Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It is a societal motivation. Selfish motivations don't intentionally help people who are not the self.

[Leafsnail]

You can tautologically turn anything into a selfish action.  "If you did X, then you wanted to do X, therefore you were fulfilling your want by doing X.  Therefore it was selfish".  That's not actually meaningful in any way though - what matters is who you're helping.

[Grek]

@Leafsnail: That's not what I'm saying.

The hunter doesn't have to enjoy cooperative hunting in order to decide to cooperate with other hunters. They just have to enjoy independent hunting + starving less than they enjoy cooperative hunting + not starving. That's a selfish motive. They're picking the option that is best for themselves. It doesn't matter that it's the same choice that's also better for society. A non-selfish motive would be joining in the cooperative hunting because you want to help the other hunters. Because you also don't want the others to starve, regardless of if you're starving or not yourself.

[kaijyuu]

I've never been a fan of "karmic balance" moral systems. If you only do stuff in the hopes of getting things in return, I really don't find that at all worthy of respect.

I've got news for you, everything you do is for your own good. If an action doesn't directly or indirectly benefit you, you wouldn't do it.

If you really want to dig deep down, this is true, but not for the reasons stated by those advocating karmic balance systems (I need a better name for those).

The point of distinction is whether you do something for:
1) The possibility of getting something in return, or,
2) The warm fuzzies.

#1 is not worthy of respect in my mind, but #2 is.

There are plenty of situations too where you have the opportunity to extend an altruistic hand, but know for certain you'll get absolutely squat in return.

Such as?

Anytime you interact with an anonymous person on the internet you'll never see again. That's a quite common one these days. There's no reason to not be a douchebag to them since you'll never see them again... well except the desire to be a nice person instead.



Here's news for YOU: The world doesn't care what you do. If you do things on principle, because "that's how I would like it," then universe isn't going to bend over backwards to reward you for it. In all likelihood, nothing will change. Your actions do not have that much effect.

People just don't often pay it forward.

[MonkeyHead]

People like to fit in with groups of likeminded people. Groups of utter selfish and destructive assholes are hardly stable. Groups of "nice" people that help one another clearly are at an advantage.

[kaijyuu]

Right, but those are groups that will see each other again. For those that won't...

[Realmfighter]

@Leafsnail: That's not what I'm saying.

The hunter doesn't have to enjoy cooperative hunting in order to decide to cooperate with other hunters. They just have to enjoy independent hunting + starving less than they enjoy cooperative hunting + not starving. That's a selfish motive. They're picking the option that is best for themselves. It doesn't matter that it's the same choice that's also better for society. A non-selfish motive would be joining in the cooperative hunting because you want to help the other hunters. Because you also don't want the others to starve, regardless of if you're starving or not yourself.

Does it even matter? Everything is selfish if you get right down to it. You wouldn't give to charity if it physically hurt you instead of mentally pleasing. We're human. We like helping others, or at least a very large portion of us do. But if you're giving to charity to make yourself feel like a good person does that make the sum any smaller? If I help someone I love because not doing so would worsen their, and my extension my own life does that make the help I gave less valid?

[Grek]

Does it even matter? Everything is selfish if you get right down to it. You wouldn't give to charity if it physically hurt you instead of mentally pleasing. We're human. We like helping others, or at least a very large portion of us do. But if you're giving to charity to make yourself feel like a good person does that make the sum any smaller? If I help someone I love because not doing so would worsen their, and my extension my own life does that make the help I gave less valid?

No, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point I'm trying to make: Since there's nothing wrong with doing good deeds for selfish reasons, there's absolutely no need to accept God, or have Faith, or reject the evidence so that you can keep to some arbitrary made up moral code. You don't need God, Faith, the threat of Eternal Damnation vs. Eternal Bliss or anything like that. Just doing what makes you happy and then properly applying game theory to figure out how to get along with others is enough to become a good person. And since you don't need the theological baggage to have morality, you can strike "source of my morality" off the list of "reasons to believe in God."

[Siquo]

No, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point I'm trying to make: Since there's nothing wrong with doing good deeds for selfish reasons, there's absolutely no need to accept God, or have Faith, or reject the evidence so that you can keep to some arbitrary made up moral code. You don't need God, Faith, the threat of Eternal Damnation vs. Eternal Bliss or anything like that. Just doing what makes you happy and then properly applying game theory to figure out how to get along with others is enough to become a good person. And since you don't need the theological baggage to have morality, you can strike "source of my morality" off the list of "reasons to believe in God."

You say "you" when you mean "I". There's tons of fuckwads out there who would be a lot nicer if they actually believed in a heavenly police-officer enforcing rules on them. To use an anti-god argument: If this were true, there'd be no evil in the world. Perhaps some people don't use game theory "properly", but there's a lot of people getting away with a lot of shit, so maybe you're the one not applying it properly

[Grek]

I'm sorry, but what are you even arguing here? That atheists are, in general, fuckwads that would be better behaved if they where religious? That the threat of mere police action is insufficent, and that it's better to make up a divine cop who'll hurt any criminals that the actual cops don't catch? Or that it's somehow my fault that nebulous people somewhere are getting away with equally nebulous crimes that I personally could somehow prevent if I tried hard enough? Seriously, what?

[Realmfighter]

And when's the last time you saw someone disagree morally with their God? Believing in God doesn't help you not be a dick if God agrees with you.

[MagmaMcFry]

People should adhere to conventions because they passed the "apply common sense" test, not because they're told to.

[Siquo]

I'm sorry, but what are you even arguing here? That atheists are, in general, fuckwads that would be better behaved if they where religious?

... I'm seriously beginning to doubt whether the inquisition was reinstated. The defensiveness of people is just... Astounding. I'm not interested in making atheists look bad, and I don't think they eat babies. I didn't, when I was one, and I stopped being one for personal reasons, not a dissatisfaction with the "philosophy" itself. Time and again I'm amazed at the viciousness people display in this thread in defending their interpretation of "atheism", as if they're under continuous attack.

I'm arguing that
A. Most people aren't capable of or interested in forming their own morality through game theory as you propose and
B. Your outcome (altruism) isn't necessarily the only outcome of the process you described and
C. Evidence for this is found that people still do "evil" stuff (aka the aforementioned fuckwads, regardless of faith).
and therefore I conclude
D. Evidence-based morality is still something you made up, and even though it might work for you personally, I still think you're bending the concept of "evidence" as you defined it.

I'm not saying that is good, bad, or anything about atheists or theists. I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.

[MrWiggles]

I'm amazed at the viciousness people display in this thread in defending their interpretation of "atheism", as if they're under continuous attack.

Least trusted minority in the US. Heck, just recently I was told I was a monster. My mom had to play host of a hostile conversation on her facebook page for posting something pro secular.

http://imgur.com/bVmdU This kinda of conversation isn't atypical.

I'm arguing that
A. Most people aren't capable of or interested in forming their own morality through game theory as you propose and

Most folks don't need to figure out their morality or ethics in fine detail. Human tend to functional somewhat decently when we live in large interdependent groups. There even fair amount of studies to show that all humans have a baseline unconscious morality and ethics.  I'd argue, simply growing up decently would make most folks pretty decently moral and ethical folks.

D. Evidence-based morality is still something you made up, and even though it might work for you personally, I still think you're bending the concept of "evidence" as you defined it.

I dont understand why 'something someone made up' is a detriment.

I'm not saying that is good, bad, or anything about atheists or theists. I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.

No, no faith needed.

[Grek]

I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.

You also said a number of other things, alot of it rude. I forgive you for that, since you apparently didn't mean any of it that way, but it did come off as rude when you posted it. As to the actual argument, no. "Happiness is a good thing" is not a a theorem of my moral philosophy. "I want to be happy" is, and that itself is sufficent for morality even if I don't bother talking about whether it's "good" or "right" or "proper" for me (or anyone else) to be happy.