the moral argument

dreems
Posts: 27
Joined: 2010-03-21
User is offlineOffline
the moral argument

i am not sure of the best forum, but hi.

in my opinion, the best argument for a personal God, ie theism as opposed to deism, is the moral argument. i don't maintain its demonstrative, but the better argument points to theism. because conscience seems like the voice of god, and because i feel confident that various counter arguments wont hold up, i think its better to say that god really does speak through concience, so that the mystery at the heart of the universe is personal.

 

anyone intereted in taking up this discussion?

 

dreems

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist

Rational_Theist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is just your personal way of thinking about morality. That reaction has real meaning for me - it is a real reaction, and understanding why it happens enhances its meaning to me. 'Survival of the Fittest' is not an accurate characterization of evolution, it was not Darwin's idea. The sense of having an actual real justification for the 'moral' reaction, the sense of 'wrongness', based on it causing actual suffering to a person you have a strong relationship with, rather than being some defined as such by an imponderable something beyond ourselves is valuable and meaningful to me.

I didn't say that "survival of the fittest" characterized evolution.  I'm saying that you are claiming that our morals are the result of evolution and that, as a result, the gap between moral beliefs and action is closed by whoever has more power.  For example, under your worldview, your morality isn't objectively anymore correct than the rapist's.  Yet you do all you can to stop him.  Therefore, the beliefs are not even relevant, because neither are right or wrong.  What's relevant is who has the might.  If you can stop the rapist, then your morality wins out.

You used the phrase as though it did characterize evolution.

The conclusion that morality is governed by the one who has more power is a total non-sequiter.

My morality is based on perceived harm/suffering inflicted on another person, on empathy, which is precisely why I would do all I could to stop the rapist. He may very well overpower me, that will not change my moral attitude, precisely because it is NOT base on power. 

Consciously held beliefs do not actually determine the immediate reaction of anyone.

The 'morality' of the Bible is more clearly based on 'might makes right' - God has the most power, therefore what he says is what defines what you 'should' do, or else.

Quote:

Quote:
The rate of occurrence does not make it more or less extreme relative to someone picking my pocket.

Well then how are you defining "extreme"? 

I am stunned at this response. If you really can't see what makes violent rape a more extreme example of 'wrong' behavior than petty theft, you really demonstrate the total distortion of our natural, 'evolved', instincts that religious belief can produce.

Quote:

Quote:
This presents us with the basic paradox of God and 'Goodness'. If God's nature is the standard of Goodness, you remove any meaning from the term.

On the contrary, you remove meaning from the term when you reduce morality to being the result of evolution.  "Good" simply becomes a colloquialism attached to whatever elicits a certain physical reaction in us, much like how someone would use "good" to refer to the taste of chocolate.

Quote:
Theology is nonsense.

I made a separate post about this.  Read it.

I have.

Read my response.

Quote:

Quote:
So what is the 'grounds for being' of God Itself??

There are none.  God is the highest order of existence.  It all ends with him.  Read my "God is the eternal substance" post where I state that an eternal being cannot be sustained by contingent states of affairs and that states of affairs are made real by the objects which sustain them.

That whole thread, your whole world-view, is totally without moral or logical merit to me.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist

Rational_Theist wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Theism does not solve the moral argument, formally known as the Euthypro Dilemma.

Simply put, where does this god get his morals from?   

If god defines morality himself, then it is subjective, no different than you or I defining morality.

If it is true that God is omniscient and therefore infallible, then we can trust that whatever he decides is the best possible decision.

But it's easy enough to get around the dilemma:

 

There is, however, a third option. As Christians we should affirm both God's sovereignty and His non-derived goodness. Thus, we don't want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Fortunately, God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God's nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues.

How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing's goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Euthyphro-Dilemma.html

 

The Euthyphro dilemma is actually a false dichotomy.  That is, it proposes only two options when another is possible.  The third option is that good is based on God’s nature.  God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good, and then reveals what is good to us.  It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), not because God had to discover lying was wrong or that he arbitrarily declared it to be wrong.  Therefore, for the Christian, there is no dilemma since neither position in Euthyphro’s dilemma represents Christian theology.

http://www.carm.org/questions/euthyphro-dilemma

 

 

This makes sense.  Hitler was a good genocidal whacko, and the Jews made good firewood!  Thanks for clearing that up, praise Jesus!

 

This does not resolve the dilemma, because goodness it totally arbitrary based on the whim of your deity and more than that your interpretation of the 'purpose' of things is arbitrary.  For example, stoning cheaters, gays and witches is good.  Owning slaves is good, because God obviously meant for some humans to be slaves.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist

Rational_Theist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You used the phrase as though it did characterize evolution.

The conclusion that morality is governed by the one who has more power is a total non-sequiter.

My morality is based on perceived harm/suffering inflicted on another person, on empathy, which is precisely why I would do all I could to stop the rapist. He may very well overpower me, that will not change my moral attitude, precisely because it is NOT base on power. 

Consciously held beliefs do not actually determine the immediate reaction of anyone.

Under the theistic worldview, moral action is driven by the moral law itself, regardless of your own personal attitude or empathy.  In other words, it does not matter how you feel.  What matters is our duty to the law.

You may have empathy and that may drive you to stop the rapist.  But that would have nothing to do with whether or not it is really wrong for the rapist to do what he is doing.  Is it wrong to rape or isn't it?  That's the question.  You may believe it is wrong, but we've already established the disparity between beliefs and truths.

Quote:

Your belief, your strong conviction, that there is an externally (external to the individual and society) defined 'moral law', to which we owe duty, is ultimately a subjective judgement, personal to yourself and others of like mind.

IOW there is no objective evidence that you can point to. 

Your attitude to intuitive, a priori 'knowledge' is consistent with this assessment.

It is meaningless to me, a delusion.

The disparity is between your beliefs and mine about the nature and 'source ' of truth.

Quote:
The 'morality' of the Bible is more clearly based on 'might makes right' - God has the most power, therefore what he says is what defines what you 'should' do, or else.

This is a blatant mischaracterization, but I'd rather focus on the other issue.

Quote:

I am stunned at this response. If you really can't see what makes violent rape a more extreme example of 'wrong' behavior than petty theft, you really demonstrate the total distortion of our natural, 'evolved', instincts that religious belief can produce.

Where I'm from, "extreme" is used in contexts where someone uses an example of something that is not likely to happen. 

That is indeed one usage of 'extreme', but are you really unaware of the usage I was referring to, which I would see as the one which would make more sense in the context of my statement:

reaching a high or the highest degreevery great extreme cold.• not usual; exceptional in extreme cases the soldier may be discharged.• very severe or serious expulsion is an extreme sanction.• (of a person or their opinions) advocating severe or drastic measures; far from moderate, esp. politicallytheir more extreme socialist supporters.• denoting or relating to a sport performed in a hazardous environment and involving great physical risk, such as parachuting or white-water rafting.[ attrib. furthest from the center or a given pointoutermost the extreme northwest of Scotland.

New Oxford American Dictionary The underlined definitions are the sense I was using the term. Are you actually unaware of such usage? 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Ouch,

mellestad wrote:

Ouch, Blake.  That was pretty weak.


It was a non-argument, because I don't like to argue with people who are being idiots and aren't even trying to learn.  It's up to him to educate himself- not my job.


Butterbattle has done a good enough job arguing with robj101's nonsense:

butterbattle wrote:


robj101 wrote:
But I would argue that is simply a natural built in instinct.


Huh?

What example of empathy do you have that is not instinctual? All of morality is instinctual. 




His response was pretty much incoherent.  He doesn't know what he's talking about- he just wants to be right.  I've seen him do this several times (namely in the pro-life argument).



mellestad wrote:

I can find things like Crocodiles caring for their young but not much above that.



It only takes one counter example to blow a pretty big hole in his whole assumption- and that is a pretty clear one- but the point is that the assumption has no grounds regardless.

Empathy is contingent on the experiences we need to have, and the features which bring it about (in humans, for example, large eyes- whatever qualifies "cute" to that species, as cute is the feeling of eliciting empathy and protection.).  The lower intelligence of reptiles can also make it much more difficult to test for this kind of thing, but it doesn't eliminate the emotion.  Lower degree of social behavior also makes it more difficult (because there is a more narrow range in some species to which features yield empathy).

There are, however, many great examples beyond the well known examples of reptiles caring for young (in many species, not just crocs), being discovered- and only an idiot would assume that there aren't any undiscovered ones.  Search "Tiliqua rugosa", if you're curious to read a fairly well studied one.


mellestad wrote:

Perhaps you should define your standard of empathy for Rob?  A standard of 'empathy=not eating your young' might not be a premise you can both agree on.



Empathy is a sort of projection of self interest into others- that is one.  Rob writes it off as "instinct"... clearly he's having issues of cognitive dissonance.  I don't think the definition is the problem.



mellestad wrote:
With mammals you get things like the experiment with chimps where they put two in seperate cells where they can see each other.  One chimp has a lever and when he pushes it he gets food, but his buddy gets a painful zap.  The chimps wouldn't starve themselves, but they would avoid pushing the lever for a long time.  That is empathy.


Do you seriously have doubts that a mother crocodile would model her behavior if conditioned using the distresses cries of her young?

It doesn't matter how poor the animal's vision is, how weak the spacial perception is in general, or even how low the animal's IQ is- the means by which the animal perceives harm to that with which the animal empathizes, and the qualifications that yield that empathy, are relative to each and every individual, and as a whole cannot easily be said to objectively be  greater or less than another without a strict and objective framework with which to quantify them- any such framework is essentially arbitrary.

See the issue there?
 

I've got nothing fundamentally against Rob; just the stupid things he says sometimes (I do have something against stupid assertions).  If he puts his mind to it and tries to understand why he's wrong, he'll get it and learn (as evidenced from the pro-life thing).  He does take his good time, though, and I'd rather he learn it for himself rather than having to force feed him rationality over his ego.

 

 



Bob, I want to quote myself from the other thread here:


Blake wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is meaningless (not to say f**king stupid) to claim meaning precedes existence. It is an emergent property.



I would go a bit further to say that any worldview or philosophy that relies upon the claim of fundamental essence or meaning is patently false, insulting to any intelligent and thinking human, and not worthy of consideration- and it is not closed minded to say this, merely rational enough to exclude impossibilities (which is essential to an open mind- anybody who does not is not open minded).  I don't think there's any harm in making this clear (particularly when the people advocating these ideas have demonstrated themselves thoroughly resistant to reason)- and more specifically, I think it's the only way to really reply to this kind of nonsense when education has failed (as it has in this case).



