| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dr Carobus
   |
Posted - 2010.10.05 18:32:00 -
[31]
Ahahah! Yes, you are right but you dismiss one thing ... why is it that one feels rewarded for doing altruistic deeds? Why is it that this feeling of well-being takes a hold of you whenever you did something GOOD, motivating you to do some more GOOD next time around?
I think it is man's genetic code speaking on behalf of 'the group'. Even though the reward might be 'selfish' the outcome is benefit for the tribe. And the tribe represents your total gene pool, diversity, mutual strength and wit, a.k.a. general ability to survive. In that sense there is no selfishness and are we all slaves to genetic interests that surpass the needs of the individual. This ALSO explains the hand grenade example.
It could be because acting for the greater good is rational and we're rational beings at heart. It might be an emotional things that comes from somewhere else, a combination of nature and nurture.
Under your explanation, we would agree that we talk as if killing is generally bad, but if we had to, we'd kill members of another tribe to protect our own. That's kind of how life is, but doesn't make the situation much clearer to me.
|
Ran Khanon
Amarr
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 18:50:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 05/10/2010 18:52:06
 Originally by: Dr Carobus
Ahahah! Yes, you are right but you dismiss one thing ... why is it that one feels rewarded for doing altruistic deeds? Why is it that this feeling of well-being takes a hold of you whenever you did something GOOD, motivating you to do some more GOOD next time around?
I think it is man's genetic code speaking on behalf of 'the group'. Even though the reward might be 'selfish' the outcome is benefit for the tribe. And the tribe represents your total gene pool, diversity, mutual strength and wit, a.k.a. general ability to survive. In that sense there is no selfishness and are we all slaves to genetic interests that surpass the needs of the individual. This ALSO explains the hand grenade example.
It could be because acting for the greater good is rational and we're rational beings at heart. It might be an emotional things that comes from somewhere else, a combination of nature and nurture.
Under your explanation, we would agree that we talk as if killing is generally bad, but if we had to, we'd kill members of another tribe to protect our own. That's kind of how life is, but doesn't make the situation much clearer to me.
I think rationality and irrationality to explain altruism is beside the point just like 'right' and 'wrong' would be. It all comes down on which behaviour 'works' and survives and which behaviour 'doesn't work' and subsequently becomes extinct.
Our genes are shaped by millions, even billions of years of selection towards ever 'better working' configurations.
This also would clarify the paradox you point out that: killing your fellow man is a bad thing in general but killing for your own group's benefit might be a good thing. This isn't an example of evolution on an individual scale but of evolution on a meta scale; your group against mine, struggling for sparse resources. The genes of the members of the group with the best working behaviour will survive. Care for the ones that are close to you and bash the skulls in of 'the others'.
We are all products of exactly this behaviour which shaped us over millions of years and also nicely explains EVE's inter-corp/alliance cruelty, soccer hooligans, modern wars, ethnic and religious problems, etc.
Recruiting. |
langaidin
Hakata Group
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:08:00 -
[33]
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch EVE burn.
Oh and can I haz a killboard link from the OP cuz it looks like your not getting to many lulz so far.
|
Evarus
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:11:00 -
[34]
What Ran said, but remaining cognisant of the way in which we talk about morality (and I'd argue altruism is something we would commonly cite as being a moral act) as being something more objective and 'higher' than just the biological imperative on which it may be founded and the evolutionary filtering we call 'commonsense morality'.
So...OP? Hand-grenade (in game)?
|
Elldranga
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:21:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Ran Khanon
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 05/10/2010 17:53:12
Originally by: Evarus
Originally by: Dark Pony
I could care less making profit, I want people to love me and see the light within their hearts. I want people to be happy and live in joy.
Therefore being said would my reason for helping people be considered "altruism". Let say I help a person multiple times without giving a dam about being paid. I'm not profiting off it except for the reward of his thankfulness. Would that be considered being a nice guy?
I like to help people and make them smile them like I do in real life.
Originally by: Dark Pony
I'm not profiting off it except for the reward of his thankfulness. Would that be considered being a nice guy?
