M
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
Broadly there are three classes of natural law theory:
- Those based on commandments from a deity which are infused in nature, e.g. Aquinas.
- Those based on human nature as understood by reason, e.g. Locke.
- Those based on traditions, e.g. Magna Carta and common law.
Aquinas uses a theory based on a catalog of goods. The weak point of such theories is that the choice of goods is somewhat arbitrary. For his goods, Aquinas chose life, procreation, social life, knowledge, and rational conduct. Other philosophers chose differently. Grisez has a longer list of “self-integration, practical reasonableness, authenticity, justice and friendship, religion, life and health, knowledge of truth, appreciation of beauty, and playful activities”; Finnis has “life, knowledge, aesthetic appreciation, play, friendship, practical reasonableness, and religion”; etc.
An interesting thing about Aquinas’ choice is that if he had left out procreation, his theory wouldn’t conclude that masturbation, condoms or “the homosexual act” are bad.
I
inocente
Guest
Actually, Donald Trump is really a photoshopped Miley Cyrus, in a prank which has got seriously out of controlOkay fair enough. (I’ll take on faith that that’s as much work, or more, than I did when I created a screen name and password.)
.Found the JPII encyclical prohibiting torture as an “intrinsic evil” - paragraph 80, w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html
Pope Francis - "Torturing people is a mortal sin. It’s a very serious sin. …] I invite all Christians to engage and collaborate in abolishing torture and to support victims and their families.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes. However, for any moral measure to be accepted the vote must be unanimous. Just one nay vote, say on rape, renders the morality of that act to remain in suspense. Not a very workable system as this thread, I think, proves.
Common sense, as I understand the term, is not the novel sense that one comes to as a result of exposure to a carefully reasoned argument with evidence but one’s intuitive belief that needs of no evidence.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I believe all the exceptions would fall under the provision, “Unless the way you want to live negatively effects the way others want to live.”
Number 1, do not murder me, I’d like to live. Number 2, do not lie to me, I want to know the truth. Number 3, do not rape me …
I
inocente
Guest
Ok thanksMy dear inocente it is nowhere near as complicated as that and you are not thick and ignorant.
‘Letting the other be the other’ simply means dealing with the person in front of you as who and what they are and not who and what you would like them to be where disagreements arise, actively engaging them in the decision making process in terms of who and what they are and not who and what you would like them to be, and arriving at a consensus that incorporates their contributions of which you can live with and vice versa.
To illustrate, if our opponent is an atheist and achieving our objective demands we initially persuade them God exists, chances are we will be fighting a loosing battle. The same can be said in regard to the atheist that is compelled to convince the theist there is no God in order to make progress.
This principle can be applied to other circumstances. If achieving our objectives requires convincing; Catholic Mary is not Mother of God, a Protestant of Apostolic Succession, a trade unionist Margaret Thatcher was the best thing that ever happened to Britain or a British Conservative the monarchy should be disestablished chances are we are onto a looser. ‘Letting the other be the other’ enables us to formulate arguments THEY not WE may find persuasive. No one ever had any difficulty convincing themselves of their own arguments.
. I agree with your motive of reaching consensus by showing respect. It’s a good strategy in business, politics and diplomacy. The British PM offers Trump a state visit with the Queen. It appeals to his vanity in the hope of reaching a trade deal, whether or not she actually respects him. And yes, more generally, it’s good even for politicians to remember that every human person has inherent dignity.But… in moral debate, some views ought to play no part in reaching consensus. Taking child rape as an example of something most of us believe is never justified under any circumstances whatsoever, there can be no negotiation with someone who wants to argue that raping children is moral. Not on the internet, not in a bar, not ever, because it presupposes they have a case. Or, if someone is a racist, we ought not let him be who he is, or negotiate with him, or try to reach a compromise. That was my point.
I’m meant morality rather than legality though. Here’s a couple of clips from TV shows. Imho anyone who would find them humorous can’t then pretend he believes rape is never justified.
Benny Hill - youtube.com/watch?v=MmbFdenAb7o
Family Guy - youtube.com/watch?v=TYqpi2tNAC0
I
inocente
Guest
Ok thanksMy dear inocente it is nowhere near as complicated as that and you are not thick and ignorant.
‘Letting the other be the other’ simply means dealing with the person in front of you as who and what they are and not who and what you would like them to be where disagreements arise, actively engaging them in the decision making process in terms of who and what they are and not who and what you would like them to be, and arriving at a consensus that incorporates their contributions of which you can live with and vice versa.
To illustrate, if our opponent is an atheist and achieving our objective demands we initially persuade them God exists, chances are we will be fighting a loosing battle. The same can be said in regard to the atheist that is compelled to convince the theist there is no God in order to make progress.
