loved the subtle pointer to Dark Side Of The Moon!
But joy is subjective surely?
I think Roger Waters actually nicked 'quiet desperation' from Thoreau - but it's a great steal.
About joy being subjective ... well, there are obviously many paths to joy. But I do think there are conditions and outlooks that foster it, and others that hinder, and I think the predominant outlook in the UK tends indeed to hinder. Broadly, I'd say the prevailing outlook is that we're all, as Radiohead sang (not sure why I'm quoting them so much lately, as I'm not a huge fan, but anyway ...) basically just 'sentimental androids' - the lesson being not to take our own emotions or perceptions too seriously, to distrust high aspirations, and never get carried away with anything. I think the fact that the goal of most 'mental health' initiatives is 'well-being' speaks volumes: we're aiming, at best, for a life that is vaguely pleasant - life, as another 90s band sang, with the edges taken off - not one with a potential for joy. And equally, when we're unhappy, we suffer not from 'despair', but 'depression'.
The contemporary tendency, IMV, is to try to live life in the middle of the emotional bell curve, and to ignore or deny the value of any extreme, including the positive. Over the long run, I found that to be quietly destructive - and I suspect that's the case for the population at large.
Yes. Ultimately all apparently self-sacrificing acts have their basis in some kind of selfishness; however, far from seeing that as detracting from the self-sacrificing act I think it is essential we draw everyone's attention to it. And in any way, acting in a self-sacrificing way because of a faith conviction is no less selfish.
One grows so tired of this claim. Please provide solid evidence beyond "it stands to reason."
Of course, I am not arguing that the individual is aware of their selfishness or even that they are the direct beneficiary of it. If I could edit my comment I would write self-interest rather than selfishness as that carries less opprobrium than selfishness.
Though I'm not sure that's the correct usage of "begging the question".
AFAICT, it's a completely correct use of the term 'begging the question', in the sense of petitio principii: 'My evidence for the assertion that self-seeking evolutionary pressures account for altruism is the theory that self-seeking evolutionary pressures account for altruism'.
Though I'm not sure that's the correct usage of "begging the question".
AFAICT, it's a completely correct use of the term 'begging the question', in the sense of petitio principii: 'My evidence for the assertion that self-seeking evolutionary pressures account for altruism is the theory that self-seeking evolutionary pressures account for altruism'.
Ah. Bugger. Should have known not to quibble with @Doc Tor I misread his post to mean "prompts one to ask the question".
If all you have is an evolutionary explanation, then that's all you're ever going to get.
You can both accept evolution, and reject its explanation of altruism.
Oh indeed, but I don't accept any other source than evolution for human behaviour.
Well, quite. You have a hammer, therefore everything is a nail. Sure, it (whichever version of 'it' you subscribe to. Maybe all of them, I don't know if some of them are mutually exclusive) gives you an explanation, how are they relevant now, when we can live our lives free of altruism and exist solely on the basis of economic transaction? The bus driver doesn't pick me up from the stop because he's doing me a favour. He's doing it because he's paid to. In fact, I'm the one paying him. Likewise, I don't require altruism from my tribe to eat. I can just go to Greggs, or one of a dozen other places.
It's been like that for at least a couple of hundred years now, if not before. Altruism should be dead in a ditch, and yet one of the great political movements of the 20th century was state-enabled secular altruism. A better explanation is needed than 'genes'.
If all you have is an evolutionary explanation, then that's all you're ever going to get.
You can both accept evolution, and reject its explanation of altruism.
Oh indeed, but I don't accept any other source than evolution for human behaviour.
Well, quite. You have a hammer, therefore everything is a nail. Sure, it (whichever version of 'it' you subscribe to. Maybe all of them, I don't know if some of them are mutually exclusive) gives you an explanation, how are they relevant now, when we can live our lives free of altruism and exist solely on the basis of economic transaction? The bus driver doesn't pick me up from the stop because he's doing me a favour. He's doing it because he's paid to. In fact, I'm the one paying him. Likewise, I don't require altruism from my tribe to eat. I can just go to Greggs, or one of a dozen other places.
It's been like that for at least a couple of hundred years now, if not before. Altruism should be dead in a ditch, and yet one of the great political movements of the 20th century was state-enabled secular altruism. A better explanation is needed than 'genes'.
I disagree. Altruism is as much part of Homo sapiens as bipedal motion and our susceptibility to the common cold.
But I'd still like to know what your explanation for altruism is.
But I'd still like to know what your explanation for altruism is.
Personally, I don't have one. For reasons I've already outlined, I don't think explaining altruism is a particularly interesting problem. It's a theoretical one, and one outside my areas of interest and expertise.
It's a theoretical problem that gets much harder if your starting point is that human nature is intrinsically and invariably self-interested in a narrow sense. Indeed, if you don't make that initial assumption, the question of accounting for altruism largely evaporates.
I think the petitio principii really goes all the way down, here.
But I'd still like to know what your explanation for altruism is.
Personally, I don't have one. For reasons I've already outlined, I don't think explaining altruism is a particularly interesting problem. It's a theoretical one, and one outside my areas of interest and expertise.
It's a theoretical problem that gets much harder if your starting point is that human nature is intrinsically and invariably self-interested in a narrow sense. Indeed, if you don't make that initial assumption, the question of accounting for altruism largely evaporates.
I think the petitio principii really goes all the way down, here.
In itself, the origin of altruism is of little import. But in the context of how atheists and theists see the world and our existence within that world it's a potential source of contention. You've alluded to it with your assertion that your non-Christian colleagues appeared to have no basis for their morality, notwithstanding that their actual behaviour was moral. For obvious reasons, that is a bit of a red flag for an atheist as it implies some form of faith is essential for morality.
At worst it becomes an assertion that atheists and other non-Christians have no basis for their morality at all and that all morality ultimately derives from God: specifically the Christian God.
Conversely, for the atheist a non-theist non-spiritual origin for altruism is essential.
I suppose that human nature is, individually and corporately, a mixture of co-operative and competitive tendencies. We can find evolutionary explanations for both tendencies, both for ourselves and for other social beings.
Do these explanations also explain why we also have ideas about what is moral or immoral, what is scrupulous or unscrupulous? From way back, I remember the late A J Ayer pondering this question without finding an answer which satisfied him.
In a very late response to the OP, the kinds of Christianity which leave me cold are those which deny the value of such explorations. My wife advised me that her mother used to answer "difficult" questions from her as a child by saying "because there are railings around the park". A kind of "do shut up, please" response which is not a lot of use to an enquiring mind.
Speaking from a practical point of view, this (the problem of self-satisfaction after an altruistic act) is one of the things Christ died for, and therefore basically a non-starter as far as worry goes. I think of it as the unavoidable dust raised by trying to clean house--no matter what I do that is good, there's going to be that backward reaction toward evil, and imagining that it's possible for me with my nature to somehow commit a purely 100% surgical strike of good is just silly. So whenever I'm tempted to get into an endless hair-splitting attempt to separate out the last drops of evil from a good action, I remember C. S. Lewis's advice and laugh at myself. Then I go have coffee (a beer would be better, but the bubbles get up my nose).
Ha! Interestingly, I think this brings me back a bit to point 8 of my OP. In my pre-Christian life, this didn't bother me at all. I did a good thing. Did I get some kind of glow or pat myself on the back about this? Well, maybe (though honestly, usually not really). But who cares? The good thing got done. AND IT WAS REALLY IRRITATING LISTEN TO CHRISTIANS KEEP SPLITTING THAT HAIR.
Going back to this last bit--I can't help wondering if the hair-splitting Christians you knew were particularly young? Like, in their twenties or very early thirties maybe? Because in my experience that sort of worry is something you grow out of normally. I think it's maybe partly related to Piaget's stages of cognitive development (and other growth stage schemes of that sort), where hairsplitting and over-analysis seems to be most common in teens and twenties, and is gradually forsaken (please God, let's HOPE people move past that point!) as true adulthood sets in,and with it the usual responsibilities of adulthood. Managing a job, a home, children, spouse or partner, aging family members--none of this leaves a great deal of time or brainpower for fruitless ruminating.
@Colin Smith I think you are conflating two things: the evolutionary origin of altruism, and the motivations of a single person doing an altruistic act. The motives may have been put there by an evolutionary process, but that doesn't mean the factors that drove that process are at work in that person at the time of that act. This strikes me as a bit of a mix between the genetic fallacy and the composition fallacy.
Speaking from a practical point of view, this (the problem of self-satisfaction after an altruistic act) is one of the things Christ died for, and therefore basically a non-starter as far as worry goes. I think of it as the unavoidable dust raised by trying to clean house--no matter what I do that is good, there's going to be that backward reaction toward evil, and imagining that it's possible for me with my nature to somehow commit a purely 100% surgical strike of good is just silly. So whenever I'm tempted to get into an endless hair-splitting attempt to separate out the last drops of evil from a good action, I remember C. S. Lewis's advice and laugh at myself. Then I go have coffee (a beer would be better, but the bubbles get up my nose).
@Lamb Chopped, I just wanted to say: that was all very beautifully put!
I see nothing wrong with talking about your altruism. In fact it may encourage others to be the same.
I was stuck in the middle of nowhere a week or two ago. The path I was meant to take was full of cows with calves. (Very dangerous, my friend only just got away with her life recently - she’s still in hospital).