Begging the question as to whether there is such a thing as altruism? In a sense, all ethical behaviour could be said to be self-interested, as the ethical man must have some motivation for good behaviour and choosing the right over the wrong, even if that is a pleasurable feeling about having acted for the good.
An interesting counter case though, is the soldier who makes a split decision to throw himself onto a hand-grenade to protect his comrades, with no time to think about the benefit to him of acting morally and without self-interest, i.e. acting prior to any notion of altruism.
Perhaps the OP should throw himself on a hand-grenade (in game) and we can all have a thoroughgoing debate about the merits of his doing so?
Ahahah! Yes, you are right but you dismiss one thing ... why is it that one feels rewarded for doing altruistic deeds? Why is it that this feeling of well-being takes a hold of you whenever you did something GOOD, motivating you to do some more GOOD next time around?
I think it is man's genetic code speaking on behalf of 'the group'. Even though the reward might be 'selfish' the outcome is benefit for the tribe. And the tribe represents your total gene pool, diversity, mutual strength and wit, a.k.a. general ability to survive. In that sense there is no selfishness and are we all slaves to genetic interests that surpass the needs of the individual. This ALSO explains the hand grenade example.
Ummmm... actually it doesn't explain it at all. Sorry man.
|
Dr Carobus
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:36:00 -
[36]
Ummmm... actually it doesn't explain it at all. Sorry man. Case in point... there's clearly some people who WOULD throw themselves on the grenade, and there are clearly some people who WOULD NOT throw themselves on the grenade. This situation has existed in real life enough that we can definitively say that peoples responses to these sorts of situations are not identical.... they are not soley based off of genetic factors but are clearly impacted by other elements. Environment/training/etc for one.
We see impacts from training... a persons taste in wine is impacted by training... a persons artistic sense can be refined by training, a "moral" sense can also be refined by training. The outcome of a "trained" sense is different from a non-trained sense just the same way that a trained palate will choose different wines than an untrained.
you cannot have an element which is so clearly impacted by training, and yet claim that this is an area where we are enslaved to genetics.
Yup, 'cos even if you dismiss rationality, there is still evidence of 'nurture' (societal conditioning or training) as well as nature isn't there. We often see people acting against their base impulses in surprising ways. Yes, this action is often for the greater good, but can't just be reduced to genetics surely?
|
Loschy
The Synergy
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:48:00 -
[37]
Originally by: DarkSchneider666
I could care less making profit,
You mean you could NOT care less? Or you are almost at the bare minimum you could care, but not quite?
|
Ichire Dacar
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:54:00 -
[38]
I could care less about snyping this page.
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:01:00 -
[39]
Headshot. 
--
This signature is red. |
Brizae
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:25:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ichire Dacar
I could care less about snyping this page.
and spelling too I see
|
Ichire Dacar
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:32:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Brizae
and spelling too I see
Teach me about spelling and punctuation please, Professor Brizae.
|
Ran Khanon
Amarr
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:39:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Elldranga
Ummmm... actually it doesn't explain it at all. Sorry man. Case in point... there's clearly some people who WOULD throw themselves on the grenade, and there are clearly some people who WOULD NOT throw themselves on the grenade. This situation has existed in real life enough that we can definitively say that peoples responses to these sorts of situations are not identical.... they are not soley based off of genetic factors but are clearly impacted by other elements. Environment/training/etc for one.
We see impacts from training... a persons taste in wine is impacted by training... a persons artistic sense can be refined by training, a "moral" sense can also be refined by training. The outcome of a "trained" sense is different from a non-trained sense just the same way that a trained palate will choose different wines than an untrained.
you cannot have an element which is so clearly impacted by training, and yet claim that this is an area where we are enslaved to genetics.
I guess you performed a thorough census of a large enough group of subjects to test them for 'grenade-leapability'? :) I personally think most people are able to perform such a sacrifice if only the incentive is high enough. I would not jump on a grenade for someone I don't know personally but I think I would do it for my loved ones. Most parents would do it for their children I suppose. It is not a question of 'always or never' but 'in which case'.
You are right that conditioning plays a big part in helping people to do things that seem unnatural, such as emptying a clip of bullets at the first look of 'an enemy', but actually they are very natural behaviours, only suppressed by our modern upbringing which has to be broken down again to turn us back into killing machines. Poor soldiers, can't blame em for having a hard time 'getting back in society'.
Recruiting. |
Phara Jee
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 00:47:00 -
[43]
Well, first enjoy your anonymity...I know you're trolling...and I'll bite.
But you're talking out your a**...do that in real life and you're not long for anything.
|
Spruillo
Gallente
Spruill Corp
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 01:09:00 -
[44]
THIS WILL BE DEALT WITH
|
Corncob Spokesperson
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 01:20:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Ran Khanon
Originally by: Elldranga
Ummmm... actually it doesn't explain it at all. Sorry man. Case in point... there's clearly some people who WOULD throw themselves on the grenade, and there are clearly some people who WOULD NOT throw themselves on the grenade. This situation has existed in real life enough that we can definitively say that peoples responses to these sorts of situations are not identical.... they are not soley based off of genetic factors but are clearly impacted by other elements. Environment/training/etc for one.
We see impacts from training... a persons taste in wine is impacted by training... a persons artistic sense can be refined by training, a "moral" sense can also be refined by training. The outcome of a "trained" sense is different from a non-trained sense just the same way that a trained palate will choose different wines than an untrained.
you cannot have an element which is so clearly impacted by training, and yet claim that this is an area where we are enslaved to genetics.
I guess you performed a thorough census of a large enough group of subjects to test them for 'grenade-leapability'? :) I personally think most people are able to perform such a sacrifice if only the incentive is high enough. I would not jump on a grenade for someone I don't know personally but I think I would do it for my loved ones. Most parents would do it for their children I suppose. It is not a question of 'always or never' but 'in which case'.
You are right that conditioning plays a big part in helping people to do things that seem unnatural, such as emptying a clip of bullets at the first look of 'an enemy', but actually they are very natural behaviours, only suppressed by our modern upbringing which has to be broken down again to turn us back into killing machines. Poor soldiers, can't blame em for having a hard time 'getting back in society'.
Greetings,
The grenade example is not necessarily related to genetics. The man who throws himself on a grenade vs the man who doesn't IMO is more related to politics rather then natural behaviour.
A man who grows up in a military family or a family with military style ethics or in a culture in which the group is emphasized rather then the individual (early 20th centure japan, religion) is more likely to sacrifice himself.
When a person receives certain input over years or a lifetime and it becomes ingrained in their thinking to the extent it becomes a unassailable belief then that behaviour will usually exhibit if the situation comes up in which it can be exhibited.
You could however, imo, take that person beforehand and bring him up to be a selfish prig, and its very unlikely he'll jump on the grenade.
[Corncob does not support the ganking of extremely valuable ships in Corncob protected space.. period] |
Lyta Ford
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 06:22:00 -
[46]
Awww, the OP is the cutest little thing!!! Trying to be a tough little man, I just wanna shower him with cutesy Teddy bears that he can be all terrifying to!!! Rawr!
|
Leslie e'Evob
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 09:57:00 -
[47]
Originally by: DarkSchneider666
I like to harass people and terrify them like I do in real life.
Don't you mean "I like to harass people and terrify them like they do to me in real life."?
|
Bo Tosh
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 10:24:00 -
[48]
Quote:
Originally by: DarkSchneider666
I like to harass people and terrify them like I do in real life.
Don't you mean "I like to harass people and terrify them like they do to me in real life."?
She Shoots, She scores!
|
J Shaft
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 12:31:00 -
[49]
Posting to give a vote of confidence to OP.
It is because of all you mean people that attacked him, he is the way he is.
I think he made a valid point and therefore support him 100%.
Also his question is unique and at the very least intriguing.
But most of all, what really gave away his utmost effort for creating such an interesting thread is his carefully thought out nick.
"DarkSchneider666", now there is something truly majestic, that you don't see every day.
Best regards, J. |
Diesel47
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 12:34:00 -
[50]
Originally by: DarkSchneider666
I like to harass people and terrify them like I do in real life.
I'm sure nobody is terrified by you. 
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |