By what standard do you measure right and wrong...or do you?

[tcay584]

Just curious,
Ok, Ok, Ok, I'm an avowed christian. I am genuinely curious as to how those of another thought pattern develop their sense of right and wrong. What standard do you hold yourselves to, and why?

[Piper Plexed]

My knowledge of certain facets of evolutionary theory is hazy, but I think it works a little differently. I think the point is not to "strengthen" the species, but simply to survive. By surviving, even if the entire species are suffering from cretinism, they are defined as "fit" or "strong". I think that the perceived altruism of a species depends on how the species has developed. A female praying mantis thinks nothing of ripping the head of its lover after coupling with it, while the only other creature that we could even fathom doing such a thing is Margaret Thatcher.

Strengthen or survive, I would think the two would be interdependent, maybe I am splitting hairs. Well that is neither here or there cause I would really rather talk about something said bellow.

What actions? Morality normally concerns itself with the treatment of other people. If there is no treatment of other people to be concerned about, there is no need for morality.

If one is entirely selfish, one values their life and their quality of life, and one cannot simply care only about themselves in a society and mistreat their fellow man without expecting their own lives to be impacted by how people regard them. If I go to a restaurant and abuse the waitress, I can expect the cook to spit on the steak.

I think you touched on something here because to be concerned for others is empathy. Now I can see where empathy has it’s roots in different species when it comes to the care and treatment of direct offspring, maybe the big jump happened when the human species saw the whole human race with the same empathy that it afforded it’s offspring. Sorta like the pack or tribe mentality evolved. This still stumps me a bit cause I sense that such an evolved sense of empathy contradicts the premise of evolution on some level. Well any way this whole train of thought reminded me of a news piece I learned of recently, I was quite blown away with

LINK

A group of lifeguards training in New Zealand had a luckier escape. They recently reported that dolphins had come to their aid when a shark confronted them.

Ron Howes was on a training swim with his 15-year-old daughter and two of her friends. He realised something was wrong when bottlenose dolphins suddenly began herding the swimmers together and circling protectively around them.

When Howes broke out of the circle, two of the larger dolphins tried to coral him back in. He needed little encouragement when he saw a Great White shark coming his way.

I was quite struck by the interspecies empathy exhibited by the wild dolphins. I was like that is wild cause it isn't like the dolphins were kept at Sea World where a human dolphin interdependent relationship was fostered. I felt it was really remarkable and really got me thinking.

[Corvus]

My knowledge of certain facets of evolutionary theory is hazy, but I think it works a little differently. I think the point is not to "strengthen" the species, but simply to survive. By surviving, even if the entire species are suffering from cretinism, they are defined as "fit" or "strong". I think that the perceived altruism of a species depends on how the species has developed. A female praying mantis thinks nothing of ripping the head of its lover after coupling with it, while the only other creature that we could even fathom doing such a thing is Margaret Thatcher.

Strengthen or survive, I would think the two would be interdependent, maybe I am splitting hairs. Well that is neither here or there cause I would really rather talk about something said bellow.

I'll try to make it brief, then, because it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic. Because a mouse doesn't require much strength, then it is not necessary for it to bulk up. Similarly, because a human can still survive with a debilitating illness, then no real change is necessary - even if such a thing really does lead to the demise of the species. Evolution is a blind, ignorant process where the goal is survival of DNA by any means necessary.

What actions? Morality normally concerns itself with the treatment of other people. If there is no treatment of other people to be concerned about, there is no need for morality.

If one is entirely selfish, one values their life and their quality of life, and one cannot simply care only about themselves in a society and mistreat their fellow man without expecting their own lives to be impacted by how people regard them. If I go to a restaurant and abuse the waitress, I can expect the cook to spit on the steak.

I think you touched on something here because to be concerned for others is empathy.

No, to put yourself in another's shoes is empathy. To be concerned for others is sympathy. But, I argue, without these, one can still act morally, even charitably, and still be "selfish" through what is called "enlightened self-interest", where we behave morally in order for the rewards it gives to us, not what it gives to other people. Altruistic behaviour is therefore a means to an ends.

Now I can see where empathy has it’s roots in different species when it comes to the care and treatment of direct offspring, maybe the big jump happened when the human species saw the whole human race with the same empathy that it afforded it’s offspring. Sorta like the pack or tribe mentality evolved. This still stumps me a bit cause I sense that such an evolved sense of empathy contradicts the premise of evolution on some level. Well any way this whole train of thought reminded me of a news piece I learned of recently, I was quite blown away with

LINK

A group of lifeguards training in New Zealand had a luckier escape. They recently reported that dolphins had come to their aid when a shark confronted them.

Ron Howes was on a training swim with his 15-year-old daughter and two of her friends. He realised something was wrong when bottlenose dolphins suddenly began herding the swimmers together and circling protectively around them.

When Howes broke out of the circle, two of the larger dolphins tried to coral him back in. He needed little encouragement when he saw a Great White shark coming his way.

I was quite struck by the interspecies empathy exhibited by the wild dolphins. I was like that is wild cause it isn't like the dolphins were kept at Sea World where a human dolphin interdependent relationship was fostered. I felt it was really remarkable and really got me thinking.

Yes, fantastic, isn't it? We would never expect any other sort of carnivorous mammal to behave in quite the same way, even if they are closer relatives, like apes. Very intelligent, and possessing brains roughly the size of a human's, dolphins are believed to be self aware, which leads one to wonder if they can really rationalise alrtuistic behavior like the kind written about here. We know so little about them, unfortunately, and this isn't like to change, for we have no idea how to test the capabilities of an intelligent aquatic life form.