I knocked on a door to ask for the number of a local taxi. The bloke very kindly gave me a lift right back to the hotel. It was at least ten minutes in the car. I thanked him and said he’d been kind above and beyond. He replied “I’ve had many lifts in the past when I’ve been stranded, I’m just paying the kindness on.”
What a great answer - and I now use it when asked why I do what I do. People have been so kind to me I’m just paying it on.
Assuming you are disputing my comment that all apparently self-sacrificing acts have their basis in some kind of selfishness, this is my reply.
There are I think some conceptual problems here even if we accept the premise that all biological aspects of human behaviour are the result of adaptive reproductive pressures.
Firstly, the desire to benefit one's children is not usually covered under the term 'selfishness' or indeed 'self-interest'. Attempting to further one's own interests at the expense of one's children is usually regarded as selfish.
Secondly, just because the mechanism of a piece of behaviour evolved because it leads to reproductive success does not mean that the motivation of the behaviour is adaptive reproductive success. In so far as the teleological fallacy is a fallacy that is why it's fallacious. Cats that play with mice may effectively practice hunting skills which leads to reproductive success, but no notion of practicing hunting skills or reproducive success is going through the cat's mind as far as we know. A bird that is feeding a cuckoo chick is not in any way improving its reproductive success. In one Attenborough documentary a bird whose nest has been raided can obviously tell that its eggs have been broken but still broods over the broken eggs. In both cases, the behaviour has evolved because in general circumstances acting in such a way in response to certain cues leads to reproductive success more often than not, but the bird's object is acting in response to the cues, not reproductive success.
The problem with evolutionary explanations is that if they equally explain Boris Johnson running out on his children and another man dying to save his child's life they don't actually explain anything.
Likewise, biological evolution cannot explain why the English language has largely abandoned grammatical gender and French hasn't.
The contemporary tendency, IMV, is to try to live life in the middle of the emotional bell curve, and to ignore or deny the value of any extreme, including the positive. Over the long run, I found that to be quietly destructive - and I suspect that's the case for the population at large.
Yep. I’m naturally over enthusiastic and positive - it drives people maaaaaad! But that is a subjective matter too. If I see people being unrealistically positive that drives me maaaaad, but I see my own positivity as entirely realistic!
I’ve only just read this thread as the title put me off. My husband became a Christian forty years ago and often muttered ‘For God’s sake shut up’ when he heard Christians talking/pontificating/preaching - and he meant the ‘For God’s sake’ bit very sincerely.
What an excellent thread - each point would make a good thread on its own.
[But I'd still like to know what your explanation for altruism is.
I see enough shitty behaviour to think that "it's evolution" indicates that many of my fellow humans haven't made it down from the trees yet. I also see altruistic behaviour, but the fact that it's inconsistent, and depends far more on personality than species, indicates that your own answer is inadequate.
Like Timo, I don't have much of an answer. I would suggest socialisation, culture, and religious belief play a much larger role than bare evolution does.
I also find your "this is the answer, what's the question?" stance strange. There are more things in Heaven and Earth...
Om with Col. I don't see anything inadequate about it. Nothing is missing in human nature. No magic is required. Emergence, yes, but that's just complexity.
History demonstrates that without altruism human societies cannot function or survive. The Ten Commandments have persisted to the present day in Judaeo-Christian societies because nobody has devised a better moral code of conduct for the safeguarding of community life (Ex 20: 1-17). But if you read the Book of Judges you see the terrible portrait of a society ruled by violence rather than justice. And it ends with the near destruction of the Benjaminites: 'In the days of the Judges there was no king; everybody did as they saw fit' (Judges 21: 25).
I think the collapse of the communist regimes is a case in point.
But if you look at hunter gather tribal societies you find that they promote values based upon sharing with the whole community rather than the individual accumulation of wealth. A culture which promotes altruism and co-operation ensures the survival and wellbeing of the tribe.
I think the Ten Commandments represent tried and tested community wisdom which has accumulated over generations. These are the values which make human families and communities stable, functional and healthy.
So they collapsed due to their lack of altruism? And the West has more? So China will collapse? And Cuba? And Venezuela? And Iran? And Saudi? And Pakistan? And Indonesia? And India? And Russia has more altruism now?
Om with Col. I don't see anything inadequate about it. Nothing is missing in human nature. No magic is required. Emergence, yes, but that's just complexity.
I'm not arguing that magic is required. I'm arguing that evolution cannot adequately explain altruism, and its absence, at the same time. If we were hard-wired for altruism, how was the Tory party created, and why is it still with us?
Completely onboard with the idea that altruism was a survival mechanism: I am not going to last more than ten seconds against a bear (and nine of those will be spent trying to run away from the bear). But several of us could reasonably expect to be eating bear steaks by sundown - if no one runs and everybody fights. But that is social conditioning, not biologically driven. If anything, it goes against everything our lizard brain is telling us to do.
