Motivations for good works: believers vs. non-believers

[Bradskii]

(cont’d)

So the current theory is that certain people have a tendency to act selflessly. Or rather that their tendency to act that way overides their tendency to act selfishly. Which results in what we describe as reciprocal altruism. And that enables groups to form - purely because the division of labour and food within a group is more efficient than it is from an individual perspective.

Those within any given group who carry the genes for altruism then survive longer than those without it, so the gene is distributed wider throught the population. And those without that gene do not survive as well, hence their genetic makeup has e tendency to die out.

All this does not mean that selfishness is bred out. Far from it. Selfish people can still survive by bucking the system (and we are all selfish to a certain extent). But increase the selfish behaviour past a certain point and the group structure collapses.

All this happened in the deep past automatically. No-one sat down and scratched a cost benefit spreadsheet in the dirt with a pointy stick. It was instinctive. But now we have evolved to a point where we can consider the consequences of our actions so we can ask ‘what should we do’.

Those questions then become part of what we describe as morality.

 

[MPat]

Where on EARTH do people get this from? I mean, seriously, do you only help people because Jesus told you to? If that is so, then you are not the person I would turn to for help.

By the way, there is one more aspect worth exploring.

For, of course, the truth is almost the opposite: there is a reason to be cautious about someone who only does good because of feelings (empathy and the like).

After all, reason is far more stable than feelings.

If feelings change to the ones prompting one to do evil, but reason is there in reserve, it might stop one from doing much evil. Even if the reason only tells us “Don’t do that or you’ll be punished.”.

Also, the feelings are not reliable. Even empathy, that is sometimes praised as basis of morality by the atheists, can encourage one do do evil. It can tell one to share what one has with others, but it can also encourage one to join a lynch mob (“The victim feels terrible. I feel terrible. And I feel angry! Look, that might be a perpetrator! Do bad things to him!!!”). Again, things are not quite as bad, if there is reason in reserve.

That should be rather obvious to anyone. So, why do atheists deny that?

It might be that they suspect that their own reason would not be that good at preventing them from doing evil.

First, the “reasonable” theories their reason (like utilitarianism) can use are cumbersome. Evaluating consequences is much slower than running an argument like “Church prohibits X. That is an instance of X. I should not do what Church prohibits. Therefore, I should not do this.”.

Second, the “reasonable” theories their reason can use are vulnerable to question “Why should I care?”. “I should not rob this bank, that would increase the total misery.” - “Why should I care?” - “Um…”.

Third, the “reasonable” theories their reason can use are notoriously unreliable. Perhaps even less reliable than feelings.

And that’s also why atheist reasons for not doing evil tend to be bad poetry so often (how many answers in this thread were “poetry that doesn’t rhyme”?). They are tying to motivate themselves by “activating” the relevant feelings.

Oh, well, that’s better than nothing…

But there is a much better way.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Where on EARTH do people get this from? I mean, seriously, do you only help people because Jesus told you to? If that is so, then you are not the person I would turn to for help.

By the way, there is one more aspect worth exploring.

For, of course, the truth is almost the opposite: there is a reason to be cautious about someone who only does good because of feelings (empathy and the like).

After all, reason is far more stable than feelings.

You should read the posts more carefully.

But now we have evolved to a point where we can consider the consequences of our actions so we can ask ‘what should we do’.

Instinct got us here. Reason keeps us here.

 

[MPat]

You should read the posts more carefully.

Instinct got us here. Reason keeps us here.

Oh, I did read your posts carefully enough.

That’s not the problem.

The problem is that you want me to just believe what you say about yourself. And I do not.

And why should I? You are a witness with an obvious conflict of interest.

Yes, you praise reason in abstract. Yet whenever we get a somewhat more specific case, we see you mistrust (sometimes even insult) reason and rely on feelings.

For example, in this very thread you have called precision in talking (essential for reason) “hair splitting”.

On the other hand, it looks like there were no specific examples of use of reason in moral matters that would have been praised. I pressed for an example of reasoning demonstrating that “selfish” is worse than “selfless” - none was provided.

Not that such a curious position is unique among atheists…

Of course, if we were talking about Bible, you would happily proclaim that witness testimony is unreliable, that witnesses lie and are mistaken. Yet here you expect to be believed in spite of other evidence pointing the other way?

 

[Bradskii]

The problem is that you want me to just believe what you say about yourself. And I do not.

Trust me…I won’t spend a sleepless night tonight if you disagree with anything I say.

On the other hand, it looks like there were no specific examples of use of reason in moral matters that would have been praised. I pressed for an example of reasoning demonstrating that “selfish” is worse than “selfless” - none was provided.

Unless you disagree that selfishness is more detrimental to society than selflessness, then I’m not sure what you need. As I said earlier, it’s good in any given debate to work back to a point where the people having the debate can agree on a given point and then move on from there.

Do you disagree with it? I really have nothing to add except to say that the sentence above actually defines why one is worse than the other.

Now if you have any argument to make regarding my position, then feel free to make it. It is, as already stated:

Instinctive behaviour, as in the better angels of our nature, has got us where we are now (despite the darker side of our nature trying to upset the apple cart). And reason keeps us here.

Please feel free to argue against either of those statements as you see fit.

 

[STT]

Yes. The existence of poverty which is the result of the property shows us that we are selfish.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. The existence of poverty which is the result of the property shows us that we are selfish.

It’s a long and complex connection, but you may be right. There is a tendency to move from a very early form of existence, which was almost by definition a socialist society, to a capitalist one.

 

[STT]

I think we should be looking for one social state. We are at the end equal. That is the fate which spreads our seeds along the world.

 

[MPat]

Trust me…I won’t spend a sleepless night tonight if you disagree with anything I say.

Most certainly.

You would spend a sleepless night if you would notice you disagree with yourself.

Unless you disagree that selfishness is more detrimental to society than selflessness, then I’m not sure what you need.

Yes, you really are not sure.

The very reaction fits with what I suspect: you act as if an argument’s goal would have be to persuade me that selfishness is bad.

Thus it sure looks like you are not constructing such an argument on your own to check your views for consistency. And I suspect that you are unlikely to construct one in order to find out how you should act. That is, you are likely to just rely on feelings and not on reason. Which is the point I was exploring.

Anyway, there is something from which you could try to construct an argument:

selfishness is more detrimental to society than selflessness

So, the argument would be:

1. Whatever is bad for society is evil. (premise)
2. Selfishness is bad for society. (premise)
3. Selfishness is evil. (from 1, 2)

Good.

Now the problem is that you seem to treat the second premise as self-evident, having no objections. And, of course, it is not so.

So, an obvious objection is that, in market economy, businessmen benefit the whole society by providing goods and services, even when they selfishly only seek their own profit. Therefore, it looks like selfishness is not bad for society.

So, have you ever considered this objection, and have you constructed an answer to it?

Also, I guess I should point out: my point is not that “selfishness” is good. My point is that you did not reason about that all that much, instead relying on feelings, instincts and “It’s obvious!” (probably also “peer pressure”).

And that this is bad not merely because reasoning is good, but also because you mistakenly think that your opinions are based on reason. And from this error, others follow.

 

[Bradskii]

1. Whatever is bad for society is evil. (premise)
2. Selfishness is bad for society. (premise)
3. Selfishness is evil. (from 1, 2)

Selfishness is detrimental to the formation of societies (and we are talking about times when groups were just starting to be formed). As I have kept on saying…and as I said earlier, it is also the basis for self preservation so it could hardly be described as evil. And I’m not relying on feelings or instinct to formulate that opinion. I’m saying that in the first instance, selfishness and selflessness are instinctive in themselves.

And again, as I said earlier, nobody in the far distant past sat down and worked out the best characteristics that were required to form groups. This happened automatically.

Now we are able to actually sit and think about the consequences of our actions we can work out what we should do rather than rely on instinct. So yes, someone wanting to make a lot of money for themselves, and by doing so employ a lot of people with a decent wage, could be described as selfish, but in that particular circumstance, it could be described as being beneficial to society.

On the other hand, if that person paid ridiculously low wages to maximise his profit, then that would be detrimental to society.

I’m not sure what you are arguing against…

 

[Eric_Hyom]

So yes, someone wanting to make a lot of money for themselves, and by doing so employ a lot of people with a decent wage, could be described as selfish

Sadly; you can’t become a billionaire unless you overcharge your customers; and underpay your staff. Paying people in India or China a dollar an hour is not charity.

I struggle with the thought of people like Bill Gates; who claim to be giving away vast fortunes to help others, yet he still remains one of the richest people on earth.

 

[MPat]

As I have kept on saying…and as I said earlier, it is also the basis for self preservation so it could hardly be described as evil.

So yes, someone wanting to make a lot of money for themselves, and by doing so employ a lot of people with a decent wage, could be described as selfish, but in that particular circumstance, it could be described as being beneficial to society.

Good.

And I’m not relying on feelings or instinct to formulate that opinion.

Yes, it looks like it is possible to get you to rely on reason. Although it is tiring…

I’m not sure what you are arguing against…

Maybe you are not.

I hope you understand that would be a great weakness.

So, now that you have explicitly admitted that things are more complex than “Selflessness good, selfishness bad.”, let’s go one step back (if, by any chance, you will want to know more about that, see https://dhspriory.org/thomas/Ethics4.htm):

Unless you disagree that selfishness is more detrimental to society than selflessness, then I’m not sure what you need.

Do you disagree with it? I really have nothing to add except to say that the sentence above actually defines why one is worse than the other.

At which point you asked why a selfish act is better than a selfless one. Which is like asking why a good act is better than a bad one.

So, as you can see, I did demand the proof for a reason: things are more complicated.

Let’s go one more step back:

Where on EARTH do people get this from? I mean, seriously, do you only help people because Jesus told you to? If that is so, then you are not the person I would turn to for help.

So you do accept that acting out of fear (of…I don’t know…hell?), which is effectively acting for selfish reasons (I don’t want to go to hell), isn’t as virtuous as acting for unselfish reasons (I don’t mind if there are some negative consequences for myself as long as the other person benefits).

Which is the explanation in itself.

As we can see, you claimed that doing good because of fear of hell is worse than doing good instinctively, because one is selfish and other is selfless, and that’s that, how can one ask for more.

Now we discovered that things are more complicated. So, you have to update your explanation.