This would be the perfect place to try it out for a spin  Eye-wink


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist

Rational_Theist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your belief, your strong conviction, that there is an externally (external to the individual and society) defined 'moral law', to which we owe duty, is ultimately a subjective judgement, personal to yourself and others of like mind.

IOW there is no objective evidence that you can point to. 

Your attitude to intuitive, a priori 'knowledge' is consistent with this assessment.

It is meaningless to me, a delusion.

The disparity is between your beliefs and mine about the nature and 'source ' of truth.

It may be meaningless to you, but you should be fair and acknowledge the ramifications of your worldview:  The bridge between moral convictions and action is closed in accordance with who has the power.  If you can stop the rapist, your morality wins out.  If you cannot stop the rapist, then his morality wins out.  There is no ultimate justice because under your worldview, justice does not exist.  You have your personal preferences and we have to fight in order to win with ours.

Therefore, your criticism of the rapist has no real grounding.  Since his morality dictates the raping people is okay, it is permissible for him to act on his belief just as much as it is permissible for you to act upon yours.

It comes down to this:

You believe rape is wrong and you will act to stop it.  But you are not wrong.

The rapist believes rape is right and will act it out.  But he is not wrong.

 

The only thing we are left to do is see who can stop who.  It's just survival of the fittest.

 

This is reality though, to some extent.  Cultures with competing moralities will compete, and the stronger culture will win out, and their morality will become standard.  Slavery, human sacrifice, abortion, religious freedom and sexual morality are all examples of moral systems that have gone through total transformations over time, even among your own subset of theism.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:mellestad

Blake wrote:

mellestad wrote:
With mammals you get things like the experiment with chimps where they put two in separate cells where they can see each other.  One chimp has a lever and when he pushes it he gets food, but his buddy gets a painful zap.  The chimps wouldn't starve themselves, but they would avoid pushing the lever for a long time.  That is empathy.


Do you seriously have doubts that a mother crocodile would model her behavior if conditioned using the distresses cries of her young?

 

No, I don't have any problem with that, I just wanted you to lay out what you believed counts as an example of empathy so rob can respond constructively.

If rob is willing to accept the lowest lowest levels of empathy as 'real' empathy then he needs to change his position because you don't have to look far to get those among most species.  If he wants to define those low level examples as separate from whatever behavior he is talking about when he uses the word empathy then he needs to explain the difference and justify the separation.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist wrote:The

Rational_Theist wrote:

The only thing we are left to do is see who can stop who.  It's just survival of the fittest.

 

Who can stop whom.

But that is all it has ever been.  And, fyi, the fittest is the organism that has grandchildren.  Not individual or even offspring survival, but the ability to parent future generations.

Morality is based on societal requirements.  Not even norms.  I know there are a lot of people who won't agree with me.  However, rape became not moral not because of injury to the one being raped, but because of the need to clarify inheritance.  It was a legal and economic justification, originally no empathy was required.  It is only in the last couple of hundred years that people generally started to feel empathy for the person raped.

To summarize:

Morality <> empathy though they may be all tangled up inside a person's head.

Rape is bad started because of inheritance, not empathy.

Rape is now bad because of empathy, not inheritance. 

Morals change over time and place.  Nothing new here.

To be atheist or theist does not imply one feels no empathy.  There are plenty of people who don't feel empathy on both sides of any coin you care to toss.

To be fit, to have and get those grandchildren raised, you must adhere to the general requirements of your society.  Humans are social animals, our morals arise from our society. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist wrote:cj

Rational_Theist wrote:

cj wrote:

Who can stop whom.

But that is all it has ever been.  And, fyi, the fittest is the organism that has grandchildren.  Not individual or even offspring survival, but the ability to parent future generations.

Morality is based on societal requirements.

Nice try, but "societal requirements" is equally useless in bridging the gap between moral beliefs and action because "societal requirements" is determined by the members of the society.  So you would just have competing views on what one person believes society requires as opposed to what some other person believes society requires and we would just run into the same issue.

All the time.  So what? 

Some people believe it is immoral to play solitaire with cards but not on the computer.  Hey, I'm related to one, I kid you not.  She also believes that every one should have the same morals she does. 

We have this issue all the time.  Is hate speech okay?  Does freedom of speech include hate speech?  Does ostracizing someone who indulges in hate speech enough?  Should they be penalized judicially?  What the heck is hate speech?  See?  We argue about morality all the time even when we live in the same time and place.  Maybe especially if we live in the same time and place.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

Rational_Theist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your belief, your strong conviction, that there is an externally (external to the individual and society) defined 'moral law', to which we owe duty, is ultimately a subjective judgement, personal to yourself and others of like mind.

IOW there is no objective evidence that you can point to. 

Your attitude to intuitive, a priori 'knowledge' is consistent with this assessment.

It is meaningless to me, a delusion.

The disparity is between your beliefs and mine about the nature and 'source ' of truth.

It may be meaningless to you, but you should be fair and acknowledge the ramifications of your worldview:  The bridge between moral convictions and action is closed in accordance with who has the power.  If you can stop the rapist, your morality wins out.  If you cannot stop the rapist, then his morality wins out.  There is no ultimate justice because under your worldview, justice does not exist.  You have your personal preferences and we have to fight in order to win with ours.

Therefore, your criticism of the rapist has no real grounding.  Since his morality dictates the raping people is okay, it is permissible for him to act on his belief just as much as it is permissible for you to act upon yours.

It comes down to this:

You believe rape is wrong and you will act to stop it.  But you are not wrong.

The rapist believes rape is right and will act it out.  But he is not wrong.

 

The only thing we are left to do is see who can stop who.  It's just survival of the fittest.

 

This is reality though, to some extent.  Cultures with competing moralities will compete, and the stronger culture will win out, and their morality will become standard.  Slavery, human sacrifice, abortion, religious freedom and sexual morality are all examples of moral systems that have gone through total transformations over time, even among your own subset of theism.

Rape is acceptable in some circumstances in some cultures and even worse the victim is to blame depending on the circumstances, what is acceptable sexual behavior what is not again up to each different society and even religious views with in the society, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Everything we do, music, dancing all of it is a matter of moral views. What type of music, what type of dancing, what types of food we consume can be viewed through the moral glasses, however there is no MORAL LAW that dictates what is right and wrong for everyone. What is the moral laws regarding what to consume? What is the moral law regarding what type of music one should listen to? what is the moral law regarding murder? It is up to society to decide and society in the long run does make these decisions. There is no moral law that states what HAS to be right and what HAS to be considered wrong. I GUARANTEE what is acceptable sexual behavior in Japan is not acceptable sexual behavior in the eyes of ultra orthodox jews. What is acceptable to dancing/music to Brazilians is not considered morally acceptable by various muslim sects. This whole idea that there is some moral law given by some higher power is absurd because it's not really observed in reality that there is a moral law. Just moral acceptances by society.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist

Rational_Theist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your belief, your strong conviction, that there is an externally (external to the individual and society) defined 'moral law', to which we owe duty, is ultimately a subjective judgement, personal to yourself and others of like mind.

IOW there is no objective evidence that you can point to. 

Your attitude to intuitive, a priori 'knowledge' is consistent with this assessment.

It is meaningless to me, a delusion.

The disparity is between your beliefs and mine about the nature and 'source ' of truth.

It may be meaningless to you, but you should be fair and acknowledge the ramifications of your worldview:  The bridge between moral convictions and action is closed in accordance with who has the power.  If you can stop the rapist, your morality wins out.  If you cannot stop the rapist, then his morality wins out.  There is no ultimate justice because under your worldview, justice does not exist.  You have your personal preferences and we have to fight in order to win with ours.

Therefore, your criticism of the rapist has no real grounding.  Since his morality dictates the raping people is okay, it is permissible for him to act on his belief just as much as it is permissible for you to act upon yours.

It comes down to this:

You believe rape is wrong and you will act to stop it.  But you are not wrong.

The rapist believes rape is right and will act it out.  But he is not wrong.

The only thing we are left to do is see who can stop who.  It's just survival of the fittest.

Neither is wrong in any absolute sense, since there simply is no absolute morality.

If you reduce it to this one-on-one disagreement, it is not even about survival, it is a just a difference in mind-set.

If survival of the fittest does enter, it would endorse the successful rapist, since he would have, by his act, increased his chances of passing on his genes to future generations.

It arguably only becomes a 'moral' issue of some sort if you consider the wider society and whatever consensus there is about how people 'feel' about such actions.

It is only our modern western sensitivity to forcing actions upon unwilling victims, especially with violence, that has lead us to such feelings about rape. It certainly did not originate with religion and God belief.

Muslims will still often tend to blame the victim, and even the Old Testament has elements of that. The Bible certainly does not show any evidence of the abhorrence we in modern Western society generally feel about such acts, yet both the OT and Jesus are prepared to explicitly condemn mere "lustful thoughts".  Which is a clear demonstration that 'God' does not share our opinion of rape or various other 'moral' issues. How does that fit in with your idea of God as the arbiter of morality??? 

It was clearly more important to people of that time whether a sexual act was being performed out of wedlock than whether the woman was willing or not. Even any violence involved was not only an incidental issue.

So the Bible and the Koran certainly demonstrate my point about the abject inadequacy of basing one's morality on a handed-down book of rules from an imagined authority, which merely encode and endorse some ancient attitudes of a particular set of tribes.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:mellestad

Nevermind, it's not worth the effort.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist

Rational_Theist wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

This is reality though, to some extent.  Cultures with competing moralities will compete, and the stronger culture will win out, and their morality will become standard.  Slavery, human sacrifice, abortion, religious freedom and sexual morality are all examples of moral systems that have gone through total transformations over time, even among your own subset of theism.

Right, because according to you, they are not really wrong.  It's only wrong in our opinion.  Which means that you cannot criticize religious people for trying to incorporate their faith into legislation.  If you have a right to act on your moral beliefs, then they have a right to act on theirs.  And if they rid the world of all atheists (i.e. place them all in concentration camps and send them to the gas chamber), then that's okay because there will be no competing moral values.

 

 

You keep describing reality as if I should recoil out of some sense of outrage and thereby declare your argument as truth based on my emotional response.  In many Islamic societies it is considered moral to kill atheists.

I'm not sure how your arguments are helping your case.  Our hypothesis, that morality is relative, fits reality in the world.  Your idea might make you feel good and special (because your deity is whispering 'true' morality into your ear every night) but there is zero evidence that it is true.  Talking about how relative morality causes some people to get a shitty end of the stick in life doesn't prove morality is objective, it proves that the weak are taken advantage of unless the strong have a philosophical system or morality that values protecting those that are weaker.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Rational_Theist wrote:Right,

Rational_Theist wrote:

Right, because according to you, they are not really wrong.  It's only wrong in our opinion.  Which means that you cannot criticize religious people for trying to incorporate their faith into legislation.  If you have a right to act on your moral beliefs, then they have a right to act on theirs.  And if they rid the world of all atheists (i.e. place them all in concentration camps and send them to the gas chamber), then that's okay because there will be no competing moral values. 

Right, they are not absolutely wrong, but they are not right either. No one is absolutely right or wrong. It's like a personal preference. And no one really has a "right" or "no right" to do anything. The entire concept has no place in moral relativism. I will criticize actions and beliefs that I find morally repugnant simply because I want to. That's it.

As for social Darwinism, the strong can indeed overpower the weak and establish their moral preferences as law, but that doesn't mean they're morally right or have the "right" to do so. They can do it in practice simply because they're strong.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Nevermind,

robj101 wrote:

Nevermind, it's not worth the effort.

 

I'm mostly just giving you a hard time, Rob; I don't dislike you, I just take issue with some of the things you say (I do respect that you ultimately come tor eason, it can just be frustrating as a process).

I just don't like seeing those kinds of absolute statements- particularly when demonstrably wrong.

 

Not that the issue of reptilian empathy is that important; I'm a nitpicker when it comes to things like that though.  If you had qualified is as them as *probably* not having empathy for *humans*, I wouldn't likely have said anything.

 

 

 

Mellestad,  I know what you mean.  Thanks for stepping in and clarifying the conversation.

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:robj101

Blake wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Nevermind, it's not worth the effort.

 

I'm mostly just giving you a hard time, Rob; I don't dislike you, I just take issue with some of the things you say (I do respect that you ultimately come tor eason, it can just be frustrating as a process).

I just don't like seeing those kinds of absolute statements- particularly when demonstrably wrong.

 

Not that the issue of reptilian empathy is that important; I'm a nitpicker when it comes to things like that though.  If you had qualified is as them as *probably* not having empathy for *humans*, I wouldn't likely have said anything.

 

 

 

Mellestad,  I know what you mean.  Thanks for stepping in and clarifying the conversation.

 

If you don't get my point you wont get it. But I will maintain I have seen no empathy that was not direct and necessary to the survival of their species. In this case, if you want to consider that empathy, then everything on the planet has it. So maybe that is more proof of a god, universal empathy. Even ants, as diminutive as they are protect their nests and queens. Amoeba's move away from danger, perhaps they feel fear.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
By the way Blake, I didn't

By the way Blake, I didn't "lose" the pro-life argument. You never did get what I was trying to say there either. You wanted so badly to use the political term of pro life, I was using it in a personal way and you refused to aknowledge that even after I tried to explain it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:If you don't

robj101 wrote:

If you don't get my point you wont get it.

 

No no, I got your point- my point is that your point is bunk and idiotic.  But go for it if you aren't keen on thinking about it.

 

Quote:
But I will maintain I have seen no empathy that was not direct and necessary to the survival of their species.

 

That you "haven't seen it" is a far cry from your assertion that there was none at all.

 

Restated like this, I would tend to say of a species (on average):  Duh.  If the extent of empathy wasn't helpful to survival, it wouldn't have evolved.  Neither do humans or any other species (on average across the species) express a degree of empathy not necessary for their survivals.

 

That is not to say that the means by which they evolved don't have relatively harmless side-effects which are less harmful than the empathy is helpful-- and I guarantee you that this is the case for empathy in reptiles too: a "non-baby-crocodile" could be created for which a mother croc feels empathy.  There's no magical connection there; it's just sense feedback, and it can misfire or be misled.

Beyond empathetic socialization between species which can be useful to mutual survival in some cases, which may or may not have examples to be found in reptiles, the senses that trigger it can be easily caught up on something else-- take the empathy many children feel for completely senseless toy dolls as an example-- or empathy for many other species of animals.

 

Do you consider empathy to be only the extent to which an instinct misfires or creates side-effects not in keeping with evolutionary purpose?

 

Seems that you do.  If so, that counts out quite a bit of commonly accepted empathetic human action (like parents caring for children), and counts in the crazy people who feel an emotional empathetic bond with their feces (this actually happens).

A caring mother- not empathy in your book!  A nutter coddling his fecal matter, and refusing to dispose of it- totally empathy according to Rob!

 

If this isn't your definition of empathy, then you need to chill the f*ck out and realize that all species, including humans, have only evolved what is useful- and beyond that express only natural genetic variance in degree and application (which all species have), and 'side effects' from the imprecise means by which empathy evolved.

 

Empathy has a *very* fuzzy application in practice- the traits that elicit it are fairly generic, and the extent to which different individuals experience and react to those traits varies wildly.  As such, individuals within the species *certainly* express more empathy than is necessary for the survival of the individual and its lineage or species- and some of them less.  That's just how diversity works.

 

So to boil it all down for you, in the cases of human, chimp, or other animal's empathy that extends beyond the need for survival, it takes two basic forms:

 

1. The animal, through genetic happenstance, has stronger or broader empathy than is needed

-this is the case from individual to individual in any species- particularly those which engage in sexual reproduction.

Unless you believe every creature within a species is equal and reject genetic inheritance of cognitive qualities, you may have to agree on this one.

 

2. The genes encoding for the traits that elicit empathy have side effects

-This is the case in all known species with all known senses.  Though Luminon might disagree and suggest that there are magical telepathic powers that relate mothers and young, in the real world, evolution is a very imperfect hack-job, and does what it can to get the best effect in the majority of cases with the least work.

I don't think you're in Luminon's camp (are you Rob?), so you may have to agree on this one too.

 

No matter how much you may want there to be, there's nothing beyond those two exceptions beyond environmental variables (memes, past experience, brain damage, nutrition).

Empathy is either purely self serving, or quite simply a defect.

 

 

That's not to say those defects are a bad thing- I pride myself on my defectively strong empathy.  It would totally have killed me in prehistoric times to be unwilling to harm other species of animals.

 

 

 

Quote:
In this case, if you want to consider that empathy, then everything on the planet has it.

 

Empathy is an emergent property, so anything that is intelligent and has expressions of emergent social behavior wherein others are at any time considered or protected through action, yes- the empathy is almost certainly what caused those actions.

This wouldn't necessarily qualify "everything on the planet"; you're exaggerating quite a bit.

 

Quote:
Even ants, as diminutive as they are protect their nests and queens.

 

This is possible, but I would judge it unlikely given my current knowledge of ants.  To the extent of my research/reading on ant behavior, they do not seem to be directly aware of their queen or nest, but function somewhat like neurons in a tactile-chemical computer.

The extent to which an ant is integrated into a colony, I would compare more to a single cell of a whole organism, rather than individuals expressing empathy for the whole.

However, I would be speaking out of my ass if I went any further- I don't know enough about ants to give you a definitive answer here (and I'm not sure that anybody does).

I'm certainly not going to be arrogant enough to assert that they have "0" empathy.

There are some phenomenally intelligent and observant small organisms (some kinds of spiders with similarly sized brains), so I wouldn't entirely count it out

 

Plants (at least all varieties I know of) don't have empathy- does that make you happy?

 

Quote:
Amoeba's move away from danger, perhaps they feel fear.

 

Fear being defined as a chemical response to danger that triggers action, or a psychological connection to ideas based on past experience that introduces inhibitory influences on decisions that involve further exposure?

The former- yes.  The latter- no.

Or something else?

 

Empathy is much more clear than fear- and necessarily higher order.

 

 

Quote:
So maybe that is more proof of a god, universal empathy

 

What?  It's not "universal", it's emergent.  And the emergent nature is proof against a 'god'.

 

 

Quote:
By the way Blake, I didn't "lose" the pro-life argument. You never did get what I was trying to say there either.

 

No, I got exactly what you were saying, and you were being an idiot.  In the course of the discussion, you were informed by several people what the term means, and you came to tentatively understand it, but evidently you're still trying to push your "special" definition.  I've had this discussion with many people- you aren't the first to pull the "personal" card.

 

 

Quote:
You wanted so badly to use the political term of pro life, I was using it in a personal way and you refused to aknowledge that even after I tried to explain it.

 

I think this all comes down to your being violently opposed to using words properly.

I acknowledged what you meant, but it's not "pro-life" because there isn't any "personal pro-life"; it's a political term-- and ONLY a political term-- that means that a person is in favor of legal restrictions on abortions. 

 

 

 

 

 

If you really can't understand that, let me tell you a little about something we know as "Animal rights"

 

You see, animal rights is the political doctrine that animals should be given legal rights (such as the right to life- not voting or anything like that), which means that it is the doctrine requiring laws to be passed to protect those rights, and make harming/killing most animals illegal.

 

So, I may sit here and go: "Gee wiz, I'm a vegetarian, I sure agree with those precepts... I think animals shouldn't be hurt, and we should protect them"

I may go further to say: "Wow, that must mean I am pro-animal rights."

However, I then might think about it, and say: "Well, I don't want to force this on anybody else, so maybe it's just "personal" animal rights"

 

And it might stop there, and I might go around calling myself "Pro-animal rights", but then defend myself by saying "Oh, well it's just personal".

 

However, if I wasn't a f*cktard, which I'm not, I proceed to realize: "Wait, that doesn't make any f*cking sense.  A political belief isn't a personal thing.  Hey!  There's already a word for that- it's called vegan.  I'll just do that instead."

 

So then I go around calling myself "vegan", and clarifying that I do not support "animal rights" because I don't agree with forcing my moral views on other people.

 

 

See how that works?

 

 

Now, for a limited time, YOU TOO, can stop being a f*cktard and give it a go!

 

It's easy, I'll help you:

 

Step 1:  Stop calling yourself "Pro-life"

Step 2:  Call yourself "Pro-choice"

Step 3:  If you feel it is necessary, clarify that you don't like abortions- you can write odes to the woes of abortion if you want.  Be poetic about how much you hate it!

