Advice and Support from Thousands of Users Just Like You

Atheists, Humorists, and Science Milky Way Galaxy as seen from New Mexico...

Reply
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Comedian Comedian is offline
Comedian's Avatar

Comedian is busy with out-of-town company

Pacesetter

Join Date: Jul 2009

Posts: 368

See profile

I had this conversation with a diehard atheist a few years ago.

Would you do the noble (altruistic) thing if there was no one there to see it?

Think up some kind of scenario like this. You are on a distant planet that has space flight. You know an asteroid is going to hit and destroy the innocent population of another planet. You could ram your ship into the asteroid to deflect it, but you might die and no one would be aware of it.

Now a Christian or some other religion would believe that God is observing and will reward your sacrifice.

My diehard atheist friend said that altruism is counter evolutionary...
Of course, both the atheist and the theist could refuse to commit suicide for an unknown population. Common sense can beat altruism any time!
- November 4th, 2009, 01:14 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#1   Reply With Quote
j0hn8andy j0hn8andy is offline
j0hn8andy's Avatar

j0hn8andy .....Take off the Rings.....That's the Goal.....

Enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2009

Posts: 925

See profile

I'm not sure Noble and Altruistic are the same. My understanding of Altruism is Selflessness. Noble is Good Character.....Selflessness not required.

We've all heard stories of men who throw themselves on the grenade in their midst. I believe that to be altruistic even if there are witnesses. For that split second, they forget themselves; they just act.

Noble is doing the Right Thing, just because it is Right. Even when it costs you. Maybe especially, when it costs you.

I know I have done things for others, sight unseen, with no reward in sight. Maybe not as often as I should have, probably, but sometimes. I believe we've all done the same.

I don't know that those acts qualify as altruistic, though; I usually do it because it makes me feel good to do so. I feel good when I can help another person. We all do.

We've both been widowed. I hope you don't mind I said that. Yours many years ago, mine a year ago. Something I learned afterwards has really stayed with me. Maybe you've felt this too.

People want to do things for us. They really want to help us. It makes a person feel good to be able to help another. Altruistic? Maybe not.

But how about the person that accepts such help, even when it's something they can provide for themselves? They allow another to help, simply because it makes the other person feel good.

I guess I see Altruism in a different light now.

j8a
- November 4th, 2009, 04:14 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#2   Reply With Quote
WeDesignOurLives WeDesignOurLives is offline
WeDesignOurLives's Avatar

WeDesignOurLives is 20% off this week only!

Veteran

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 2,146

See profile

Comedian wrote :
Would you do the noble (altruistic) thing if there was no one there to see it?
Morality is not contingent on no one looking. (And true charity doesn't seek recognition.) The far far far majority of moral acts we choose are when on one is looking (and when they are looking do they know you?)

And altruism is PRO-evolutionary because moral insures safety which insures the most possible evolutionary paths.

And religious people don't (or shouldn't) think that god is observing and keeping score. Religion is like golf in that you call your own fouls. That's the part that I, and most atheists, and certainly Objectivists, have a big problem with... being moral because you SHOULD be moral, not because it's your value.

And to that point I pissed off a semi-friend over this very fact sometime ago. She ran a marathon and proceeded to tell everyone she ran the marathon. When I asked her why she said it was for health and for personal achievement. So I asked her if that's so why tell anyone? If it's really as selfless as you say then why seek recognition for it? Why not get up one morning and run 26 miles and don't tell anyone?

(And yes, I do think marathons are mostly about bragging. And I have no problem with that either... the problem I had is pretending it's not a selfish act. And if I had to repeat that conversation I would just accept her implicit request to be acknowledged and give her that. )
- November 4th, 2009, 05:01 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#3   Reply With Quote
WeDesignOurLives WeDesignOurLives is offline
WeDesignOurLives's Avatar

WeDesignOurLives is 20% off this week only!

Veteran

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 2,146

See profile

Comedian wrote :
Would you do the noble (altruistic) thing if there was no one there to see it?
Morality isn't contingent on recognition (neither is charity). Most moral acts we ever do isn't observed. (And in this example what's the difference if you're going to die or not... this is why leaving a legacy isn't a good motivator for me - because it's all about acknowledgement and not about your own values.)

And I don't know of any religion that teaches that god keeps score. In every religion I know you're supposed to be self-accountable to your wrongdoings (like golf) and in that respect requires the highest integrity to stay true to it.

Altruism isnt counter evolutionary but I think it is immoral to do good just because you think you should, not because it matches your own values.
- November 4th, 2009, 09:31 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#4   Reply With Quote
DennisWisconsin DennisWisconsin is offline
DennisWisconsin's Avatar

DennisWisconsin St. Louis

Virtuoso

Join Date: Jun 2008

Posts: 4,698

See profile

It doesn't matter whether anyone was looking or not. When it comes to evolution, in the long run - excepting natural disasters - the strongest and smartest survived... in the end, it will take intelligence to overcome the ultimate disasters that the solar system and perhaps the galaxy can throw at us.

My point is that her friend's statement was correct. It is counter evolutionary to sacrifice for another unrelated genome. We are most likely driven to procreate and survive because - IMHO - our genes demand it... Only our ego would supplant that... Ego may at some point be a greater influence on evolution if it hasn't become so already....

Native Americans, Pigmies, and many, many other cultures would never pollute their environment like we are today... but at one point Europeans took over and Christianity took over, and Christianity stated that humans were the kings of the Earth and everything was here for their taking... so take we did... to the point of unsustainability... we don't see all the garbage we create because half is floating in the Pacific and half is floating in the Atlantic.

Yeah... I know... get off the soap box... sorry...
- November 4th, 2009, 10:23 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#5   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

WeDesignOurLives WeDesignOurLives is offline
WeDesignOurLives's Avatar

WeDesignOurLives is 20% off this week only!

Veteran

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 2,146

See profile

DennisWisconsin wrote :
Native Americans, Pigmies, and many, many other cultures would never pollute their environment like we are today.
I don't know what this means... the people? the gov't? manufacturing?

You can say the industrial revolution of the US caused all the pollution but it also caused the technology and science that changed lifespan from 40 to 70 in about 75 years.

Of course I, anyone, would prefer no pollution but I'd far prefer the state of health and pollution as it is right now over how it was then. The indian stereotype is that they 'loved the land' but they also didn't have much of a waste disposal system and thought 'the land' would perfectly manage itself for them and it certainly didn't.
- November 5th, 2009, 06:16 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#6   Reply With Quote
DennisWisconsin DennisWisconsin is offline
DennisWisconsin's Avatar

DennisWisconsin St. Louis

Virtuoso

Join Date: Jun 2008

Posts: 4,698

See profile

Technology allowed us to over populate the Earth... Indians were able to manage for ten thousand years....
- November 5th, 2009, 09:29 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#7   Reply With Quote
Comedian Comedian is offline
Comedian's Avatar

Comedian is busy with out-of-town company

Pacesetter

Join Date: Jul 2009

Posts: 368

See profile

DennisWisconsin wrote :
Technology allowed us to over populate the Earth... Indians were able to manage for ten thousand years....
Native Americans did not plan to keep their population in check.
Multiple causes of death and the complete lack of technology impaired their ability to significantly increase in population.
Lack of the wheel and draft animals made it difficult to bring more land under cultivation.
Less food equals less people.
They did not choose this situation as some sort of moral imperative.
The aboriginal cultures of several Latin American countries actually managed to ruin their environment.
The would denude surrounding hills for firewood and cause cataclysmic erosion.
Don't view the Native American as a noble savage.
- November 5th, 2009, 09:58 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#8   Reply With Quote
notyet notyet is offline
notyet's Avatar

notyet it's alive!

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,193

See profile

Comedian wrote :
Native Americans did not plan to keep their population in check.
Multiple causes of death and the complete lack of technology impaired their ability to significantly increase in population.
Lack of the wheel and draft animals made it difficult to bring more land under cultivation.
Less food equals less people.
They did not choose this situation as some sort of moral imperative.
The aboriginal cultures of several Latin American countries actually managed to ruin their environment.
The would denude surrounding hills for firewood and cause cataclysmic erosion.
Don't view the Native American as a noble savage.
+1
- November 5th, 2009, 10:56 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#9   Reply With Quote
ming_on_mongo ming_on_mongo is offline
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

ming_on_mongo -Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Enthusiast

Join Date: Jul 2008

Posts: 523

See profile

Really.... most of the famed "indian mounds" across the country (top) are just leftover refuse piles and the ancient equivalent of today's "disposal sites", aka "garbage dumps" (bottom).


- November 5th, 2009, 11:17 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#10   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Reply
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Bookmarks

« Agreement is Almost a Miracle | Array | Ask an Atheist »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“For numbers 6, 7, and 8, I would expand on that a little bit. In number 6, why is integrity important to you? What does it mean? Number 7, what makes you easy to talk to? What makes you nice? Have ... ” – kneo24

Join the “Suggestions for my profile” discussion

“Jayjay, you are close, but not quite. I'm sure there are some women who are foolish (or immature) enough to look at a guy, say "he doesn't have the real qualities I want in a man, but hey, he has ... ” – mercury12

Join the “Men: What Women Really Think About Your Body” discussion

“Men also ask this question because some prioritize a financial merger above all else, so the level of a woman's affluence, earning potential and financial responsibility (and willingness to merge ... ” – flowerchild66

Join the “Does a woman's financial well being, profession, and wage matter to the men?” discussion

“ Unless he still liked you (and didn't think of you as a needy, dramatic, emotional unstable person) he would look for a less risky short term relationship. Chances are very high this feeling is ... ” – flowerchild66

Join the “Argh, screwed up with new guy.” discussion

“ Not necessarily lost interest, but ... yes ... move on.” – ThePriestess

Join the “3rd Date Confusion...” discussion

“Prophylatics.” – ThePriestess

Join the “Safety precautions and dating” discussion

“The grass is always greener.” – ThePriestess

Join the “How do you know you won't regret” discussion

“One.” – ThePriestess

Join the “how many dates before a guy...” discussion



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0