This principle can be applied to other circumstances. If achieving our objectives requires convincing; Catholic Mary is not Mother of God, a Protestant of Apostolic Succession, a trade unionist Margaret Thatcher was the best thing that ever happened to Britain or a British Conservative the monarchy should be disestablished chances are we are onto a looser. ‘Letting the other be the other’ enables us to formulate arguments THEY not WE may find persuasive. No one ever had any difficulty convincing themselves of their own arguments.
. I agree with your motive of reaching consensus by showing respect. It’s a good strategy in business, politics and diplomacy. The British PM offers Trump a state visit with the Queen. It appeals to his vanity in the hope of reaching a trade deal, whether or not she actually respects him. And yes, more generally, it’s good even for politicians to remember that every human person has inherent dignity.But… in moral debate, some views ought to play no part in reaching consensus. Taking child rape as an example of something most of us believe is never justified under any circumstances whatsoever, there can be no negotiation with someone who wants to argue that raping children is moral. Not on the internet, not in a bar, not ever, because it presupposes they have a case. Or, if someone is a racist, we ought not let him be who he is, or negotiate with him, or try to reach a compromise. That was my point.
I meant morality rather than legality though. Here’s a couple of clips from TV shows. Imho anyone who would find them humorous can’t then pretend he believes rape is never justified.
Benny Hill - youtube.com/watch?v=MmbFdenAb7o
Family Guy - youtube.com/watch?v=TYqpi2tNAC0
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Then you’ve not been following the appeals of Bradski and EnosJadon to our “innate altruism”.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Okay, so let me see if I’ve got this straight, you accept that due to the nature of their young, humans are a necessarily nurturing species. After all, if nobody nurtured the young then they wouldn’t survive, and obviously that’s not a good evolutionary strategy. But the question is, how far can that nurturing strategy be extended. For example, if I have one parent nurturing a child that’s good, but if I have two, that’s even better. But what if I had a hundred people who felt some responsibility for the welfare of that child, logic would seem to dictate that the more people that you have involved in the welfare of that child, the more likely it is that that child will survive. In fact the ideal scenario would be if everyone felt some degree of responsibility for everyone else. Because that would mean that I’m more likely to survive, you’re more likely to survive, our children are more likely to survive, and our group as a whole is more likely to survive.
So it would seem that the ideal strategy is for everyone to be selfless and altruistic. But aha you say, they’re not, therefore this hypothesis is obviously wrong. In fact it’s not wrong, it’s just incomplete, because although this may be the ideal strategy, it’s not the ultimate strategy. The ultimate strategy would be if everyone except me was selfless and altruistic. Then I would gain the benefit of everyone else’s altruism without the cost of having to be altruistic myself. For me it would be a win/win, all of the benefit and none of the cost. I’d obviously be the most likely to survive. But there’s a problem with this strategy, and that’s the law of diminishing return. The more people that you have employing this selfish strategy the less effective it becomes. After all, we’re relying upon everyone else’s selfless behavior to make our selfish strategy work. So as you yourself have pointed out many times, you eventually reach a tipping point beyond which the selfish strategy stops being effective.
Which inevitably leads to natural selection doing what natural selection always does, it finds a balance between competing strategies. In this case, between selfless behavior and selfish behavior. Remember, we’ve already agreed that some level of selfless behavior is absolutely essential for the survival of the human species. So all that natural selection has to do is find the most efficient balance between selflessness and selfishness. And when it does, you end up with exactly what we see in human society today, some people are altruistic and some people aren’t.
Altruism and its counterpart are just another example of natural selection at work.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I watched the first one. I think it’s thoroughly distasteful, but I don’t think we can logically claim that “anyone who would find them humorous can’t then pretend he believes rape is never justified.”
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I was considering your example of a woman dying to rescue a dog.
The level of altruism where the possible benefit is far exceeded by the possible cost simply is not an innate behavior. Natural selection would have killed it the moment it reared its genetic “head”.
-Full stop-
That’s not to say some level of innate reciprocal altruism isn’t exercised. It is. But the hyper-altruism of risking your life to save a dog isn’t explained by this. That (foolish) behavior is learned.
There is no natural drive for behavior where the cost to self exceeds the benefit to self. Period.
I assume by “counterpart” you correctly refer to “innate human cruelty”.
O
o_mlly
Guest
If the woman intended to die to save the dog then you may have a point. If she, as is more likely, wanted to attempt an animal rescue sacrificing nothing more than her time then there is no point.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
It was still an altruistic act, even if she wasn’t aware of the risk. She was doing something which wasn’t in her own self-interest. Even if all that she thought it would cost her was time.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
I agree that some altruistic behaviors have to be taught, or at least have to be reinforced. But I would also contend that many altruistic behaviors are simply innate, with each of us possessing them to a greater or lesser degree.
For example, most women, from my experience at least, seem to think that babies are just the cutest things ever. I on the other hand, not so much. But it makes sense that evolution would endow women with a greater nurturing sense than men, because there are just certain things that women can offer a baby that men can’t. On the other hand, evolution seems to have endowed men with the role of protector and provider. Threaten what’s mine, and I’ll defend it. Both men and women seem to possess these attributes, but to greater or lesser degrees.
These behaviors could reasonably be defined as reciprocal altruism, born out of one’s own self-interest. But there are two distinct scenarios in which such behavior transitions from reciprocal altruism to selfless altruism. One is when that innate drive is so strong that it leads us to do things which aren’t actually in our own self-interest, but which we do without thinking them through. They’re simply born out our innate drive to nurture and protect. The woman who died trying to save the dog may be just such a case. She acted to save the dog without actually considering the danger that she was putting herself in, until it was too late. The second scenario is one in which one does indeed have time to consider the consequences, but the drive to act is so strong that it overcomes the percieved risk to one’s own self-interest.
I can think of many examples of such behavior, but perhaps the best example that I can come up with is to have you watch the following video, and then tell me what you would do if you were there.
youtube.com/watch?v=jK9oSB-mHOQ
WARNING!!! Viewer discretion is advised. (This video is blocked for minors by Youtube!)
My hope is that you would choose to act, even though it certainly wouldn’t be in your own self-interest to do so. You might argue that this is a perfect example of the type of act that evolution can’t select for. But I would argue that it’s the very drive to nurture and protect which will inevitably prompt you to act even when it’s not in your own self-interest to do so.
I agree that altruistic behavior can be taught, but I also contend that evolution has endowed us with a natural drive to nurture and protect, and that the strength of that drive is determined through natural selection to be the most evolutionarily beneficial to our species. The benefits that our species draws from such behavior outweighs the cost that it sometimes imparts.
We’re altruistic, because it’s evolutionarily beneficial to be altruistic.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure. Parental investment theory. Sea turtles get almost none from day 1, humans require it until around puberty (and longer in modern society).
The degree of “innate-ness” is highly debatable. We love watching clips of surrogate and adoptive parenting across species because it’s so rare. Reminds me of the popular lioness protecting the injured fox. The other 99.99% of the time this scenario plays out, the fox is eaten. Many have offered that the lioness was temporarily influenced by maternal hormones as she was raising cubs at the time (they ultimately ate the fox).
We’re also brutally cruel for the same reason (women included). When forming a moral ethos from evolution, it would be incomplete, if not deceptive, to exclude this from some evolution-based, atheist doxology.
Good enough for me.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Generally, humans, I think, do not have pets for the sake of the pet. The warm-fuzzy feelings that pets generate in humans do motivate. Ever hear a woman talk to her pet? Sounds just like she’s talking to a baby.
B
Bradski
Guest
If a moral action is agreed by 99% of people we cannot use that fact to make a decision on whether it is correct of not. Likewise if 100% of people agree to it. Although who is then going to question it is problematical. Which is why, for important matters, we should always question the status quo. I always urge that someone needs to play the Devils Advocate.
Agreed. But we then need evidence to confirm if our common sense has given us a valid answer.
And I pretty much agree here, as well. Matthew 7:12.
I
inocente
Guest
“Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.”inocente;14525499:
Then you’ve not been following the appeals of Bradski and EnosJadon to our “innate altruism”.
You argued previously that articles on Wikipedia don’t meet those scholarly standards. It is my sad duty to inform you that posts on an internet forum don’t either.
Btw, the quote is from Wikipedia :flowers:
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would agree some altruistic behaviours have to taught or at least reinforced, but we also have innate altruistic behaviours, but I’m surprised by the example you have chosen to demonstrate this. The example you have chosen in my view a very ‘western male’ one - women are the nurturers men are the protectors and providers. I have had many a debate with a ‘western male’ on this topic. There are any amount of arguments and evidence that the traditional gender roles are a product of societal conditioning, and are neither a product of evolution nor ‘God given.’
Yes, women generally find babies the cutest thing ever more than men, but generally speaking only after they have had their own. Lots of women who have not had babies do not think they are the cutest thing ever. I believe the bond between mother and child is a very unique one, and arguably the strongest human bond there is, but I think this stems from practicalities - they have them they feed them. Whilst women may think babies are cute they are also generally speaking quick to hand them back to the ‘original owner’ when they start crying.
I
inocente
Guest
There are also issues such as incest. Children raised in large communal groups have no idea who their siblings are, and so as adults, incest occurs leading to less viability, more congenital disorders, etc. Children raised in smaller groups (e.g. kibbutz) or by their own parents alone develop a yuck taboo for the others in the group, so that strategy is the one which survived.
- Status