Step 4:  You're finished!  You can now enjoy your new, non-f*cktard lifestyle.

 

Perks include:

 

Knowing WTF you're talking about.

Not being a political idiot.

Actually being able to communicate with people properly.

 

And Much MUCH more!

 

Act now while supplies last!


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
You pretend that -I'm- full

You pretend that -I'm- full of myself, lol. You seem to be the determined one here and I'm not about to respond to all that jibberish.

I will ask one question though, on the "pro-life" thing. Demonstrate a better term for one who personally thinks abortion is bad. I would argue that the term "pro-life" sounds simply like..pro life dur, like a word or phrase can't have two meanings if they collude or not, especially when I have pointed out my definition of the term in which I am using it. I already explained I myself would be "pro-life" but in society I am "pro-choice" If you don't understand that I am afraid I can't help you.

That reaaaaly irritates you, and I shall remember it, and house it for future reference.

edit: I hate to type so fast and forget stuff

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BTW you have not proven

BTW you have not proven anything social about say, snakes. Nor have you cited any real evidence of empathy in said creatures, yet you ramble on. I have personally seen snakes for example, gather together under a large rock, or a crevasse, but I do not believe they are having a dinner party or celebrating a birthday. They have happened upon a  common, a: breeding ground or b: and nice sheltered area to live. There is no demonstratable evidence that snakes care nor that they even consider the world around them in any fashion other than in a touch and go mechanical way. I would sooner believe plants have empathy, in studies they have shown to produce a warning signal to other nearby plants, information of an attack, and other trees for example will produce a sap that will help against said attacks. Snakes and lizards do no such thing, they operate on a self preservation mechanism and thats it from what I have observed and read.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
There's not a single word

There's not a single word for it, you just say "I dislike abortions but I'm pro-choice" instead of "I'm personally pro-life but socially pro-choice"

Does the former really look so much more difficult to type or say?  It's definitely more clear and understandable to people in general.

 

robj101 wrote:

That reaaaaly irritates you, and I shall remember it, and house it for future reference.

 

That you call yourself "personally" pro-life?  It makes you look like an idiot and confuses other people and starts arguments, particularly as you haven't traditionally been very clear about it.

 

 

Quote:
BTW you have not proven anything social about say, snakes. Nor have you cited any real evidence of empathy in said creatures, yet you ramble on.

 

You're the one who made the extraordinary claim to have absolute knowledge that NO reptiles had any empathy at all. 

Not only is the burden of proof on you, but I have provided several examples of empathy in reptiles.  I didn't need to provide any, and even one would have been excessive.  There is no reason I should have to demonstrate proof that every species of reptile has empathy- it doesn't even matter if every species does have empathy (I didn't say they all did).

 

F*ck man, you're like a bloody creationist:  "Oh yeah, well show me *this* transitional fossil!"

Get a clue man; your idiotic claim has been debunked.  Move on.

 

Quote:
I have personally seen snakes for example, gather together under a large rock, or a crevasse, but I do not believe they are having a dinner party or celebrating a birthday. They have happened upon a  common, a: breeding ground or b: and nice sheltered area to live.

Yes, this is true.  It has nothing to do with the point at hand.

 

Quote:
There is no demonstratable evidence that snakes care nor that they even consider the world around them in any fashion other than in a touch and go mechanical way.

 

There doesn't need to be.  You don't seem to understand that concept.

 

Quote:
I would sooner believe plants have empathy, in studies they have shown to produce a warning signal to other nearby plants, information of an attack, and other trees for example will produce a sap that will help against said attacks.

 

That would be a pretty stupid thing to believe, or it would represent a profound misunderstanding of empathy on your part.

This seems to be a case of your not comprehending what empathy is.

 

Empathy isn't a matter of fact that an organism performs actions that are helpful to another organism (this is done incidentally in plants all of the time)- empathy is the emotional connection that motivates decisions in intelligent organisms; decisions which are intended by that organism to help or protect the other.  Complex actions which require intelligence and are executed to help another are evidence of empathy.

 

Plants can't have empathy, because they aren't really intelligent- they don't learn and make decisions based on those past experiences to any significant degree.

 

If you'd sooner believe plants have empathy than snakes do, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I'm not asserting that all living things, all animals, or even snakes experience empathy- you're the one making the assertions here.

 

I'm only asserting that you're being an idiot, which has been well demonstrated.  When you stop being an idiot, I'll stop asserting that.

You can do it, I believe in you!

 

Think ++


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:There's not a

Blake wrote:

There's not a single word for it, you just say "I dislike abortions but I'm pro-choice" instead of "I'm personally pro-life but socially pro-choice"

Does the former really look so much more difficult to type or say?  It's definitely more clear and understandable to people in general.

 

robj101 wrote:

That reaaaaly irritates you, and I shall remember it, and house it for future reference.

 

That you call yourself "personally" pro-life?  It makes you look like an idiot and confuses other people and starts arguments, particularly as you haven't traditionally been very clear about it.

 

 

Quote:
BTW you have not proven anything social about say, snakes. Nor have you cited any real evidence of empathy in said creatures, yet you ramble on.

 

You're the one who made the extraordinary claim to have absolute knowledge that NO reptiles had any empathy at all. 

Not only is the burden of proof on you, but I have provided several examples of empathy in reptiles.  I didn't need to provide any, and even one would have been excessive.  There is no reason I should have to demonstrate proof that every species of reptile has empathy- it doesn't even matter if every species does have empathy (I didn't say they all did).

 

F*ck man, you're like a bloody creationist:  "Oh yeah, well show me *this* transitional fossil!"

Get a clue man; your idiotic claim has been debunked.  Move on.

 

Quote:
I have personally seen snakes for example, gather together under a large rock, or a crevasse, but I do not believe they are having a dinner party or celebrating a birthday. They have happened upon a  common, a: breeding ground or b: and nice sheltered area to live.

Yes, this is true.  It has nothing to do with the point at hand.

 

Quote:
There is no demonstratable evidence that snakes care nor that they even consider the world around them in any fashion other than in a touch and go mechanical way.

 

There doesn't need to be.  You don't seem to understand that concept.

 

Quote:
I would sooner believe plants have empathy, in studies they have shown to produce a warning signal to other nearby plants, information of an attack, and other trees for example will produce a sap that will help against said attacks.

 

That would be a pretty stupid thing to believe, or it would represent a profound misunderstanding of empathy on your part.

This seems to be a case of your not comprehending what empathy is.

 

Empathy isn't a matter of fact that an organism performs actions that are helpful to another organism (this is done incidentally in plants all of the time)- empathy is the emotional connection that motivates decisions in intelligent organisms; decisions which are intended by that organism to help or protect the other.  Complex actions which require intelligence and are executed to help another are evidence of empathy.

 

Plants can't have empathy, because they aren't really intelligent- they don't learn and make decisions based on those past experiences to any significant degree.

 

If you'd sooner believe plants have empathy than snakes do, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I'm not asserting that all living things, all animals, or even snakes experience empathy- you're the one making the assertions here.

 

I'm only asserting that you're being an idiot, which has been well demonstrated.  When you stop being an idiot, I'll stop asserting that.

You can do it, I believe in you!

 

Think ++

You have a thick fukin skull. I'm done with you, you will never get what I'm saying.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:You have a

robj101 wrote:

You have a thick fukin skull. I'm done with you, you will never get what I'm saying.

 

Translation:

"Wah wah, people don't understand me!  If they only assumed I'm right, instead of going by words I'm saying, they'd see how right I really am."


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:robj101

Blake wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You have a thick fukin skull. I'm done with you, you will never get what I'm saying.

 

Translation:

"Wah wah, people don't understand me!  If they only assumed I'm right, instead of going by words I'm saying, they'd see how right I really am."

Yea you are just totally right, huh? Hypocrite's abound smartass.

You see there are varying definitions of empathy and different types mr. " I will assume it's the one I think of".

  • Daniel Batson: A motivation oriented towards the other.[6]
  • D. M. Berger: The capacity to know emotionally what another is experiencing from within the frame of reference of that other person, the capacity to sample the feelings of another or to put one's self in another's shoes.[7]
  • Jean Decety: A sense of similarity in feelings experienced by the self and the other, without confusion between the two individuals.[8][9]
  • Nancy Eisenberg: An affective response that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of another's emotional state or condition, and that is similar to what the other person is feeling or would be expected to feel.[10]
  • R. R. Greenson: To empathize means to share, to experience the feelings of another person.[11]
  • Alvin Goldman: The ability to put oneself into the mental shoes of another person to understand her emotions and feelings.[12]
  • Martin Hoffman: An affective response more appropriate to another's situation than one's own.[13]
  • William Ickes: A complex form of psychological inference in which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others.[14]
  • Heinz Kohut: Empathy is the capacity to think and feel oneself into the inner life of another person.[15]
  • Carl Rogers: To perceive the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person, but without ever losing the "as if" condition. Thus, it means to sense the hurt or the pleasure of another as he senses it and to perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but without ever losing the recognition that it is as if I were hurt or pleased and so forth.[16]
  • Roy Schafer: Empathy involves the inner experience of sharing in and comprehending the momentary psychological state of another person.[17]
  • Wynn Schwartz: We recognize others as empathic when we feel that they have accurately acted on or somehow acknowledged in stated or unstated fashion our values or motivations, our knowledge, and our skills or competence, but especially as they appear to recognize the significance of our actions in a manner that we can tolerate their being recognized.[18]
  • Edith Stein: Empathy is the experience of foreign consciousness in general.[19]
  • Simon Baron-Cohen (2003): Empathy is about spontaneously and naturally tuning into the other person's thoughts and feelings, whatever these might be [...]There are two major elements to empathy. The first is the cognitive component: Understanding the others feelings and the ability to take their perspective [...] the second element to empathy is the affective component. This is an observer's appropriate emotional response to another person's emotional state.[20]
  • Khen Lampert (2005): "[Empathy] is what happens to us when we leave our own bodies...and find ourselves either momentarily or for a longer period of time in the mind of the other. We observe reality through her eyes, feel her emotions, share in her pain."[21]
  •  

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    Free tips for debating one who thinks they are always right

     There is simply not much on reptiles and empathy, and I suspect that is because there is no real empathy to be found! What you found could be programmed behavior. Yes a mother caring for a child is not empathy it is a typical natural instinct, that same mother could be a serial killer but be compelled to take care of her child. Or she could have emapthy and take even better care of said child. There are mothers who close a door on their baby for the annoying whining, and others go in the room out of concern to coddle the child.