Edit: spelling

[Piper Plexed]

I'll try to make it brief, then, because it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic. Because a mouse doesn't require much strength, then it is not necessary for it to bulk up. Similarly, because a human can still survive with a debilitating illness, then no real change is necessary - even if such a thing really does lead to the demise of the species. Evolution is a blind, ignorant process where the goal is survival of DNA by any means necesary.

Ahhh, I see where we differ. I was using the term strength improperly, when I say strengthen I am including adaptations like how a mouse can squeeze through a tiny hole to escape a predator.

No, to put yourself in another's shoes is empathy. To be concerned for others is sympathy. But, I argue, without these, one can still act morally, even charitably, and still be "selfish" through what is called "enlightened self-interest", where we behave morally in order for the rewards it gives to us, not what it gives to other people. Altruistic behaviour is therefore a means to an ends.

I see empathy as the bridge to sympathy. If I may give an example of how I have understood the progression.


I will use the Oklahoma City bombing as I found the event to be very tragic though I did not personally suffer a loss.

After the shock had passed and I was able to process what was happening, I realized that the human loss was going to be great. I started to contemplate people being trapped their panic, this allowed me to tap into past experiences, upon recall of those memories I became emotional. I was then able to fathom on an emotional level what was happening and as a result enter into a sympathetic state of mind. Of course this process repeats itself over and over while I consider the families, the rescue workers etc..

I will now use 911 as in this case I was directly affected.

I was in shock for the first 24 hrs. I know I finally cried sometime that evening though I remember little. I know I was in a state of controlled panic, lots of phone calls and a great deal of fear. I remain acutely aware of airplanes flying overhead to this day.


Of course I can only speak for myself though I have come to the realization that it is my ability to empathize or internalize my environment that I am able to sympathize with others. This may sound cold or maybe I am somewhat a sociopath though I have often wondered how much I would actually care about others if I were unable to internalize on some level what others are experiencing.

[ST88]

Now I can see where empathy has it’s roots in different species when it comes to the care and treatment of direct offspring, maybe the big jump happened when the human species saw the whole human race with the same empathy that it afforded it’s offspring. Sorta like the pack or tribe mentality evolved. This still stumps me a bit cause I sense that such an evolved sense of empathy contradicts the premise of evolution on some level. Well any way this whole train of thought reminded me of a news piece I learned of recently, I was quite blown away with

LINK

A group of lifeguards training in New Zealand had a luckier escape. They recently reported that dolphins had come to their aid when a shark confronted them.

Ron Howes was on a training swim with his 15-year-old daughter and two of her friends. He realised something was wrong when bottlenose dolphins suddenly began herding the swimmers together and circling protectively around them.

When Howes broke out of the circle, two of the larger dolphins tried to coral him back in. He needed little encouragement when he saw a Great White shark coming his way.

I was quite struck by the interspecies empathy exhibited by the wild dolphins. I was like that is wild cause it isn't like the dolphins were kept at Sea World where a human dolphin interdependent relationship was fostered. I felt it was really remarkable and really got me thinking.

Yes, fantastic, isn't it? We would never expect any other sort of carnivorous mammal to behave in quite the same way, even if they are closer relatives, like apes. Very intelligent, and possessing brains roughly the size of a human's, dolphins are believed to be self aware, which leads one to wonder if they can really rationalise alrtuistic behavior like the kind written about here. We know so little about them, unfortunately, and this isn't like to change, for we have no idea how to test the capabilities of an intelligent aquatic life form.

I think this is fairly common, that dolphins recognize that people are part of a group of animals that must be protected and can be construed as friendly (unless proved otherwise, as the dolphin pool at one of those Hawaiian resorts shows). This need not be empathy in the way we understand it. It can simply be the pack mentality applied to humans. In the pack, the goal is group survival -- individual survival, of course, but via group survival -- and so any members perceived as part of the "group" are protected. Now, humans are poor swimmers in the ocean of the ocean of life. Does this mean we appear as perhaps sick or very young (or very old) dolphins? Sharks and dolphins have remarkably similar shapes, so it would make sense that the shape of an individual would not be the deciding factor when determining who is who. More likely it is the sense of smell -- which can be very potent underwater. It's possible that, as fellow mammals, humans smell more like dolphins than sharks do. In the great unknown of the underwater environment, it would be more advantageous to the species to protect anything that smelled like family, whether or not they were members of the same pod. Of course, this is mere speculation, but I hope it shows that there can be other reasons for behavior than anthropomorphized human traits.

[Corvus]

I am also aware that dolphins are the natural enemies of sharks, and whenever they encounter each other, the dolphins will propel themselves at the sides of the sharks with awesome speed, shattering their bones and leaving them for dead. It might sound incredible, but could the dolphins have been protecting a ponderous and easily herded land species out of pure spite towards the sharks? Regardless, it's a most fantastic concept; altruism out of enmity!

[Tigerlilly]

I try to mix philosophies and make up where some have weaknesses. I generally am A Utilitarian, and I try to do the greatest good for the greatest number and increase "informed happiness."

I also like to mix in some Deontological principles, especially those that coincide with Utility (like the principle of beneficience and nonmaleficience).

I also work off of autonomy and rights, which I believe, as a Social Utility rule, do well and maximising happiness.