal that lives in groups would naturally tend to evolve this trait.

 

Let it be noted that "selfish evolution" has given rise to truly "selfless" behavior. There is no benefit conferred upon any particular individual by a altruistic act after a few generations, it is merely expected actors behave this way. Furthermore, while there may be "punishment" for being a son-of-a-*****, it comes from the community, who deny you favors, not from within (your empathy argument) or from without (natural selection.)

 

I find this distinct from your argument because it does not state that you behave well simply because to do otherwise would result in you feeling bad, or even (necessarily) you having less of a chance of breeding, but because being "good" has been selected for for generations.

 

You are not being "good" because of some hidden motive of selfishness, you really are good. It just so happens that being good is it's own reward.

 

Or.

1) Actors may do good unto others, despite their best interest.

2) Actors may receive good from others, despite other's best interests.

3) Actors who honor reciprocity in this arrangement are more likely to benefit from it than those who do not.

4) Therefore, it is in fact often in your (long term) best interests to act AGAINST your (short term) best interests.

 

Part 2

1) Actors who cheat system described in part 1 may be "discovered" and no longer benefit from it.

2) You may be seen as "cheating the system" if you are not "doing enough good"

3) It is therefore in your best interest to always do good unto others, even if you cannot see (or there may not be) a long term best interest for yourself.

 

Evolutionarily speaking, this should select for Good Actors, and not bad ones. The Good Actors are not "play acting" they really ARE acting selflessly, whether it is in their own interest or not.

 

I think that explains pretty well how "selfish evolution" gives rise to (and in fact selects for!) animals that are genuinely selfless.

 

The argument of course, is that this is kind of a Pascal's wager. (Believe in God to minimize your downside risk.) And it's a valid criticism, but I think that biologically speaking it makes a lot of sense, and it doesn't require either impossible knowledge of the motives of the actors, or the circular reasoning.

 

TFS