RSN
You really need to back that statement up. Please give me your theory on the why of it.1. there is no such thing as a subconscious,
But morality requires action.Actions do not require morality
No just the given definition of altruism is unsound.Look, this whole thread is metaphysically unsound,
Do people dream when they sleep?Quote by: RSN
Actually, its going to have to be the other way around. Seeing as the concept of a subconscious is contingent on the language and science of its time and place, and has yet to be proven through empirical means, you'll be needing to prove its existence to me.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
The definition of morality will not be contorted and expanded to include this plethora of inane morphemes. Morality's definition, by all social and popular accounts, is a distinction specifically between "Good" and "Bad", or I'll even say, between "Right" and "Wrong". If one does not evaluate objects in terms of good, bad, right, or wrong, then they are AMORAL. There is a reason the word amoral exists, its a possible state of being.
You're going so far to prove this altruism point, redefining morality, intention, choice... you've created a metaphysical massacre that makes no sense to any rational objective agent looking in on your disorder.
yes, they do.
Ok. So explain how during REM sleep, neurons in the brain become inactive yet during REM is the time when most people dream? Explain how this is not subconsious please..
It is a very simple concept, actually.
So wait... this bee, uses instinct to sting an invader because it wants to protect the hive? You don't actually believe that, do you? At that point it wouldn't be instinct, it would be reasoning... a bee doesn't consider the hive. It considers it's own survival, the damn bee just didn't know it was going to die once it stung the intruder.I wasn't talking about just plants either, so where did you get that from?
Here's a couple of examples. A bee will sting an invader of the hive. It sacrifices it's life to save the hive.
And if the monkey didn't warn the tribe and everyone in the tribe was killed, the odds of him surviving would decrease significantly. Therefore, the monkey is gaining from warning the tribe... not sacrificing. Survival of the fittest is not present in this example. That phrase is used to show that two animals have to compete to survive. The animal that is stronger, faster, etc... and in a humans case, more intelligent, will survive. Your example shows no competing to survive, but a survival tactic used by monkeys. There is a huge difference there.Another would be an monkey giving a warning call to the tribe when a predator appears . The ape may attract the attention and be killed by the predator , but the tribe is warned and can escape.
The survival of that tribe is greater because within that tribe altruism exists. A tribe showing no such altruism has less chance of survival.
That example is what is meant by survival of the fittest.
The fact that it exists in the animal kingdom means that altruism does exist. And that yes it can also exist among humans as a survival trait.
When you mix the words altruism and survival, then all traces of selflessness goes out the window. Because everything is ultimately for our own survival... and its too bad some animals have developed tactics that may end up compromising their survival, because they don't have reasoning to make the choice... just instinct. That is why your comparison with humans and the animal kingdom are flawed.
Quit with the semantics bullshit. It means selflessness... i.e. loving others as oneself. I don't think it exists. I think you can love someone, but not truly as much as oneself. If some guy kills himself over love to protect his girlfriend from a flesh hungry bear... thats not altruism. How would he like going on in life knowing he could have saved her?? How would he live with himself?? It all goes back to the person that is acting/responding... and it all goes back to personal gain, in the end.The definition of altruism is "loving others as oneself."
Don't agree? Show me something
We're on the same page then... my bad.
How are morals and their roots in the realm of the metaphysical?
OK WE GET IT.
So now just because the word amoral exists, makes it a possible thing. However subconscious doesn't get included in that standard? Wow. Thats amazing.
If someone " does not evaluate objects in terms of good, bad, right, or wrong, then they are AMORAL" actually, that would mean they are dead. If what you are saying is true, then go grab a knife and lunge it into your stomach... because you have no idea if that is right or wrong, correct?
Amoral to me sounds like an excuse to not have to take responsibility for your actions. Its like how some people believe A.D.D. doesn't exist and some people just say they have it so they can slack off it school. You have morals, otherwise you are not human.
Actually, we're only on page two of this thread.You're going so far to prove this altruism point
Altruism is about helping people for no gain, so what is the motive for helping them? If you do something for no reason, is it love for the thing you are doing it for? There must be a motive for doing something, otherwise nothing would be done, so accomplishing goals is the motive for doing something, altruistic or not. Let's say your goal is to save a person from a burning building, so what sets goals? Interest in the the undertaking is essential for being involved, so you are satisfying your nature when you follow up on an interest. Saving someone from a burning building is important to your nature that dictates that you are interested in doing that, so any way you look at it you are satisfied in accomplishing your goals. Is self satisfaction altruisitic? No way, you have an urge to do anything you set out to do, even if just to be spontaneous, and there is even some satisfaction in working on your interests, so you are rewarded in a way, even if it is just the feeling that you are following your instinct, which has nothing to do with morals, but does come down to a personal level. Things that may make you not want to do something that helps others may be fear or lack of interest, so it comes down to the person.
If you are not interested in helping others you will get no satisfaction for it, but you will satisfy your self image, as many people do like to gain self esteem through doing things that they think are good but for some reason are not interested in doing, but do anyway. When this happens people are pretending to be interested, they work against their interests and seek fulfillment in trying to be something they are not. Conversely when someone does something that does appeal to them, they are doing something not what they feel they should do, but rather something they feel like doing.
There is no such thing as altruism, it is a term for something believed falsely to exist, a fallacy.
!! Going to my destruction !!
Thanks for that triad. It's hard to explain these things to a person who claims they never act upon morals.
That amounts to the same thing, but it's not worth arguing over semantics. If you don't accept the definition of morality I used, just change the words.
Any decision we make is made in order to satisfy our sense of what we should do. Whether you want to call that sense morality or call it something else and try to pass yourself off as amoral, it's still a self-serving fulfilment of a personal need.
All of you guys are making these weird leaps. Be it our subconscious (??!), our "nature"(Char), or our morality (Bacon), you all see some medium we are somehow intrinsically obedient towards. We have these collective imperatives that don't have to exist or be used in the process of understanding altruism. None of these are helpful nor necessary interpretations of altruism. I see where you guys are ALL tripped up. You see altruism as selflessness. And then you query as to the nature of a self, and how somehow that self is constantly acting for its own contentment. I just need you guys to acknowledge how far a leap you're all taking. There is no intrinsic self, just an identity with motives entirely idiosyncratic and person. You guys think there is some true nature to the human self? C'mon, inter-subjectively our self concept is constantly changing. In another century we'll have more words to replace your words, and people making the same leap over and over again. There is no medium through which we percieve reality.
Giving is fun.
Next question?
I suppose its not "true" altruism if its fun, but what do you want me to do? I suppose when I die I will commit an act of true altruism towards worms by feeding them.
Come to think of it I commit true altruism all the time. Once I dropped my debit card in the street and I'm sure someone was very, very happy when they found it. I sure wasn't.
This seems like a kooky way to define altruism. I like the classic definition better.
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
I'm not sure what to make of your post.
I think the majority of people agree that altruism is when someone is acting deliberately in an unselfish manner... and not dropping something on the sidewalk unknowingly. Don't worry, I picked up the sarcasm. I'm just trying to figure out the way we decide to do something that is regarded as 'nice', and if it is even possible to do it purely for selfless reasons.
And yet you show no understanding of it.triadIt is a very simple concept, actually
You really don't have a clue do you.So wait... this bee, uses instinct to sting an invader because it wants to protect the hive?
It does not WANT to do anything . Try not using anthrpomorphic views when discussing natural selection . You might make a sensible statement then.
Again with the anthropomorphic statements .. a bee doesn't consider the hive. It considers it's own survival, the damn bee just didn't know it was going to die once it stung the intruder.
The bee is acting on instinct. This is developed through survival traits. The hive that does not protect itself will fall victim to predators. That hive will no longer produce further generations. That hive becomes extinct. The hive where the bees do sting the predator and drive it off will survive.
That is natural selection, that is alaso a definition of altruism.
Yes, which is why that sub set of monkeys will have a significant advantage over any tribe that does not employ altruism for survival.And if the monkey didn't warn the tribe and everyone in the tribe was killed, the odds of him surviving would decrease significantly. Therefore, the monkey is gaining from warning the tribe... not sacrificing.
Only your knowledge is not present here.Survival of the fittest is not present in this example
yes there is , my example shows an example of natural selection.Your example shows no competing to survive, but a survival tactic used by monkeys. There is a huge difference there.
Yours is no more than a common misconception. No surprise there your whole thread is a common misconception.
It is not a mixture , it is a definition of altruism unlike yours. That is why your OP is flawed.When you mix the words altruism and survival, then all traces of selflessness goes out the window.....That is why your comparison with humans and the animal kingdom are flawed.
Prove it Triad. I have given a link to back my point. All you have given is your opinion. Here is another link to show that unlike you I am not making things up just to support a untenable position as you are.Quit with the semantics bullshit. It means selflessness.
Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSurvival of the fittest" is a phrase which is shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864,
Although Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection",[1] it is a metaphor, not a scientific description.
It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase "natural selection" almost exclusively.
[B][I][U]An interpretation of the phrase to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution.Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself on an ongoing basis will survive as a species, not just the "fittest" ones. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough", although this is sometimes regarded as a tautology.[3][4]
NATURAL SELECTION
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks