that dawkins, what'll he come up with next??

bonkey

ron_darrell wrote:

We aren't grown up enough to see the big picture

I'm always intrigued by comments such as this.

If we're not "grown up" enough to see it, how do you know there is any such big picture?

Its almost as though you are suggesting that we - as a species - are not "grown up" enough, where you - as an individual - are.

joe_chicken

There's only really one reason why someone would feel bad about killing a cow and not a fly; compassion.

Zillah

ron_darrell wrote:

This argument seems moot. Animals are food. If they are smart enough, aggressive enough or fast enough they don't end up on your dinner plate. Otherwise they do. It's in our interest to maintain a diversity of species but I don't think we ever will. For all our 'intelligence' we are still animal enough to be unable to see beyond the next meal, the next child, the next sleep. We aren't grown up enough to see the big picture which will in the end lead to our downfall. Animals are just a resource, empathising with them a waste of time.

So, because you have an opinion there should be no argument? This is essentially the only piece of sense to be extracted from your post.

joe_chicken wrote:

There's only really one reason why someone would feel bad about killing a cow and not a fly; compassion.

Uh, quite. But what is compassion? Our emotions aren't these magical things that exist for no reason, evolution had a hand in shaping them all. Compassion is nothing more than a desire to protect things/people that are potentially good for/useful to you.

robindch wrote:

Bah to you! I reckon it's down to the large doey eyes that puppies (and kittens, baby hamsters etc) have, together with the care-seeking behavior they carry on with!

And why would you find large doey eyes to be so pleasing? Why would it cause such an "Awwwwwwwwww" reaction when you see it?

robindch

> And why would you find large doey eyes to be so pleasing? Why would
> it cause such an "Awwwwwwwwww" reaction when you see it?

Coz it mimics the out-of-proportion eyes that human babies have. Parasitic evolution before your very, er, eyes!

More here (search for "578"):

http://www.towson.edu/~sallen/COURSES/311/ESSAYS/MM.html

Mickey Mouse's eye-shape has evolved too...

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> And why would you find large doey eyes to be so pleasing? Why would
> it cause such an "Awwwwwwwwww" reaction when you see it?

Coz it mimics the out-of-proportion eyes that human babies have. Parasitic evolution before your very, er, eyes!

More here (search for "578"):

http://www.towson.edu/~sallen/COURSES/311/ESSAYS/MM.html

Mickey Mouse's eye-shape has evolved too...

As have bits of Lara Croft...wait...that's not the same thing?

confused,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote:

Compassion is nothing more than a desire to protect things/people that are potentially good for/useful to you.

Here was me thinking I was a complicated human being with multifaceted emotions and feelings that make me unique and unpredictable...

Apparently though, every emotion I have can be explained with one word: Evolution.

(I'm not disagreeing with you... it's just that explaining emotions as a by product of evolution is like explaining the sun as a by product of entropy... i.e. it works, but doesn't really get us anywhere)

Zillah

robindch wrote:

Coz it mimics the out-of-proportion eyes that human babies have. Parasitic evolution before your very, er, eyes!

Nifty observation, but I still think there is also a general compassion for animals in general caused by our herding/hunting dog programming.

Here's one for you: Why would I find baby animals much much cuter than baby humans?

lookinforpicnic

Any line we draw between organisms we can eat/kill with organisms we shouldn't (like humans/babies/chimps) is of course going to be a pragmatic one, but that shouldn't repel us from trying to draw one. Ultimately it comes down to suffering and if we find evidence for or against suffering in the treatment of certain organisms this can aid in setting up such a line or at least aid in setting up a more 'humane' treatment of this food source

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

(I'm not disagreeing with you... it's just that explaining emotions as a by product of evolution is like explaining the sun as a by product of entropy... i.e. it works, but doesn't really get us anywhere)

I only said it because you stated that the one reason was "Compassion" as if this was some incredible observation that would leave everyone nodding in agreement. Your matter of fact manner also kind of implied that compassion was somehow special amongst human thoughts.

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Ultimately it comes down to suffering

Why? Might it not be about the right to exist, regardless of joy or suffering? Or maybe the will of God, or the seeking of pleasure or what not. Making objective statements about the basis of morality is doomed to failure.

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

Why? Might it not be about the right to exist, regardless of joy or suffering?

Yeah i suppose it could be, a strong moral argument (or human health argument) could be made for not killing and eating endangered animals/plants..."In praise of biodiversity" as Dennett puts it. But as a general right to exist for no other reason don't think that argument would convince much people.

Zillah wrote:

Making objective statements about the basis of morality is doomed to failure.

I'm not saying that one should base all morality judgements as regards the treatment of other organisms on suffering, but that it should play a very large part. For many vegetarians i know the issue of suffering appears to be the crux of it.

And why, well just because if their is evidence (some time in the future) to show for example that chickens suffer in the same way and to a similar degree as humans (analogous to human torture or something) in the few mins before they die, well this i believe gives us a moral responsibility to act and reduce this suffering, more so than an intrinsic right to exist argument could cause us to act.

Zillah

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Yeah i suppose it could be, a strong moral argument (or human health argument) could be made for not killing and eating endangered animals/plants..."In praise of biodiversity" as Dennett puts it. But as a general right to exist for no other reason don't think that argument would convince much people.

Convince much people? Morality is a democracy now?

I'm not saying that one should base all morality judgements as regards the treatment of other organisms on suffering, but that it should play a very large part.

Why? (Whatever your answer is, imagine I say "Why?" again. I keep doing this until you realise that morality is ultimately a baseless assumption)

well this i believe gives us a moral responsibility to act and reduce this suffering, more so than an intrinsic right to exist argument could cause us to act.

Again, only because you're arbitrarily declaring so. Someone else can claim otherwise with just as much validity (none).

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

Convince much people? Morality is a democracy now?

In other words the argument is not a good one..the one that says everything has a right to exist or gods will, don't think that these arguments would stand up, but of course you think none will (below)

Zillah wrote:

Why? (Whatever your answer is, imagine I say "Why?" again. I keep doing this until you realise that morality is ultimately a baseless assumption)

Ultimately baseless...well of course in a trivial sense, like there is not some book we can read to give us all the answers ten commandment style, or we can't read them of someones genes or patterns of activation in peoples brains, there is no fact of the matter when it comes to morality (or most things human), but so what that doesn't mean we can't act morally to other humans or other organisms, a morality that can be based on certian factors. As i said at the beginning it is a pragmatic matter.

Zillah wrote:

Again, only because you're arbitrarily declaring so. Someone else can claim otherwise with just as much validity (none)[/SIZE]

Only if you believe real morality depends on some non-existent definitive morality rule book. Morality can be real, it can make progess, evidence for certain moral behaviours can be weighed against each other, while all the time being a fuzzy pragmatic affair.

JC 2K3

Morality is inherently a selfish thing, it's just the idea of a society where people look out for one another and don't go around harming each other happens to work and keeps us happy. But that doesn't mean we can't kill animals for food or abort babies we don't want.

bonkey

lookinforpicnic wrote:

but so what that doesn't mean we can't act morally to other humans or other organisms,

Sure. We just can't objectively define that "moral" would mean in that sense, no more than we can objectively define "moral" in any sense in the first place.

a morality that can be based on certian factors.

Those factors are subjective.

Morality can be real, it can make progess, evidence for certain moral behaviours can be weighed against each other, while all the time being a fuzzy pragmatic affair.

But at no time can you say something is objectively moral. All you can do is rationalise why it is moral from your perspective, why your perspective says progress has been made, why you favour one set of behaviours over another and thus find them to be moral.

Its all entirely subjective.

Dades

JC 2K3 wrote:

But that doesn't mean we can't kill animals for food or abort babies we don't want.

In Ireland you can't abort babies you don't want.

Though I'd agree morality is on a very base level selfish. Not doing something because you don't want it done to you.

JC 2K3

The Atheist wrote:

In Ireland you can't abort babies you don't want.

I know, I meant in terms of my own idea of morality, and many others I'm sure.

Zillah

JC 2K3 wrote:

Morality is inherently a selfish thing

In principle. I'm sure there's loads of people that go way too far in their altruism, far more than is selfishly justifiable. In a few hundred thousand years I'm sure they'd be picked off by natural selection.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

In principle. I'm sure there's loads of people that go way too far in their altruism, far more than is selfishly justifiable. In a few hundred thousand years I'm sure they'd be picked off by natural selection.

Excpet that in a few hundred thousand years of evolution, they haven't been...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Excpet that in a few hundred thousand years of evolution, they haven't been...

Lets say that 10% of the current population is of the "too altruistic" type. That is to say, they perform 'selfless' acts that statistically do not provide a net increase in survival and successful reproduction.

50,000 years ago they may have been 20% of the population. In another 50,000 years they may only be 3 or 4%.


Also, could your comment not be used against anything that has not already been evolved, that is not entirely dependent upon the modern condition? Like metabolism, healing or thermo regulation?


I propose that in a hundred thousand years those with heart disease will have been picked off by natural selection.

Except that in a few hundred thousand years of evolution, they haven't been...

Zillah

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Only if you believe real morality depends on some non-existent definitive morality rule book. Morality can be real, it can make progess, evidence for certain moral behaviours can be weighed against each other, while all the time being a fuzzy pragmatic affair.

What does "real morality" mean? I'd define morality as "What a person believes to be good or bad". Good and bad ultimately being emotional reactions to certain inputs. They might feel compassion for certain things, rage or indignation at others, or a lust for revenge or justice. Essentially morality is a way of modelling our emotional reactions with a framework of intellectual principles.

When it comes down to it you have to accept that morality is a subjective concept, and that ultimately the only justification you have is that its feels right. And when you disagree with someone you have no trump card, no basis by which to say "I am right", because you're both going on what you feel.

Its absolutely fine to say "I prefer my way", and while I might prefer your way, and 90% of people in your nation might prefer your way, that doesn't make us right. You might try and base your 'objective' morality on human suffering and right to existence, but thats an assumption, some people might base their morality on the will of Allah, or Yaweh.

And they do. And that scares the crap out of me. I prefer to base my morality on human suffering, and thats one my big problems with religion.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Lets say that 10% of the current population is of the "too altruistic" type. That is to say, they perform 'selfless' acts that statistically do not provide a net increase in survival and successful reproduction.

50,000 years ago they may have been 20% of the population. In another 50,000 years they may only be 3 or 4%.


Also, could your comment not be used against anything that has not already been evolved, that is not entirely dependent upon the modern condition? Like metabolism, healing or thermo regulation?


I propose that in a hundred thousand years those with heart disease will have been picked off by natural selection.

Except that in a few hundred thousand years of evolution, they haven't been...

Indeed. And the whole argument can be used in reverse, too: 50,000 years ago they may have only been 4% of the population. In another 50,000 years they may be 20 or 30%.

Heart disease, unfortunately, isn't a good example, since it tends to kick in post-breeding. A million years would not suffice to eliminate the diseases of old age, as long as those diseases have no impact on breeding fitness (indeed, the diseases of old age are one of the best arguments against 'theistic evolution' - they're proof that God doesn't give a ****e about the individual).

The most recent games theory work, as far as I recall, shows altruism to be a evolutionarily stable strategy within a group as long as more than a certain threshold level of altruists exist. In turn, groups with altruism will out-compete those without.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Indeed. And the whole argument can be used in reverse, too: 50,000 years ago they may have only been 4% of the population. In another 50,000 years they may be 20 or 30%.

I already defined "too altruistic" as being selfless to the point where it reduces survival chances and successful reproduction. So unless this is bizarro world then its doesn't work in reverse.

[edit]Dammit! For some reason I specified "does not increase" rather than "reduces".[/edit]

Heart disease, unfortunately, isn't a good example, since it tends to kick in post-breeding. A million years would not suffice to eliminate the diseases of old age

Heart disease is definitively not a disease exclusive to old age.

And even if it were, men can sire perfectly healthy children right up to their last days.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

And when you disagree with someone you have no trump card, no basis by which to say "I am right", because you're both going on what you feel.

I might quote you on that sometime.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I already defined "too altruistic" as being selfless to the point where it reduces survival chances and successful reproduction. So unless this is bizarro world then its doesn't work in reverse.

Darn. So you did. I claim 'lazy eyeball syndrome' plus 'being in a hurry' as my defence.

Zillah wrote:

[edit]Dammit! For some reason I specified "does not increase" rather than "reduces".[/edit]

An error far less egregious than mine.

Zillah wrote:

Heart disease is definitively not a disease exclusive to old age.

That's primarily a modern phenomenon.

Zillah wrote:

And even if it were, men can sire perfectly healthy children right up to their last days.

And usually don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lookinforpicnic

bonkey wrote:

Its all entirely subjective.

Yes, in so far as there is no universal concrete moral standards, but this doesn't have to lead to moral relativism - where anything goes if it feels right for that society i.e. slavery, cliteridectomy or whatever. We don't need universal moral truths to engage in a rational objective discourse between different cultures and their morals (objective in the sense that we should suspend our own moral judgement i.e. how you feel , to permit a rational dialogue in the first place). I don't think it a simple case of what feels right (Zillah) and thats it, rational discourse (which can include looking at scientific facts about certain practices) can inform certain cultures about practices that feel right to them now, but given the facts might not feel right to them anymore. I suppose it may be as much a matter of diplomacy as it is rational discussion but so be it.

J.M. Balkin in his book Cultutal Software: A Theory of Ideology 1998 (which I haven't read btw, i have only read reviews of it), argues for such a middleground (taking into account contempory biological evidence) between what he calls imperialist universalism - the idea that universal standards of morals exist and always have done and moral relativism (whatever one feels like doing well then they can do), which you can have a look at if you believe that such a position is hopeless.

Zillah wrote:

What does "real morality" mean?

What i meant by real morality is I suppose just the middleground the book above tries to take, i called it 'real' because just because there is not morals written in stone somewhere doesn't mean we cant have real morality (a typical dennettian strategy)

The Atheist wrote:

morality is on a very base level selfish

I don't know about that, it might be more accurate to say that at a base level morality is about self-interest as opposed to selfishness, and that this self-interest can be distributed around. Self-interest need not solely benefit the little guy in the skull (traditional notion of the self) but can include external things like family members, pets, football teams, religious or charity organisations or whatever (an extension of the self so to speak, its not that you are selfishing reaping the rewards for all your altruistic behaviour but simple distributing your self and thus your self-interest around).
"There is nothing that restricts me to a me as contrasted to an us" Daniel Dennett. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon.

Zillah wrote:

I propose that in a hundred thousand years those with heart disease will have been picked off by natural selection.

Except that in a few hundred thousand years of evolution, they haven't been...

What about culture and technology, in a 100-500 years we could give these guys artificial hearts. And altruistic behaviour - in one generation an idea could come a long and negate any genetic predisposition to altruistic behaviour.

Scofflaw

lookinforpicnic wrote:

What about culture and technology, in a 100-500 years we could give these guys artificial hearts. And altruistic behaviour - in one generation an idea could come a long and negate any genetic predisposition to altruistic behaviour.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. All the evidence we have suggests that people choose ideologies they agree with, rather than choosing to agree with ideologies. Social Darwinism didn't kill off altruism, except amongst those people who were already indisposed to it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

I might quote you on that sometime.

I'd be very careful about the context of that

If I and my opponent can agree on something simple like "Making people suffer needlessly is a bad thing" then its fair to phrase moral positions as objective given that we have an agreed basis. Its not truly objective, but for sheer linguistic convenience its done all the time.

Scofflaw wrote:

That's primarily a modern phenomenon.

Not neccessarily. The average lifespan for people centuries ago was much less, as low as 30 or 40 years. Even in the third world you still see things like that. In reference to "old age" and the conditions that affect it, its relatively pointless speaking in evolutionary terms; never before in the history of humanity has there been an "old age" of the type we take as granted now.

Regardless, aside from age/fatty food/smoking heart disease, there are still the cases of thirty year old men dropping dead while playing football because of weak hearts. That kind of thing would most definately be a target for natural selection.

Although I've forgotten why I'm arguing that heart disease is subject to natural selection...?

And usually don't.

Usually don't in the modern west? Yes. Put things in a different context though. In the middle east it would not be unusual for an older man to still be still sireing children with his Harem. Tribal societies were known for therr ambiguous relationship structure. According to Caesar the men of the Celtic tribes in Britain shared their wives between them; sons, fathers, brothers and friends. So while what we usually see is men not reproducing in their later years, it still happens and has happened, and I would hypothesise, often enough to matter to evolution.

Although again I've forgotten why I'm arguing that men might still be reproducing as they get older...

I need a break for a while I think.

lostexpectation

well he is an supporter of 'human rights' for chimps see the great ape project, I think thats a step too (or the wrong way to put it) far but I think medical testing on animals is not justified, Im not your superior is the right word to be using about oneself?

lookinforpicnic

Scofflaw wrote:

I wouldn't agree with that at all. All the evidence we have suggests that people choose ideologies they agree with, rather than choosing to agree with ideologies. Social Darwinism didn't kill off altruism, except amongst those people who were already indisposed to it.

All I'm saying is that any genetic predisposition to altruism (if one exists) will not manifest itself over consecutive generations due to cultural influences which (i would argue) far outweigh genetic influences on altruist behaviour. I take your point of disagreement to be that people chose to agree with ideologies based on how they feel themselves about the subject which if i understand your criticism correctly is based primarily on genetic predispositions to this kind of behaviour. (btw don't really know how social darwinism came into this?).

Well this leaves us at a simple nature nurture debate, where my position is very much on the side that language and thus culture strongly dictate the pecularities of the mind, intelligence, opinions etc. of course these phenomenon are all dependent upon certain genetic predispositions we as humans uniquely possess, but much of the shape and trajectory that these predispositions take is very much (i would argue) dependent on cultural influences.

But that is another debate. On the topic, I'm not aware of any evidence for a human genetic predisposition for altruism...

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Although I've forgotten why I'm arguing that heart disease is subject to natural selection...?

Although again I've forgotten why I'm arguing that men might still be reproducing as they get older...

I hate it when that happens. It took me ages to get Jakkass to admit something, and then I couldn't remember for the life of me what the point had been.

Zillah wrote:

I need a break for a while I think.

Go out in the sunshine!

Zillah wrote:

In principle. I'm sure there's loads of people that go way too far in their altruism, far more than is selfishly justifiable. In a few hundred thousand years I'm sure they'd be picked off by natural selection.

Ah, here we go - you were arguing that people who went too far in their altruism would be picked off by natural selection. I didn't notice that you'd defined it as "to the point of it being a selective disadvantage", so I was arguing that alturism was a succesful evolutionary strategy.

Now I come to think about, just defining it as being "to the point of it being a selective disadvantage" makes your claim true, but tautological, because it's all in the definition. It's useful only insofar as we can almost certainly say that the altruism you commonly find amongst humans can't be "to the point of it being a selective disadvantage", because it hasn't been weeded out.

cordially,
Scofflaw