     

    More to read here. Though again, I can't find a lot on this subject.

    http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/01/reptile_play.html?cid=6a00d83452030269e201347fd95b1c970c

    The term I should have used would be altrusistic-empathy. Maybe that will clear it up for you.

     

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    Blake
    atheistScience Freak
    Posts: 991
    Joined: 2010-02-19
    User is offlineOffline
    Lovely; a long list of

    Lovely; a long list of definitions, none of which you seem to understand, as evidenced by:

     

    robj101 wrote:
    Yes a mother caring for a child is not empathy it is a typical natural instinct [...]

     

    You say things like this- that's why I think you're an idiot sometimes.

    You seem to think there's some magical divide that makes high order functions "natural instincts" if they are inevitable- empathy itself is an instinct.  Wise up- instincts are basic tendencies that produce emergent properties (like empathy, sex drive, etc.).

     

    Quote:
    There are mothers who close a door on their baby for the annoying whining, and others go in the room out of concern to coddle the child.

     

    Which only goes to serve as evidence of my point of individual variation.  Some people have a greater or less degree of it.  This is not evidence that the root of caring for offspring in other species is anything other than empathy.

    In other species of animals, the lesser degree will usually result in abandonment- in humans, there is an understood social obligation to care for a child, and a mother may do so without empathy, even with resentment (that is, may continue it for other, intellectual or social reasons). 

    I would find it unlikely that any reptiles are intelligent enough to understand the social meme of child care responsibility and yield to that pressure (and if they were, I doubt there are many species that are social enough to care).

     

     

    Quote:
    There is simply not much on reptiles and empathy, and I suspect that is because there is no real empathy to be found!

     

    Suspecting is more acceptable, and I wouldn't have criticized you as much for it (as apposed to your certain assertion)- you're still an idiot for not seeing the obvious empathy in caring for young, however, and for accepting "not much on it" as evidence that it doesn't exist.

    Are you one of those atheists who disbelieves in god because you can't see and talk to it?

     

    Quote:
    What you found could be programmed behavior.

     

    Hah.  Hah.

     

    "Programmed" behavior is not flexible or subject to learning- that is, it is not capable of producing dynamic and complex actions without a prohibitively large 'program' (it's just more efficient to use real intelligence and emotion to achieve the same results through EMERGENT behavior). 

    If you accept reptiles caring for young as merely "programmed", with the extent of programming needed, it's not a far cry to suggest that every single caring thing that *you* have ever done has been "programmed", and that you have no empathy at all either.

     

    However, conservation of information and the limits of information storage in DNA would tend to prohibit that possibility in either case.

    So, really, only an idiot *cough* you? *cough* would suggest something like that.

     

    So no, no it could NOT be "programmed".  The actions are clearly emergent like the majority of chordate cognition; reptile DNA isn't long enough to hold that many instructions.  Only the simplest actions are more efficient as being "programs".

     

    Quote:
    The term I should have used would be altrusistic-empathy. Maybe that will clear it up for you.

     

    I have already addressed this.

     

    Altruistic empathy is either empathy in excess of that which is useful to the individual, or that which is useful to the species/lineage.

     

    It's easy to find empathy in reptiles that is greater than that which is useful for the individual (caring for young doesn't really help the mother- immediately eating them would).

    And as to the latter- empathy that is beyond that which is useful for the species/lineage-- Even a drop more empathy than is strictly needed, as such, qualifies.

    Natural variation in empathy from individual to individual, thus, must inherently produce some measure of altruistic empathy in about half of the individuals of any species that expresses empathy at all.  Half of them being "under" this supposed ideal level, and half being "over"- evolution will naturally drive the median to the ideal.

     

    If you're inclined to believe social empathy is some special kind of empathy that doesn't benefit the species/lineage:

    In a social species, empathy from individual to individual is greater, but it's still a perfectly self-serving emergent property in the species' evolution- the rational principles (such as those expressed in game theory) are functioning there to make mutual empathy beneficial- and lack thereof results in being cast out of the society, and is harmful to the individual because the great benefit of mutual protection is lost. 

    So, that's not really altruistic at all, when it comes down to it- at least no more altruistic than caring for one's own young.  Both are self-serving.
     

    The only other form of empathy that could possibly qualify is a side effect- such as humans having empathy for non-human animals which does not have the effect of serving their own interests.  If side effects are altruistic empathy, as I've explained, there are plenty of side effects to be found in any application of empathy- even in reptiles- that could just as well qualify.

     

    So no, using that term doesn't help you; you still have no grounds for claiming that reptiles have no empathy at all- or no altruistic empathy, since that in itself is a pretty arbitrary distinction which either clearly includes reptiles, or excludes even humans depending on what specific definition we go with.

     

     

    You keep saying you aren't going to reply anymore, but then you keep replying.  Feel free to stop replying at any time.  Since you have no leg to stand on here, that's really your best bet.  You can go run away and pretend you 'won' the argument if you want.


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101, you intrigue me;

    robj101, you intrigue me; you seem to combine a genuinely intelligent understanding and response to most issues which come up on the forums, with what I see as a few glaring blind-spots, hang-ups, where you just get stubborn and 'dig in', like in this case. You know at least two other, more 'high-profile' issues where you ran into this sort of reaction from more people.

    I can see some grounds for debate over this subject, it is the way you respond when someone hits one of these issues that catches my attention. I tend to broadly agree with most of Blake's comments, although I may not have expressed things quite the same way  ...

    Just an observation, intended to reflect back to you how you come across to at least some of us, for you to think about.

    Most of us would likely have a few such issues, which we would be not necessarily notice in ourselves. Its just that the contrast between your approach to most issues and  the way you react in these other cases strikes me as greater than I see in other people here, and that you have several of them, rather than just one dominant theme. I think I almost see some connection between them, but not sure.

    To repeat, I have no issues at all with most of your posts, I think you have made many very good ones. Then you get bogged down in this sort of thing.

    Don't worry about it being a big concern from me as a mod, this level of disagreement and argument is a long way from worrying us here - it is what helps to keep the forum alive and interesting.

     

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3945
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101 wrote:What you found

    robj101 wrote:
    What you found could be programmed behavior.

    Again, what kind of empathy is not "programmed" behavior? All of our moral feelings are based on evolution, particularly as a social species.

    robj101 wrote:
    Yes a mother caring for a child is not empathy it is a typical natural instinct, that same mother could be a serial killer but be compelled to take care of her child.

    But, that's just it. That IS empathy. That is ALL of empathy. There is no empathy independent of natural instincts.

    Also, if loving mothers can be serial killers, the logical conclusion is that serial killers can have empathy for others, not that the mothers don't actually love their kids and they're just mindlessly conducting it out of natural instinct. You're in danger of ad hocing here.

    robj101 wrote:
    Or she could have emapthy and take even better care of said child.

    She already has empathy. Her empathy comes from natural instincts. You're implying that we can add something in addition to this, but there is nothing to add. The most you can do is refine and develop the instincts that are already present.

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    "She already has empathy.

    "She already has empathy. Her empathy comes from natural instincts. You're implying that we can add something in addition to this, but there is nothing to add. The most you can do is refine and develop the instincts that are already present."

     

    A concious decision is not the same as an instinct. Theirs are not refined to any extent that we can really take note of. After an hour of google and yahoo searching I have come up with 0 evidence of real concious empathy in any reptile that could not be simple basic instinct that is not based directly on cause and reaction. Which to me seems to make them almost mechanical like. Ergo the "snake in a suit" saying among others about psychotic people who lack empathy.

    If you like, you can consider them to be caring loving empathetic animals, but I just don't see that.

    edit: maybe I just don't view empathy in it's most basic form to be real empathy, it is necessary for anything to survive as a species at least in it's most basic form. But again, to me that is not real empathy.

    There I threw you a bone mr. Blake.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3945
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101 wrote:A concious

    Edit:

    I will not argue about empathy in reptiles. I only took issue with your implication there is empathy based on instinct and empathy not based on instinct.

    robj101 wrote:
    A concious decision is not the same as an instinct.

    Of course not. Decisions are motivated and controlled by instincts. They are not "the same" as instincts. The human mother has instincts which motivate her to take care of her children. The act of taking care of her children is not itself an instinct.

    So...are you saying that actions that demonstrate real empathy must be conscious decisions?   

    Even if you define it that way, the actions are still largely, if not completely, determined by instincts. They are not independent of them.

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    Blake
    atheistScience Freak
    Posts: 991
    Joined: 2010-02-19
    User is offlineOffline
    BobSpence1 wrote:I think I

    BobSpence1 wrote:
    I think I almost see some connection between them, but not sure.



    I believe it has something to do with a human-centric (or at least "higher animal" centric) sense of inherent value to consciousness-- as though there's some magic combination of ingredients that produces something fundamentally greater than the whole that is not simply emergent.

    I don't suspect that he realizes this tendency, but it is expressed in his distinctly unusual distaste for abortion (which has no rational basis), and this idea that there's some dividing line that sets another intelligent --granted, not extremely so-- animal fundamentally apart from humans, rather than that distance which is just a matter of degree of difference.
     

    What other cases have you seen?  Maybe they fit the pattern.



    robj101 wrote:

    A concious decision is not the same as an instinct.


    No, it's not- instincts motivate conscious decisions.  Neither exists without the other.

    Without instinct, consciousness is meaningless because it has no drive.

    Without consciousness, "instinct" doesn't make any sense, unless you qualify every chemical reaction (like insulin production in response to sugar) to be instinct-- that's the only thing you have left after intelligent thought is gone.



    robj101 wrote:
    Theirs are not refined to any extent that we can really take note of.


    This strikes me as you saying that you don't want to take note of it- I certainly have, and have found it obvious; as have several others here.

    I suggest that you examine your motivations here- this is more of a personal issue of cognative dissonance than one of lack of evidence.


    robj101 wrote:
    After an hour of google and yahoo searching I have come up with 0 evidence of real concious empathy in any reptile that could not be simple basic instinct that is not based directly on cause and reaction. Which to me seems to make them almost mechanical like.


    Eh?  Seriously?

    Either you aren't looking, or you're setting the bar impossibly high.