Complex state societies function for as long as the benefits outweigh the costs for their citizens. When the reverse is true then they collapse, as in the case of the late Roman empire (Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies).
Tribal societies cannot coexist alongside state societies because their value systems are entirely different. And this completely undermines the altruistic and non-materialistic culture of the tribal societies. As in the cases of the indigenous peoples of North America, Canada and Australia.
Altruism is a stabilising factor in social cohesion. Tribal societies understand this as a matter of community survival. The state societies which have more altruistic value systems also have more stability and longevity. Because the benefits outweigh the costs.
Om with Col. I don't see anything inadequate about it. Nothing is missing in human nature. No magic is required. Emergence, yes, but that's just complexity.
I'm not arguing that magic is required. I'm arguing that evolution cannot adequately explain altruism, and its absence, at the same time. If we were hard-wired for altruism, how was the Tory party created, and why is it still with us?
Completely onboard with the idea that altruism was a survival mechanism: I am not going to last more than ten seconds against a bear (and nine of those will be spent trying to run away from the bear). But several of us could reasonably expect to be eating bear steaks by sundown - if no one runs and everybody fights. But that is social conditioning, not biologically driven. If anything, it goes against everything our lizard brain is telling us to do.
Our social conditioning is biology. Is afforded by biology. The Tory party enshrines more hard wired moral taste receptors than altruism. Being a Tory or a Nazi or a Communist or a Lib-Dem is biology, emergent, human biology. Liberals are handicapped by only having the care/harm, fair/unfair receptors if they have no understanding and acceptance of how most people are wired. 90% monkey 10% bee. Again, eusociality makes genocide possible.
If it is, it's incredibly easy to hack. William Golding knew this. Biology simply doesn't explain altruism and not-altruism. We have to look elsewhere.
In itself, the origin of altruism is of little import. But in the context of how atheists and theists see the world and our existence within that world it's a potential source of contention. You've alluded to it with your assertion that your non-Christian colleagues appeared to have no basis for their morality, notwithstanding that their actual behaviour was moral. For obvious reasons, that is a bit of a red flag for an atheist as it implies some form of faith is essential for morality.
At worst it becomes an assertion that atheists and other non-Christians have no basis for their morality at all and that all morality ultimately derives from God: specifically the Christian God.
Conversely, for the atheist a non-theist non-spiritual origin for altruism is essential.
Well, a couple of things.
First, you seem to be arguing against things you feel I might or ought to say, rather than things I have actually said. That's not a feedback loop I'm tempted to interpose myself in.
Second, as I've said upthread, I think we're actually talking about different things. The question of the origin of altruism is a different one from how someone makes a decision about how to act. My only real view on 'the origin of altruism' is that the circular and self-sealing character of most answers to the question makes me suspect that it's badly put on a theoretical level. On a pragmatic level, I think it's just a category error: answering the question 'How should I act, and why?' with 'There are hardwired behaviour patterns encoding a range of possible responses' just isn't particularly helpful.
Again, 'oughts' and 'is's. And well-worn philosophical territory.
I was stuck in the middle of nowhere a week or two ago. The path I was meant to take was full of cows with calves. (Very dangerous, my friend only just got away with her life recently - she’s still in hospital).
I do hope your friend has a speedy recovery. I crossed through a similar field last month and was charged - fortunately (if oddly) by a calf rather than a cow. I thought of the martyrdom of St. Perpetua ...
No magic is required. Emergence, yes, but that's just complexity.
As someone in IT, the 'just' in 'just complexity' made me smile (ruefully).
As for the claim ... well, I rather feel that if you can't trace a causal line through 'emergence', the term is indeed pretty much synonymous with 'magic'.
I see nothing wrong with talking about your altruism. In fact it may encourage others to be the same.
This got me thinking along these lines: Jesus said if we talk about our altruism, we receive our reward in this life, not the next. But as you say encouraging others to be altruistic is a positive good. Perhaps the most altruistic thing we can do, then, is to forego our future rewards for the sake of those others persuaded by our example, and of those they help.
The message of the gospels is not only not to practice your piety in public but to pray in private too. It is a matter between yourself and God alone. Otherwise, as you say, you have received your reward already. A monk once said to our visiting church group: 'Why do I need to be admired?' It's meant to be a counter cultural lifestyle.
There’s one case in which people very deliberately practice their good deeds in order to be seen, and that is parents training children. If that results in loss of reward I’m good with it. I’m not terribly reward-driven anyway— I suspect that warning was aimed at those who are, I.e. th ose who haven’t yet decided that being in jesus’ company is more than enough reward already. Having that, no need to futz about the details.
So what about, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven"?
And where in scripture does it say that you can't be inwardly happy that something you did for someone personally or for the common good and that it is something you shouldn't feel? Pride- no. Satisfaction- yes. Plus a lot of scripture about doing good says you should do it because it pleases God which can begin to sound like you are trying to earn heavenly brownie points and are not that disinterested.
The motive consecrates the deed: 'You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.' A truly servant hearted person isn't thinking about their reward in any way. And when you witness the genuine article, it really is inspiring.
Tendencies may influence choices, but do not determine them. Just because the ancestors have eaten sour grapes, the children's teeth are not necessarily set on edge.
So what about, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven"?
Well spotted. I've never put those two together. Are those from different or the same gospels? (Too tired to go check.)
And where in scripture does it say that you can't be inwardly happy that something you did for someone personally or for the common good and that it is something you shouldn't feel? Pride- no. Satisfaction- yes. Plus a lot of scripture about doing good says you should do it because it pleases God which can begin to sound like you are trying to earn heavenly brownie points and are not that disinterested.
If it is, it's incredibly easy to hack. William Golding knew this. Biology simply doesn't explain altruism and not-altruism. We have to look elsewhere.
We're hard wired for experience. I see no need to go beyond nature. Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology all have their emergent origins in the previous and accumulate from them. They blur more as they ascend in complexity. Where else do we look?
Martin, do you remember the subtitle of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? It is "An inquiry into values".
How do we inquire into values? Do the natural sciences, which are value-free forms of inquiry (done properly) actually help any critical appreciation of values? Or do we need to look elsewhere?
So what about, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven"?
And where in scripture does it say that you can't be inwardly happy that something you did for someone personally or for the common good and that it is something you shouldn't feel? Pride- no. Satisfaction- yes. Plus a lot of scripture about doing good says you should do it because it pleases God which can begin to sound like you are trying to earn heavenly brownie points and are not that disinterested.
Yes. I always recommend doing things for charity that you really enjoy anyway. That way you do it with joy - which has to be a good thing.
Finding what you are good at and enjoy, then doing that thing for the good of others, that can’t be wrong - can it?
Om with Col. I don't see anything inadequate about it. Nothing is missing in human nature. No magic is required. Emergence, yes, but that's just complexity.
I'm not arguing that magic is required. I'm arguing that evolution cannot adequately explain altruism, and its absence, at the same time. If we were hard-wired for altruism, how was the Tory party created, and why is it still with us?
Completely onboard with the idea that altruism was a survival mechanism: I am not going to last more than ten seconds against a bear (and nine of those will be spent trying to run away from the bear). But several of us could reasonably expect to be eating bear steaks by sundown - if no one runs and everybody fights. But that is social conditioning, not biologically driven. If anything, it goes against everything our lizard brain is telling us to do.
The evidence that biological evolution works, including all the survival traits such as altruism, is the continuing survival of our species. It survives because there are enough members of the group to enable it to do so in spite of the ones who behave in ways that are contrary to the well-being of the majority; and of course for as long as the naturally selected traits and the various mutations continue to enable the species to survive nature. The human species has the distinct advantage of being able to use the elements of nature to help it survive.
Martin, do you remember the subtitle of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? It is "An inquiry into values".
How do we inquire into values? Do the natural sciences, which are value-free forms of inquiry (done properly) actually help any critical appreciation of values? Or do we need to look elsewhere?
I did not know that Dood!
And that is a bloody good question. My knee jerk response is to say values shmalues, let's do no harm and be fair for a start. Which is biological on up. Which is the answer again to your second question. Values are wired. Why does a roomful of Renoir suffocate me with weeping joy? My first sighting of a Himalayan maple? Or Michel Johnson singing That's That with weeping grief? Every damn time. In private. Wiring. Experience on wiring.
Would we have got to the Sermon on the Mount, or the Pericope Adulterae without Jesus? Or did we, without God?
It survives because there are enough members of the group to enable it to do so in spite of the ones who behave in ways that are contrary to the well-being of the majority.
Again, you have explain why there is both altruism and not-altruism. If we have been selected for altruism for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, then not-altruism would be a rare aberration, if not unknown, when it is not just common, but very common. That you yourself say 'there are enough members of the group' indicates that altruism doesn't have a purely biological/evolutionary explanation. If it did, you would be saying 'the vast majority of the group' or 'all of the group'.
@Colin Smith I think you are conflating two things: the evolutionary origin of altruism, and the motivations of a single person doing an altruistic act. The motives may have been put there by an evolutionary process, but that doesn't mean the factors that drove that process are at work in that person at the time of that act. This strikes me as a bit of a mix between the genetic fallacy and the composition fallacy.
I'm not arguing that they are always in effect when an individual performs an altruistic act.
First, you seem to be arguing against things you feel I might or ought to say, rather than things I have actually said. That's not a feedback loop I'm tempted to interpose myself in.
Second, as I've said upthread, I think we're actually talking about different things. The question of the origin of altruism is a different one from how someone makes a decision about how to act. My only real view on 'the origin of altruism' is that the circular and self-sealing character of most answers to the question makes me suspect that it's badly put on a theoretical level. On a pragmatic level, I think it's just a category error: answering the question 'How should I act, and why?' with 'There are hardwired behaviour patterns encoding a range of possible responses' just isn't particularly helpful.
Again, 'oughts' and 'is's. And well-worn philosophical territory.
I plead guilty to arguing against things I think you might say.
However, I think we are at cross-purposes. I wouldn't dream, of looking to 'evolution' as a guide to applied morality and would find anyone who did so more than a bit odd.
However, I thought we were looking at morality in a broader sense: as in what are its origins and its purpose in human social groups. How and why individual people might act in specific situations doesn't much interest me.
Comments
I think Roger Waters actually nicked 'quiet desperation' from Thoreau - but it's a great steal.
About joy being subjective ... well, there are obviously many paths to joy. But I do think there are conditions and outlooks that foster it, and others that hinder, and I think the predominant outlook in the UK tends indeed to hinder. Broadly, I'd say the prevailing outlook is that we're all, as Radiohead sang (not sure why I'm quoting them so much lately, as I'm not a huge fan, but anyway ...) basically just 'sentimental androids' - the lesson being not to take our own emotions or perceptions too seriously, to distrust high aspirations, and never get carried away with anything. I think the fact that the goal of most 'mental health' initiatives is 'well-being' speaks volumes: we're aiming, at best, for a life that is vaguely pleasant - life, as another 90s band sang, with the edges taken off - not one with a potential for joy. And equally, when we're unhappy, we suffer not from 'despair', but 'depression'.
The contemporary tendency, IMV, is to try to live life in the middle of the emotional bell curve, and to ignore or deny the value of any extreme, including the positive. Over the long run, I found that to be quietly destructive - and I suspect that's the case for the population at large.
Assuming you are disputing my comment that all apparently self-sacrificing acts have their basis in some kind of selfishness, this is my reply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations
Of course, I am not arguing that the individual is aware of their selfishness or even that they are the direct beneficiary of it. If I could edit my comment I would write self-interest rather than selfishness as that carries less opprobrium than selfishness.
If all you have is an evolutionary explanation, then that's all you're ever going to get.
You can both accept evolution, and reject its explanation of altruism.
Oh indeed, but I don't accept any other source than evolution for human behaviour.
Though I'm not sure that's the correct usage of "begging the question".
I suppose I have to ask what is your explanation for altruism?
AFAICT, it's a completely correct use of the term 'begging the question', in the sense of petitio principii: 'My evidence for the assertion that self-seeking evolutionary pressures account for altruism is the theory that self-seeking evolutionary pressures account for altruism'.
Ah. Bugger. Should have known not to quibble with @Doc Tor I misread his post to mean "prompts one to ask the question".
Well, quite. You have a hammer, therefore everything is a nail. Sure, it (whichever version of 'it' you subscribe to. Maybe all of them, I don't know if some of them are mutually exclusive) gives you an explanation, how are they relevant now, when we can live our lives free of altruism and exist solely on the basis of economic transaction? The bus driver doesn't pick me up from the stop because he's doing me a favour. He's doing it because he's paid to. In fact, I'm the one paying him. Likewise, I don't require altruism from my tribe to eat. I can just go to Greggs, or one of a dozen other places.
It's been like that for at least a couple of hundred years now, if not before. Altruism should be dead in a ditch, and yet one of the great political movements of the 20th century was state-enabled secular altruism. A better explanation is needed than 'genes'.
I disagree. Altruism is as much part of Homo sapiens as bipedal motion and our susceptibility to the common cold.
But I'd still like to know what your explanation for altruism is.
Personally, I don't have one. For reasons I've already outlined, I don't think explaining altruism is a particularly interesting problem. It's a theoretical one, and one outside my areas of interest and expertise.
It's a theoretical problem that gets much harder if your starting point is that human nature is intrinsically and invariably self-interested in a narrow sense. Indeed, if you don't make that initial assumption, the question of accounting for altruism largely evaporates.
I think the petitio principii really goes all the way down, here.
In itself, the origin of altruism is of little import. But in the context of how atheists and theists see the world and our existence within that world it's a potential source of contention. You've alluded to it with your assertion that your non-Christian colleagues appeared to have no basis for their morality, notwithstanding that their actual behaviour was moral. For obvious reasons, that is a bit of a red flag for an atheist as it implies some form of faith is essential for morality.
At worst it becomes an assertion that atheists and other non-Christians have no basis for their morality at all and that all morality ultimately derives from God: specifically the Christian God.
Conversely, for the atheist a non-theist non-spiritual origin for altruism is essential.
Do these explanations also explain why we also have ideas about what is moral or immoral, what is scrupulous or unscrupulous? From way back, I remember the late A J Ayer pondering this question without finding an answer which satisfied him.
In a very late response to the OP, the kinds of Christianity which leave me cold are those which deny the value of such explorations. My wife advised me that her mother used to answer "difficult" questions from her as a child by saying "because there are railings around the park". A kind of "do shut up, please" response which is not a lot of use to an enquiring mind.
Going back to this last bit--I can't help wondering if the hair-splitting Christians you knew were particularly young? Like, in their twenties or very early thirties maybe? Because in my experience that sort of worry is something you grow out of normally. I think it's maybe partly related to Piaget's stages of cognitive development (and other growth stage schemes of that sort), where hairsplitting and over-analysis seems to be most common in teens and twenties, and is gradually forsaken (please God, let's HOPE people move past that point!) as true adulthood sets in,and with it the usual responsibilities of adulthood. Managing a job, a home, children, spouse or partner, aging family members--none of this leaves a great deal of time or brainpower for fruitless ruminating.
@Lamb Chopped, I just wanted to say: that was all very beautifully put!
I was stuck in the middle of nowhere a week or two ago. The path I was meant to take was full of cows with calves. (Very dangerous, my friend only just got away with her life recently - she’s still in hospital).
I knocked on a door to ask for the number of a local taxi. The bloke very kindly gave me a lift right back to the hotel. It was at least ten minutes in the car. I thanked him and said he’d been kind above and beyond. He replied “I’ve had many lifts in the past when I’ve been stranded, I’m just paying the kindness on.”
What a great answer - and I now use it when asked why I do what I do. People have been so kind to me I’m just paying it on.
Firstly, the desire to benefit one's children is not usually covered under the term 'selfishness' or indeed 'self-interest'. Attempting to further one's own interests at the expense of one's children is usually regarded as selfish.
Secondly, just because the mechanism of a piece of behaviour evolved because it leads to reproductive success does not mean that the motivation of the behaviour is adaptive reproductive success. In so far as the teleological fallacy is a fallacy that is why it's fallacious. Cats that play with mice may effectively practice hunting skills which leads to reproductive success, but no notion of practicing hunting skills or reproducive success is going through the cat's mind as far as we know. A bird that is feeding a cuckoo chick is not in any way improving its reproductive success. In one Attenborough documentary a bird whose nest has been raided can obviously tell that its eggs have been broken but still broods over the broken eggs. In both cases, the behaviour has evolved because in general circumstances acting in such a way in response to certain cues leads to reproductive success more often than not, but the bird's object is acting in response to the cues, not reproductive success.
The problem with evolutionary explanations is that if they equally explain Boris Johnson running out on his children and another man dying to save his child's life they don't actually explain anything.
Likewise, biological evolution cannot explain why the English language has largely abandoned grammatical gender and French hasn't.
Yep. I’m naturally over enthusiastic and positive - it drives people maaaaaad!
I’ve only just read this thread as the title put me off. My husband became a Christian forty years ago and often muttered ‘For God’s sake shut up’ when he heard Christians talking/pontificating/preaching - and he meant the ‘For God’s sake’ bit very sincerely.
What an excellent thread - each point would make a good thread on its own.
I see enough shitty behaviour to think that "it's evolution" indicates that many of my fellow humans haven't made it down from the trees yet. I also see altruistic behaviour, but the fact that it's inconsistent, and depends far more on personality than species, indicates that your own answer is inadequate.
Like Timo, I don't have much of an answer. I would suggest socialisation, culture, and religious belief play a much larger role than bare evolution does.
I also find your "this is the answer, what's the question?" stance strange. There are more things in Heaven and Earth...
But if you look at hunter gather tribal societies you find that they promote values based upon sharing with the whole community rather than the individual accumulation of wealth. A culture which promotes altruism and co-operation ensures the survival and wellbeing of the tribe.
I think the Ten Commandments represent tried and tested community wisdom which has accumulated over generations. These are the values which make human families and communities stable, functional and healthy.
I'm not arguing that magic is required. I'm arguing that evolution cannot adequately explain altruism, and its absence, at the same time. If we were hard-wired for altruism, how was the Tory party created, and why is it still with us?
Completely onboard with the idea that altruism was a survival mechanism: I am not going to last more than ten seconds against a bear (and nine of those will be spent trying to run away from the bear). But several of us could reasonably expect to be eating bear steaks by sundown - if no one runs and everybody fights. But that is social conditioning, not biologically driven. If anything, it goes against everything our lizard brain is telling us to do.
Tribal societies cannot coexist alongside state societies because their value systems are entirely different. And this completely undermines the altruistic and non-materialistic culture of the tribal societies. As in the cases of the indigenous peoples of North America, Canada and Australia.
Our social conditioning is biology. Is afforded by biology. The Tory party enshrines more hard wired moral taste receptors than altruism. Being a Tory or a Nazi or a Communist or a Lib-Dem is biology, emergent, human biology. Liberals are handicapped by only having the care/harm, fair/unfair receptors if they have no understanding and acceptance of how most people are wired. 90% monkey 10% bee. Again, eusociality makes genocide possible.
If it is, it's incredibly easy to hack. William Golding knew this. Biology simply doesn't explain altruism and not-altruism. We have to look elsewhere.
Well, a couple of things.
First, you seem to be arguing against things you feel I might or ought to say, rather than things I have actually said. That's not a feedback loop I'm tempted to interpose myself in.
Second, as I've said upthread, I think we're actually talking about different things. The question of the origin of altruism is a different one from how someone makes a decision about how to act. My only real view on 'the origin of altruism' is that the circular and self-sealing character of most answers to the question makes me suspect that it's badly put on a theoretical level. On a pragmatic level, I think it's just a category error: answering the question 'How should I act, and why?' with 'There are hardwired behaviour patterns encoding a range of possible responses' just isn't particularly helpful.
Again, 'oughts' and 'is's. And well-worn philosophical territory.
I do hope your friend has a speedy recovery. I crossed through a similar field last month and was charged - fortunately (if oddly) by a calf rather than a cow. I thought of the martyrdom of St. Perpetua ...
As someone in IT, the 'just' in 'just complexity' made me smile (ruefully).
As for the claim ... well, I rather feel that if you can't trace a causal line through 'emergence', the term is indeed pretty much synonymous with 'magic'.
This got me thinking along these lines: Jesus said if we talk about our altruism, we receive our reward in this life, not the next. But as you say encouraging others to be altruistic is a positive good. Perhaps the most altruistic thing we can do, then, is to forego our future rewards for the sake of those others persuaded by our example, and of those they help.
And where in scripture does it say that you can't be inwardly happy that something you did for someone personally or for the common good and that it is something you shouldn't feel? Pride- no. Satisfaction- yes. Plus a lot of scripture about doing good says you should do it because it pleases God which can begin to sound like you are trying to earn heavenly brownie points and are not that disinterested.
Yes. Biology may provide some insight into behaviour. Morality and motivation? That's by no means so clear.
Plus I agree with mousethief here.
Tendencies may influence choices, but do not determine them. Just because the ancestors have eaten sour grapes, the children's teeth are not necessarily set on edge.
Well spotted. I've never put those two together. Are those from different or the same gospels? (Too tired to go check.)
Also a good point.
We're hard wired for experience. I see no need to go beyond nature. Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology all have their emergent origins in the previous and accumulate from them. They blur more as they ascend in complexity. Where else do we look?
How do we inquire into values? Do the natural sciences, which are value-free forms of inquiry (done properly) actually help any critical appreciation of values? Or do we need to look elsewhere?
I realise that this might well have been answered before I get to the end of catching up on about 45 posts.
Yes. I always recommend doing things for charity that you really enjoy anyway. That way you do it with joy - which has to be a good thing.
Finding what you are good at and enjoy, then doing that thing for the good of others, that can’t be wrong - can it?
I did not know that Dood!
And that is a bloody good question. My knee jerk response is to say values shmalues, let's do no harm and be fair for a start. Which is biological on up. Which is the answer again to your second question. Values are wired. Why does a roomful of Renoir suffocate me with weeping joy? My first sighting of a Himalayan maple? Or Michel Johnson singing That's That with weeping grief? Every damn time. In private. Wiring. Experience on wiring.
Would we have got to the Sermon on the Mount, or the Pericope Adulterae without Jesus? Or did we, without God?
Again, you have explain why there is both altruism and not-altruism. If we have been selected for altruism for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, then not-altruism would be a rare aberration, if not unknown, when it is not just common, but very common. That you yourself say 'there are enough members of the group' indicates that altruism doesn't have a purely biological/evolutionary explanation. If it did, you would be saying 'the vast majority of the group' or 'all of the group'.
I'm not arguing that they are always in effect when an individual performs an altruistic act.
I plead guilty to arguing against things I think you might say.
However, I think we are at cross-purposes. I wouldn't dream, of looking to 'evolution' as a guide to applied morality and would find anyone who did so more than a bit odd.
However, I thought we were looking at morality in a broader sense: as in what are its origins and its purpose in human social groups. How and why individual people might act in specific situations doesn't much interest me.