    As I've already said, I could say the exact same about you.  Why don't I?  Because I'm not an idiot, and I know that conscious reaction plays into virtually every action of intelligent animals (short of the most rudimentary reflexes, like pulling a hand back away from a fire- which is also somewhat learned, but at least unthinking).  Caring for young is too complex to be a reflex-- reptiles not only don't have long enough DNA to carry that programming, but I highly doubt they have enough neurons in their brains to execute it either.



    robj101 wrote:
    Ergo the "snake in a suit" saying among others about psychotic people who lack empathy.


    Sayings aren't really evidence- of course I hope you know that, but you keep using them.


    Psychopaths have to use extreme intellect and observation to simulate empathy where they naturally have none (or comparatively very little).  Retarded psychopaths have no self-control, and do not emulate empathy well.

    Either you are giving reptiles an extreme compliment by suggesting that they are more intelligent than most humans to be capable of pulling off the conscious emulation of the behaviors associated with empathy, or you're completely missing the implications of this suggestion.

    I can tell you right now- reptiles just *aren't* that intelligent.  They aren't "faking" it. 

    They have real emotions, whether you like it or not-- I don't know why you're so set in your world view here.  What does it matter to you that reptiles have genuine emotions?



    robj101 wrote:

    edit: maybe I just don't view empathy in it's most basic form to be real empathy, it is necessary for anything to survive as a species at least in it's most basic form. But again, to me that is not real empathy.

    There I threw you a bone mr. Blake.



    You're throwing yourself a bone, Rob- learning is the greatest victory, and I think you're coming close.

    The question here remains:  Why do you not consider this "real empathy", and what is "real empathy"?  I've already discredited every fundamental difference you have outlined between "real" and "basic" empathy.

    These seem to only be distinguished by woo woo for you...

    I know they may *seem* different from your perspective, but if you really look at them and think about it, you'll see that they aren't different things at all.



    Like Bob said, you're usually rational, and I do believe that you  can figure this out.  I don't dislike you, but you really need to consider the possibility that you've been totally wrong here.


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    butterbattle wrote:Edit:I

    butterbattle wrote:

    Edit:

    I will not argue about empathy in reptiles. I only took issue with your implication there is empathy based on instinct and empathy not based on instinct.

    robj101 wrote:
    A concious decision is not the same as an instinct.

    Of course not. Decisions are motivated and controlled by instincts. They are not "the same" as instincts. The human mother has instincts which motivate her to take care of her children. The act of taking care of her children is not itself an instinct.

    So...are you saying that actions that demonstrate real empathy must be conscious decisions?   

    Even if you define it that way, the actions are still largely, if not completely, determined by instincts. They are not independent of them.

    Yes yes you insist on adding 1+1 to make 2, but I'm saying as far as reptiles are concerned there is only 1+0 which makes..1. I think you get my meaning but you insist that I'm just so wrong because I like to split hairs on the subject. I feel this is a hair worth splitting. I see your perspective, why can't you see mine?

    I would not, myself, consider a mother crocodile guarding eggs and carrying the babies to water to be real empathy. The next day she may well eat those same babies if she happens across them. This is a trait that evolved to help insure the survival of the species. If she did not guard the eggs, or if she did and ate the babies when they hatched, the species would not have lasted this long. They don't care in the least about what they are doing, it is a natural drive, much like when my dog had pups, she knew how to clean them, and feed them instinctively. To me that is not empathy, it is just programming for basic survival.

     But I'm not going to shed crocodile tears (lol I wonder why they came up with that little saying) either way.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    Blake wrote:BobSpence1

    Blake wrote:

    BobSpence1 wrote:
    I think I almost see some connection between them, but not sure.



    I believe it has something to do with a human-centric (or at least "higher animal" centric) sense of inherent value to consciousness-- as though there's some magic combination of ingredients that produces something fundamentally greater than the whole that is not simply emergent.

    I don't suspect that he realizes this tendency, but it is expressed in his distinctly unusual distaste for abortion (which has no rational basis), and this idea that there's some dividing line that sets another intelligent --granted, not extremely so-- animal fundamentally apart from humans, rather than that distance which is just a matter of degree of difference.
     

    What other cases have you seen?  Maybe they fit the pattern.



    robj101 wrote:

    A concious decision is not the same as an instinct.


    No, it's not- instincts motivate conscious decisions.  Neither exists without the other.

    Without instinct, consciousness is meaningless because it has no drive.

    Without consciousness, "instinct" doesn't make any sense, unless you qualify every chemical reaction (like insulin production in response to sugar) to be instinct-- that's the only thing you have left after intelligent thought is gone.



    robj101 wrote:
    Theirs are not refined to any extent that we can really take note of.


    This strikes me as you saying that you don't want to take note of it- I certainly have, and have found it obvious; as have several others here.

    I suggest that you examine your motivations here- this is more of a personal issue of cognative dissonance than one of lack of evidence.


    robj101 wrote:
    After an hour of google and yahoo searching I have come up with 0 evidence of real concious empathy in any reptile that could not be simple basic instinct that is not based directly on cause and reaction. Which to me seems to make them almost mechanical like.


    Eh?  Seriously?

    Either you aren't looking, or you're setting the bar impossibly high.

    As I've already said, I could say the exact same about you.  Why don't I?  Because I'm not an idiot, and I know that conscious reaction plays into virtually every action of intelligent animals (short of the most rudimentary reflexes, like pulling a hand back away from a fire- which is also somewhat learned, but at least unthinking).  Caring for young is too complex to be a reflex-- reptiles not only don't have long enough DNA to carry that programming, but I highly doubt they have enough neurons in their brains to execute it either.



    robj101 wrote:
    Ergo the "snake in a suit" saying among others about psychotic people who lack empathy.


    Sayings aren't really evidence- of course I hope you know that, but you keep using them.


    Psychopaths have to use extreme intellect and observation to simulate empathy where they naturally have none (or comparatively very little).  Retarded psychopaths have no self-control, and do not emulate empathy well.

    Either you are giving reptiles an extreme compliment by suggesting that they are more intelligent than most humans to be capable of pulling off the conscious emulation of the behaviors associated with empathy, or you're completely missing the implications of this suggestion.

    I can tell you right now- reptiles just *aren't* that intelligent.  They aren't "faking" it. 

    They have real emotions, whether you like it or not-- I don't know why you're so set in your world view here.  What does it matter to you that reptiles have genuine emotions?



    robj101 wrote:

    edit: maybe I just don't view empathy in it's most basic form to be real empathy, it is necessary for anything to survive as a species at least in it's most basic form. But again, to me that is not real empathy.

    There I threw you a bone mr. Blake.



    You're throwing yourself a bone, Rob- learning is the greatest victory, and I think you're coming close.

    The question here remains:  Why do you not consider this "real empathy", and what is "real empathy"?  I've already discredited every fundamental difference you have outlined between "real" and "basic" empathy.

    These seem to only be distinguished by woo woo for you...

    I know they may *seem* different from your perspective, but if you really look at them and think about it, you'll see that they aren't different things at all.



    Like Bob said, you're usually rational, and I do believe that you  can figure this out.  I don't dislike you, but you really need to consider the possibility that you've been totally wrong here.

    So, you are saying my gecko loves me, and cares for me, and hopes I have a good long life. He would be very sad if I died or became ill or injured. He would also be sad if his cagemate were to pass away or become ill or whatever. lol

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    Blake wrote:BobSpence1

    Blake wrote:

    BobSpence1 wrote:
    I think I almost see some connection between them, but not sure.


    I believe it has something to do with a human-centric (or at least "higher animal" centric) sense of inherent value to consciousness-- as though there's some magic combination of ingredients that produces something fundamentally greater than the whole that is not simply emergent.

    I don't suspect that he realizes this tendency, but it is expressed in his distinctly unusual distaste for abortion (which has no rational basis), and this idea that there's some dividing line that sets another intelligent --granted, not extremely so-- animal fundamentally apart from humans, rather than that distance which is just a matter of degree of difference.

    What other cases have you seen?  Maybe they fit the pattern.

    The only one I remember that you haven't mentioned was a distaste for, a reaction against, homosexuality, even though I think he insisted he doesn't believe they should be punished or persecuted. He kept using terms such as 'abnormal' when referring to it.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    BobSpence1 wrote:Blake

    BobSpence1 wrote:

    Blake wrote:

    BobSpence1 wrote:
    I think I almost see some connection between them, but not sure.


    I believe it has something to do with a human-centric (or at least "higher animal" centric) sense of inherent value to consciousness-- as though there's some magic combination of ingredients that produces something fundamentally greater than the whole that is not simply emergent.

    I don't suspect that he realizes this tendency, but it is expressed in his distinctly unusual distaste for abortion (which has no rational basis), and this idea that there's some dividing line that sets another intelligent --granted, not extremely so-- animal fundamentally apart from humans, rather than that distance which is just a matter of degree of difference.

    What other cases have you seen?  Maybe they fit the pattern.

    The only one I remember that you haven't mentioned was a distaste for, a reaction against, homosexuality, even though I think he insisted he doesn't believe they should be punished or persecuted. He kept using terms such as 'abnormal' when referring to it.

    Yes I try to see the other side, I have the ick factor where homosexuals are concerned, but I realize it is my own failing  and they deserve the same rights as me, much like in my "pro life" stance. I myself am pro life, but where society is concerned I am pro choice. People act like that is not possible. As if someone can't feel one way but act another for the greater good.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    Blake
    atheistScience Freak
    Posts: 991
    Joined: 2010-02-19
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101 wrote:I see your

    robj101 wrote:
    I see your perspective, why can't you see mine?


    We can see your perspective- it's wrong.  That's what we're trying to explain.


    robj101 wrote:

    I would not, myself, consider a mother crocodile guarding eggs and carrying the babies to water to be real empathy. The next day she may well eat those same babies if she happens across them.


    Empathy doesn't always last a very long time.  It is triggered by certain traits, and may be long lasting, or may die off after a few days, or when those traits that elicit it are gone.

    For example, sometimes humans will have empathy for chicks, and then when they grow up to be chickens and are less cute, they stop caring and eat them.

    This is no different- traits eliciting empathy; that empathy doesn't have to last a long time to be real for the time it is present.


    robj101 wrote:
    They don't care in the least about what they are doing, it is a natural drive, much like when my dog had pups, she knew how to clean them, and feed them instinctively. To me that is not empathy, it is just programming for basic survival.


    You are wrong- that is empathy; it's the very definition of it. 
    There is no such "just programming" in this respect- I have explained this very clearly, and repeatedly.


    robj101 wrote:
    So, you are saying my gecko loves me, and cares for me, and hopes I have a good long life. He would be very sad if I died or became ill or injured. He would also be sad if his cagemate were to pass away or become ill or whatever. lol


    No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  It's statements like this that demonstrate that you haven't been following what I've been telling you much at all.

    I suggest that you re-read my posts.



    robj101 wrote:

    I myself am pro life, but where society is concerned I am pro choice. People act like that is not possible. As if someone can't feel one way but act another for the greater good.


    No, it's because you're using the wrong word.

    It's like going around and saying "Personally I'm a Democrat, but socially I always vote Republican"... if you think Republican policies are ultimately best for society, that's called being a Republican.

    "Pro-life" means "I believe in legal restrictions on abortions"

    What you're saying is:  "I myself believe in legal restrictions on abortions, but where society is concerned, I don't believe in legal restrictions on abortions."

    WTF?  Society is always concerned with laws.

    Why can't you just say, "I myself dislike abortions, but I am pro-choice"? 

    This IS what you're trying to express- why are you resistant to saying it, and why must you insist on deliberately confusing people and using the wrong word (when you KNOW it's the wrong word)?






    BobSpence1 wrote:

    The only one I remember that you haven't mentioned was a distaste for, a reaction against, homosexuality, even though I think he insisted he doesn't believe they should be punished or persecuted. He kept using terms such as 'abnormal' when referring to it.



    Hmm... maybe it's just conservative brain washing, and he grew up in that kind of environment, so he has these ideas in his head that he's trying to reconcile with new-found rationality?

    Preconceptions can be strong sometimes.


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    Lol, just..lol. "because you

    Lol, just..lol. "because you are wrong" nope, you just dont agree with my view, doesn't make me wrong. Makes you an ass for assuming as much however. You insist on sticking with the dictionary term for empathy. I am saying there are different levels, and reptiles are the lowest and In my mind that voids them having it, because what they do have is only the most basic and necessary for any animal to survive. A default amount if you will. You disagree with this, which is my view therefore I think YOU are wrong.

    And now you are trying to psycho analyze me, thats good stuff.

    edit, and for the record, on the pro life/pro choice statement you are truly dull. I can like chocolate ice cream but if vanilla is better for everyone else, I would go with vanilla. I don't have to have my chocolate if it will hurt someone else. If you can't get that then I am just going to have to remain disappointed.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    mellestad
    Moderator
    Posts: 2929
    Joined: 2009-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101 wrote:Lol,

    robj101 wrote:

    Lol, just..lol. "because you are wrong" nope, you just dont agree with my view, doesn't make me wrong. Makes you an ass for assuming as much however. You insist on sticking with the dictionary term for empathy. I am saying there are different levels, and reptiles are the lowest and In my mind that voids them having it, because what they do have is only the most basic and necessary for any animal to survive. A default amount if you will. You disagree with this, which is my view therefore I think YOU are wrong.

    And now you are trying to psycho analyze me, thats good stuff.

    edit, and for the record, on the pro life/pro choice statement you are truly dull. I can like chocolate ice cream but if vanilla is better for everyone else, I would go with vanilla. I don't have to have my chocolate if it will hurt someone else. If you can't get that then I am just going to have to remain disappointed.

     

    Hey Rob.  I don't mind that you want to seperate lower level empathy from higher level empathy, but could you make an attempt to justify the seperate, like what you consider different levels of empathy and why?

     

    I'm sort of with Butter on this one, the way you are seperating empathy seems arbitary and I'm wondering if you can explain it better.

    Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


    Blake
    atheistScience Freak
    Posts: 991
    Joined: 2010-02-19
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101 wrote:Lol,

    robj101 wrote:

    Lol, just..lol. "because you are wrong" nope, you just dont agree with my view, doesn't make me wrong.

     

    *sigh*   By wrong, I'm saying you are incorrect.  Facts can be correct, or incorrect (right or wrong).  I'm not talking about opinions here.

    What words mean are factual constructs based on common usage, historical usage, and sometimes construction, and wherein they are inconsistent, founded on reason and logic to isolate distinct meanings that could be referenced.

    At no point is the fundamental nature of empathy acceptably an arbitrary opinion- unlike something such as "beauty".  You can say "Butterflies are beautiful, and moths are ugly"- that's an opinion.  You can't say "Mammals have empathy, and reptiles don't"- that's a statement that reduces to factual qualifications which can be examined as being true or false.

     

    Quote:
    You insist on sticking with the dictionary term for empathy.

     

    Oh noes!!  What a jerk face I am for insisting on using definitions of words!  We should totally just defenestrate language entirely and let Rob define everything however he wants.

     

    Hey, I'll give you a million dollars if you hit yourself.  Hah!  Tricked you, idiot- by "million" I meant one, and by "dollars", I meant insult.

    Cool!  We can say anything we want now that we've thrown out the dictionary and gone with personal definitions.

     

    Monkey potato fish, golden fart-noodles without glibness!!

    See, I just proved that you're made from yarn and have three eyes.

     

    Wee!  Lets all talk nonsense and abolish communication forever!!!  Hurray!!!!11!one

     

     

    Or not.

    This is why I think you are an idiot. 

    This idiocy can be corrected, but I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that it ever will be without something drastic like electric shock therapy.

     

     

    Quote:
    I am saying there are different levels, and reptiles are the lowest and In my mind that voids them having it, because what they do have is only the most basic and necessary for any animal to survive. A default amount if you will.

     

    I have examined this definition thoroughly, and I have explained in detail, at least twice, why this is not logically acceptable as a distinction between reptiles and ourselves.

    You are incorrect.

    That you refuse to learn or understand *why* you are incorrect does not change that fact.

     

     

    Quote:
    You disagree with this, which is my view therefore I think YOU are wrong.

     

    You do, yes, and your view is incorrect.  Our views (those who disagree with you and recognize the facts of the matter) are correct.

    You probably don't understand what I'm saying, however, or why we are correct.  If you did, you'd probably change your view to the correct one.

    -Unless you're really just that stubborn, and prefer to be an idiot than to be corrected.

     

     

    Quote:
    edit, and for the record, on the pro life/pro choice statement you are truly dull. I can like chocolate ice cream but if vanilla is better for everyone else, I would go with vanilla. I don't have to have my chocolate if it will hurt someone else. If you can't get that then I am just going to have to remain disappointed.

     

    Worst analogy ever.  Use of this analogy underscores the fact that you don't understand the concepts involved.

     

    More apt analogy:

     

    "Personally I think vanilla ice cream should be illegal, and people should be forced to eat chocolate ice cream despite what they want, but if other people want vanilla, then I'll go with vanilla and agree that it should be legal."

     

    Can you even *see* the contradiction there?  Lets start by identifying the problem...


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    Sorry, I'm totally wrong on

    Sorry, I'm totally wrong on everything, I have no idea why I dreamed up different levels of empathy, I guess reptiles really are just like us and every other creature. No difference. You win!

    In fact I must be just so full of shit maybe I should look into creationism more.

    But I still think they are not near our level of empathy though and I can't lie to myself like that so I must be fukin crazy.

     

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    mellestad
    Moderator
    Posts: 2929
    Joined: 2009-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    Rob wrote:But I still think

    Rob wrote:
    But I still think they are not near our level of empathy though

     

    If this is the totallity of your argument I think most here would agree with you.

    Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3945
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101 wrote:I would not,

    robj101 wrote:
    I would not, myself, consider a mother crocodile guarding eggs and carrying the babies to water to be real empathy. The next day she may well eat those same babies if she happens across them.

    What? How would the fact that she ate them the next day make it not empathy? There is nothing in the definition of empathy which implies this.

    If you decide whether or not a crocodile has empathy for its young by whether or not it eventually eats them, you're going to be ad hocing.

    robj101 wrote:
    This is a trait that evolved to help insure the survival of the species. If she did not guard the eggs, or if she did and ate the babies when they hatched, the species would not have lasted this long.

    Again, what example of empathy do you have that was not evolved to insure the survial of the species?

    All of morality is the result of evolution, and all of it must help with survival of the species or be at least neutral. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist.

    robj101 wrote:
    They don't care in the least about what they are doing, it is a natural drive, much like when my dog had pups, she knew how to clean them, and feed them instinctively. To me that is not empathy, it is just programming for basic survival.

    I agree that they do not understand what they're doing as well as we do. That is possible basis for saying our "empathy" is different from theirs.

    However, all of morality is a natural drive. All of morality is programming for survival. Do you not agree?

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    Blake
    atheistScience Freak
    Posts: 991
    Joined: 2010-02-19
    User is offlineOffline
    mellestad wrote:Hey Rob. 

    mellestad wrote:

    Hey Rob.  I don't mind that you want to seperate lower level empathy from higher level empathy, but could you make an attempt to justify the seperate, like what you consider different levels of empathy and why?

     

    He did attempt to highlight a difference by way of "altruistic empathy"- an empathy that doesn't benefit the individual, but I've explained why this isn't a dividing line.

    Either it doesn't benefit the individual directly- in which case caring for young qualifies- or it doesn't benefit the gene pool/lineage/the individual indirectly, in which case virtually nothing qualifies with two exceptions: 1. Natural variation that is slightly more than strictly necessary (present in all animals with empathy of any kind that have variation in DNA, or are affected by environment)  2. Side-effect empathy, which occurs due to the traits that elicit empathy being non-exclusive.

     

    That's at least the third time I've explained it- he didn't seem to get it.  Any line that he could draw would be arbitrary, and not qualitative.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    robj101 wrote:
    Sorry, I'm totally wrong on everything, I have no idea why I dreamed up different levels of empathy, I guess reptiles really are just like us and every other creature.

    Not necessarily every creature (there may be many that have none at all), and not even necessarily every reptile (or even every mammal) has empathy.  It would be difficult to discount the possibility of any intelligent creature having empathy, but demonstrating lack of intelligence would probably be sufficient.

     

    robj101 wrote:
    No difference. You win!

     

    No demonstrable fundamental difference between classes in that regard- it's harder to say there's no difference from species to species, though.

     

    Rob, you win too- learning is the greatest victory.

    Try not to think of it in terms of winning and losing, but in terms of mutual learning and self-improvement.

     

     

    robj101 wrote:
    In fact I must be just so full of shit maybe I should look into creationism more.

     

    Everything I'm saying is based on the principles of evolution and genetic variance.  I can't see that there's a need to waste time examining creationism... you're welcome to it, of course.

    You definitely underestimate the certainty of proof behind evolution if you're doubting it now though...

     

    robj101 wrote:
    But I still think they are not near our level of empathy though and I can't lie to myself like that so I must be fukin crazy.

    Every species, and even every individual, expresses empathy to different degrees relative to personal commitment, and has its empathy elicited by different stimuli.

    This is evident, but it doesn't express a fundamental difference in the presence or lack of empathy, or indicate something that could objectively be called 'lesser', or be said to 'not count'.

    The presence of empathy isn't fundamentally different- it's just directed at different things (e.g. lizard babies instead of human babies), and with slightly different degrees of commitment, and durations (which all vary not only from species to species, but also from individual to individual).


    Blake
    atheistScience Freak
    Posts: 991
    Joined: 2010-02-19
    User is offlineOffline
    mellestad wrote:Rob

    mellestad wrote:

    Rob wrote:
    But I still think they are not near our level of empathy though

    If this is the totallity of your argument I think most here would agree with you.

     

    How do you determine, quantitatively, that a lizard loves her baby (so long as the empathy persists) less than a human mother loves hers?

    In the cases where such empathy is demonstrated, it could be done in terms of commitment (Protection: will you fight, will you suffer bodily harm, will you die?), but it certainly wouldn't be easy.  And when you did manage it, I suspect you'd find that the variance within a species from individual to individual is greater than that between the species in most cases.


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    mellestad wrote:Rob

    mellestad wrote:

    Rob wrote:
    But I still think they are not near our level of empathy though

     

    If this is the totallity of your argument I think most here would agree with you.

    I appreciate that you at least tried to think outside the box. Apparently you are not allowed to think for yourself, whether it be in a scientific way or a philisophical way, so I am done talking about the empathy thing. According to blake I need to reread what I already know and do not under any circumstances think about anything else. He claims I "win because I learned something" the only thing I learned is that he can be a stickling ass when he wants to be. I already know everything he is saying, and he ignores anything I am trying to add, it's disappointing. He is so smart he didn't realize the dripping sarcasm in my last post.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    mellestad
    Moderator
    Posts: 2929
    Joined: 2009-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    Blake wrote:mellestad

    Blake wrote:

    mellestad wrote:

    Rob wrote:
    But I still think they are not near our level of empathy though

    If this is the totallity of your argument I think most here would agree with you.

     

    How do you determine, quantitatively, that a lizard loves her baby (so long as the empathy persists) less than a human mother loves hers?

    In the cases where such empathy is demonstrated, it could be done in terms of commitment (Protection: will you fight, will you suffer bodily harm, will you die?), but it certainly wouldn't be easy.  And when you did manage it, I suspect you'd find that the variance within a species from individual to individual is greater than that between the species in most cases.

     

    I doubt he means by depth of emotion (I personally don't know how you would quantify intensity of emotion), but you could clearly make a case for reptiles in general lacking the ability to empathize as broadly as a human or probably even a mammal.  I am skeptical that you can have certain types of empathy without a dose of raw intelligence that reptiles lack.

     

    For example, I doubt a crocodile ever did anything to save a creature outside of its own species.  And I doubt a turtle ever killed itself because its human owner died.  I think, if rob limits his argument, he obviously has a point.  Reptiles are certainly not as empathetic as humans or probably even mammals in general.  The only problem I see is if he tries to separate empathy to 'real' and 'unreal'.  Instead, I think you could say empathy varies in complexity by species.

    Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    I sit around and think of

    I sit around and think of things like empathy etc, for example, I have yet to make a decision about dinosaurs, could empathy or lack therof have had something to with dinosaurs failing? It could have had something to do with any animal failing really, I think the answer is yes, but I have not and can not make that determination and call it fact. Some dinosaurs they believe were herd animals, if this is the case they may have had a higher level or more evolved form of empathy, or as mel mentions, a bit more intelligence. This would not explain why they died out however which is why I am skeptical on the whole subject to this day and probably always will be. If they had no "real" empathy as I like to put it, they would have trampled their young and basicly not given a crap about each other. But herd animals today protect their young, they don't eat or trample them.  What does it have to do with the extinction of dinosaurs? Probably nothing, but I'm not entirely sure. But at some point early on, empathy had to develop and before it did, something probably did not have any whatsoever.

    I think of weird crap like this all the time. Now I'm thinking, "why the hell am I still responding on this topic" /kick self

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    mellestad
    Moderator
    Posts: 2929
    Joined: 2009-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    robj101 wrote:I sit around

    robj101 wrote:

    I sit around and think of things like empathy etc, for example, I have yet to make a decision about dinosaurs, could empathy or lack therof have had something to with dinosaurs failing? It could have had something to do with any animal failing really, I think the answer is yes, but I have not and can not make that determination and call it fact. Some dinosaurs they believe were herd animals, if this is the case they may have had a higher level or more evolved form of empathy, or as mel mentions, a bit more intelligence. This would not explain why they died out however which is why I am skeptical on the whole subject to this day and probably always will be. If they had no "real" empathy as I like to put it, they would have trampled their young and basicly not given a crap about each other. But herd animals today protect their young, they don't eat or trample them.  What does it have to do with the extinction of dinosaurs? Probably nothing, but I'm not entirely sure. But at some point early on, empathy had to develop and before it did, something probably did not have any whatsoever.

    I think of weird crap like this all the time. Now I'm thinking, "why the hell am I still responding on this topic" /kick self

     

    I imagine if you accept empathy as 'not trampling young' then empathy is a very early development, far before dinosaurs.

     

    Dinosaurs existed for too long, where too widespread, had too many species and died out too quickly for their fall to have anything to do with social behavior.

    Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    mellestad wrote:robj101

    mellestad wrote:

    robj101 wrote:

    I sit around and think of things like empathy etc, for example, I have yet to make a decision about dinosaurs, could empathy or lack therof have had something to with dinosaurs failing? It could have had something to do with any animal failing really, I think the answer is yes, but I have not and can not make that determination and call it fact. Some dinosaurs they believe were herd animals, if this is the case they may have had a higher level or more evolved form of empathy, or as mel mentions, a bit more intelligence. This would not explain why they died out however which is why I am skeptical on the whole subject to this day and probably always will be. If they had no "real" empathy as I like to put it, they would have trampled their young and basicly not given a crap about each other. But herd animals today protect their young, they don't eat or trample them.  What does it have to do with the extinction of dinosaurs? Probably nothing, but I'm not entirely sure. But at some point early on, empathy had to develop and before it did, something probably did not have any whatsoever.

    I think of weird crap like this all the time. Now I'm thinking, "why the hell am I still responding on this topic" /kick self

     

    I imagine if you accept empathy as 'not trampling young' then empathy is a very early development, far before dinosaurs.

     

    Dinosaurs existed for too long, where too widespread, had too many species and died out too quickly for their fall to have anything to do with social behavior.

    That's pretty much what I said, except I did say I'm not certain, and probably never will be. It was too long ago to really prove a when and where as to how empathy developed with certainty and to what extent IMO. But to say it didn't have anything to do with particular species dying out quickly would be a large assumption I believe. If crocs didn't have the nurturing manner they have towards young (at least before the young hit the water) they wouldn't be here at all, of that I'm fairly certain but it too is open to debate.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    Blake
    atheistScience Freak
    Posts: 991
    Joined: 2010-02-19
    User is offlineOffline
    mellestad wrote:I doubt he

    mellestad wrote:

    I doubt he means by depth of emotion (I personally don't know how you would quantify intensity of emotion), but you could clearly make a case for reptiles in general lacking the ability to empathize as broadly as a human or probably even a mammal.

     

    One can quantify the intensity of emotion in the same way one quantifies physical pain- by determining preference.  They can even be quantified in terms of each other; the experiment is just difficult to set up (and not made easier by lower intelligence).

     

    He wasn't clear on the breadth vs. depth issue- and then there's duration, which is another issue.  Would not some product of the three be the sum of empathy?  But then how strongly should each factor be applied to the total?  Is depth more important, or breadth? 

     

    Does it matter more if you just barely care about anything at all, but care about everything, or if you only care about one thing, but would sacrifice your life for it?

    That would seem to be entirely opinion.

     

    Even if he had qualified it as exclusively breadth of empathy, one still can't say every member of an entire class is beyond every member of another.  I'm certain that there are mammals that are less empathetic than some reptiles- we need to in the very least take an average here.

    Your statement is acceptable because you made clear that is was a generalization, and you were specific about breadth.  Rob's wasn't.

    It's important to remember the variation from species to species, and the variation from individual to individual within the species. 

    There have been examples of various animals projecting empathy in very strange ways (over toys, rocks, or odd objects)- it's not unreasonable to imagine a Crocodile mother who was a bit off in the head carrying around and protecting turtles.  Things like this are uncommon, but happen relatively frequently as flukes.  It's not necessarily even for us to say that these are "broken" cases; variation like that is how evolution works; it if was successful, a symbiosis could have developed.

     

    Quote:
    I am skeptical that you can have certain types of empathy without a dose of raw intelligence that reptiles lack.

     

    I disagree that a large extent of intelligence is needed to qualify empathy (a very small amount can do it)- intelligence just makes it more practical (that is, it helps the individual detect distress and react to it properly). 

    We could empathize with a fish, and bring it onto the land so it doesn't drown- for lack of intelligence, empathy may be more harmful than helpful, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

     

    Quote:
    For example, I doubt a crocodile ever did anything to save a creature outside of its own species.

     

    Given the sheer number of crocodiles that have existed, I find it unlikely that it hasn't happened (that a croc has tried) as a fluke.  With weaker intelligence, though, it's entirely possible that it has never been successful.

    Instincts can be buggy.

     

    Quote:
    Instead, I think you could say empathy varies in complexity by species.

     

    Certainly, and from individual to individual.


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    It's sounds like you are

    It's sounds like you are attributing empathy to intelligence. Blake also makes it sound as if a trickle of intelligence means a potential flood of empathy, but the dam of low intelligence keeps it from flowing fully. I would say intelligence and concious decision making goes hand in hand with an "amount" or "level" of empathy. Intelligence would seem more likely to determine empathy in a creature than to just say if it has any intelligence if has a lot of empathy. How can you measure a box with no sides? The debate could now shift to intelligence in reptiles if that is the determining factor in empathy and morality, and if so, I would say reptiles would be very low on the intelligence scale.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin