Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[o_mlly]

We don’t begin with self interest. You could do a profit and loss calculation and work out if it’s more beneficial to share food as opposed to not and then operate depending on the outcome.

? The two sentences are contradictory. Remember Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory: self interested traders in the market compete with each other, leading markets towards positive output.

So, yes, your theory begins (and, as we shall see, ends) with self-interest.

People help each other and that’s obviously beneficial. So reciprocal altruism becomes the norm. It’s built in to the group.

Self-interest and altruism are contrary motivations. Reciprocal altruism is an oxymoron. Altruistic behavior is always selfless. “Reciprocal” implies an expectation of reward, a quid pro quo arrangement. Your explanation remains at its core one of self-interest.

So this has nothing to do with a fear of being robbed or assaulted. You don’t help someone because you’re afraid of him.

No, your theory has everything to do with fear. Fear of hunger, fear of some deprivation, fear of oppression by others. At its core, fear is, as you’ve explained it so far, the motivating force for members to cooperate within the group. Your explanation does not permit throwing in the word “altruism” at the end with no predicate.

Yet altruistic behaviors in humanity are a reality. Why would anyone act to increase the other’s well-being at the cost of one’s own? You have not explained the source of those behaviors. You will not give credit to the true source of all goodness.

 

[goout]

well done thanks

 

[goout]

…
I know you’ll find this difficult to believe but almost everyone has sex simply because it feels great. Maybe if it had been designed differently…

yea I find it to believe that human beings are merely instinctual animals who act on feelings without the powers of reason and the practice of virtue.
In fact, someone who behaves in this way is considered to be dehumanized, or “acting like an animal”
Names are used: cad. bonvivant. etc.,…

The children of the enlightenment are struggling…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

…
I know you’ll find this difficult to believe but almost everyone has sex simply because it feels great. Maybe if it had been designed differently…

yea I find it to believe that human beings are merely instinctual animals who act on feelings without the powers of reason and the practice of virtue.
In fact, someone who behaves in this way is considered to be dehumanized, or “acting like an animal”
Names are used: cad. bonvivant. etc.,…

The children of the enlightenment are struggling…

I had sex last night because it was fun. Are you calling my wife and I dehumanised? Are you saying that she acted like an animal? And please consider your reply to be one that you’d make face to face if you could.

Maybe we just reasoned that we weren’t going to conceive. Next time you have sex with your wife with no desire that she becomes pregnant how are you going to describe how you act?

 

[Abrosz]

Though we are discussing the all-loving God, aka theology, deeper analysis of being all-loving accounts for this point as well.

Not until we can agree what kind of behavior is / should be called “loving”. Allowing someone to make FATAL mistakes, when there is no evidence for what constitutes a FATAL mistake and not even WARN the person that she is about to commit a fatal mistake - definitely does NOT mean to be “loving”. And don’t even think to refer to the bible, the church or the magisterium as “sufficient” warnings. Even if YOU consider it sufficient, others don’t. The only sufficient warning would be a PERSONAL declaration from God.

Do you agree that from zygote to natural death we have the same DNA?

Of course. And so does a tumor, malignant or benign. The fact is that I already presented the argument about this question. Please go and read it.

We have common ground, I support the use of natural preventive birth control methods, such as abstinence and Natural Family Planning.

There is nothing “natural” about “NFP”. It is most unnatural to perform all those procedures before having sex. It kills all the spontaneity, and thus kills the “natural” aspect. Of course you can do it, if you want to, but very few people agree with you. Same about abstinence. Do it, if that rocks your boat, but do not expect others to follow suit.

Sex is only partially for propagating the species, it is also excellent for bonding, for reducing stress and for pleasure. Only a small percentage of people practice abstinence, and it is their prerogative. And it is none of your business to render judgment about those who disagree. Active preventive methods are a much better choice. But since you are adamantly against those, we cannot have a common ground.

And the reason no woman ever wants to have an abortion and why you you would prefer to see NO abortion at all is because it is obviously wrong, hence the evil classification.

Since you are confused about the meaning of "“evil”, I am not interested in your non-arguments.

A person recognizes a “doctor” is about to kill a human, aged 8 months pre-birth, when a patient enters an abortion procedure. The person chooses to forcefully prevent the killing.

If you don’t see the difference between DNA - zygote - blastocyst - embryo - fetus - newborn (and you DON’T), you don’t qualify as a rational conversation partner.

Also, why do you want to see abortions decrease significantly?

Because it is not fun! And because the women don’t prefer it. And I disagree that a morning-after pill is “abortion”.

There is…this pill you speak of is called the seed of a man, aka sperm.

You don’t understand. The ideal solution would be to eliminate the conception UNLESS both parties explicitly want / prefer it. And the point is how to eliminate conception while keeping the pleasure part.

 

[goout]

goout:

Freddy:

…
I know you’ll find this difficult to believe but almost everyone has sex simply because it feels great. Maybe if it had been designed differently…

yea I find it to believe that human beings are merely instinctual animals who act on feelings without the powers of reason and the practice of virtue.
In fact, someone who behaves in this way is considered to be dehumanized, or “acting like an animal”
Names are used: cad. bonvivant. etc.,…

The children of the enlightenment are struggling…

I had sex last night because it was fun. Are you calling my wife and I dehumanised? Are you saying that she acted like an animal? And please consider your reply to be one that you’d make face to face if you could.

Maybe we just reasoned that we weren’t going to conceive. Next time you have sex with your wife with no desire that she becomes pregnant how are you going to describe how you act?

Of course, yea that’s what I said. NOT.
Read again. Or keep on proselytizing.

Tell me, do you really have the answers or are you still searching for a mysterious God?
Have a great day. Good that you are here.

 

[goout]

www.flyingspaghettimonstersforums.com

#blogsthatdontexist

 

[Freddy]

No, your theory has everything to do with fear. Fear of hunger, fear of some deprivation, fear of oppression by others. At its core, fear is, as you’ve explained it so far, the motivating force for members to cooperate within the group. Your explanation does not permit throwing in the word “altruism” at the end with no predicate.

Yet altruistic behaviors in humanity are a reality. Why would anyone act to increase the other’s well-being at the cost of one’s own? You have not explained the source of those behaviors. You will not give credit to the true source of all goodness.

Well, I’ve explained it. More than once. Perhaps one more time?

Those who exhibit characteristics that prompt altruism (sharing food perhaps) get to live longer that those who don’t. The evolution of those charcteristics in social groups has been understoof for many years: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/406755

Those who don’t exhibit those tendancies (it’s a genetic dice roll) are generally excluded from tbe group. See this article on bats for an example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/11/151117-vampire-bats-blood-food-science-animals/

So the group has a genetic preponderance of ‘altruistic genes’ and they will propogate throughout a group given the right conditions. So those who are genetically ‘selfish’ will be a significantly smaller proportion of those who aren’t. And the group survives.

But as you don’t believe there was time for all this to occur the point is moot and I’m wasting my time explaining this…

 

[Freddy]

Tell me, do you really have the answers…

Yes. After a lifetime of examining the problems I really have come to the conclusion that I have most of the answers. It’s going to keep me warm and comfortable at nights in my old age. Well, that plus a decent Speyside malt.

 

[goout]

goout:

Tell me, do you really have the answers…

Yes. After a lifetime of examining the problems I really have come to the conclusion that I have most of the answers. It’s going to keep me warm and comfortable at nights in my old age. Well, that plus a decent Speyside malt.

That’s awesome. So you don’t really need Christianity to give meaning and purpose to your days, day after day, hour after hour. Right?

Are you sure you have solid answers? Are you really doing good examination of your life?
Or do your actions and time usage reveal a need?
Enjoy your day here, and share a drink with us please. Sounds delicious.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, I’ve explained it. More than once. Perhaps one more time?

You’ve tried to explain, yes. But you, and your sources, have not explained how self-interest and altruism can simultaneously motivate one’s behavior. The reason is simple: the former is self-centered and the latter is other-oriented at the cost of self-interest. I know you’d like to think that mutation and natural selection explain more than the physical diversity in life, i.e., immaterial diversity but you have not.

I’m wasting my time explaining this…

No, it does expose your errors in logic. The next step is, of course, up to you. Head in the sand or rethink your philosophy of human nature.

 

[goout]

…
I’m wasting my time explaining this…

Interesting. Your time is valuable. How you use it says a lot about what gives meaning and purpose to your life.
Christianity. God loves you. Christ is the answer to all of life’s questions.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

Tell me, do you really have the answers…

Yes. After a lifetime of examining the problems I really have come to the conclusion that I have most of the answers. It’s going to keep me warm and comfortable at nights in my old age. Well, that plus a decent Speyside malt.

That’s awesome. So you don’t really need Christianity to give meaning and purpose to your days, day after day, hour after hour. Right?

Are you sure you have solid answers? Are you really doing good examination of your life?

I’ve been around the traps. I’ve a fair idea of how I work. And now a pretty good idea of why. As Socrates said: ‘An unexamined life is not worth living’. And this after…well, it’s decades anyway. I’m far enough along to know enough to see the world a lot clearer than I used to. Clear enough anyway.

It’s my dry midweek period at the moment. But I’ll have a beer with you on Friday and we can argue some more.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well, I’ve explained it. More than once. Perhaps one more time?

You’ve tried to explain, yes. But you, and your sources, have not explained how self-interest and altruism can simultaneously motivate one’s behavior. The reason is simple: the former is self-centered and the latter is other-oriented at the cost of self-interest.

They balance each other. Altruism keeps the group together. Selfishness prevents people from taking advantage of your altruistic behaviour and collapsing the whole system.

You, me and goout are sharing our food. There’s generally enough for three and if you have a bad day foraging then you still get to eat. If I can’t find anything then I get to eat what you and goout bring to the camp.

Then you start swinging the lead. You don’t put in the time. Me and goout are doing the hard yards and you think - ‘Why should I bother? There’s always enough for each of us’. But goout and I feel a sense of injustice. I react selfishly and think of myself doing the work and not getting the full benefit from the group. And goout thinks the same.

Next thing…you’re on your own and we’ve found someone else who helps out.

AsI said, this is so common in nature as to almost be a cliche. Read that article about bats for an example. You cannot have read it so far because it specifically addresses your question as to how altruism and selfish behaviour (in rejecting those that don’t exhibit it) actually works.

 

[o_mlly]

But goout and I feel a sense of injustice.

To what do you appeal that allows you to feel a “sense of injustice”?

 

[MPat]

No, I don’t. It’s not required.

Neither is having a discussion.

Anyway, I did see some hints of progress.

Looks like now it’s the turn for your conscience to play a part.

The positions that those who class themsleves as pro choice are honestly held positions and they are not something to be treated as if it’s a bumper sticker slogan glibly and naiively tossed about to score debating points.

And once again: how can you possibly know that…?

After all, as you well know, you have a “conflict of interest” here.

 

[enoch1]

why do people even think like this??,i cannot understand why anyone would waste their time thinking of this???

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But goout and I feel a sense of injustice.

To what do you appeal that allows you to feel a “sense of injustice”?

I don’t ‘appeal’ to anything. As I don’t appeal to anything when I feel a sense of fear. Or horror. Or compassion. There are a lot more than 5 senses.

They’re evolved characteristics of many creatures, especially primates. You can say that God arranged things so that they developed naturally or you can say they came fully formed 6,000 years ago. That’s up to you. I’m just explaining the parts they play in our development.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The positions that those who class themsleves as pro choice are honestly held positions and they are not something to be treated as if it’s a bumper sticker slogan glibly and naiively tossed about to score debating points.

And once again: how can you possibly know that…?

Well, allow me to say that I assume that someone who has made a decision on such matters has thought about it enough as to make that decision an honest one based on what they believe.

And that stands for those on both sides of the arguments.

 

[MPat]

Well, allow me to say that I assume that someone who has made a decision on such matters has thought about it enough as to make that decision an honest one based on what they believe.

Yes. You do not know, you just assume.

Given that, you should not talk as if you know.

Look at what you were writing:

I think that you need to accept that people have different views on this matter and have reached those views over a long period of thought and have listened to arguments from both sides. And those two sides are pro life and pro choice . That is not word play. That is an accurate representation of the position of very many people. Which means exactly what it says. That the choice to have an abortion is to be left to the woman and to no-one else.

So nobody is ‘buying in’ to anything. The positions that those who class themsleves as pro choice are honestly held positions and they are not something to be treated as if it’s a bumper sticker slogan glibly and naiively tossed about to score debating points.

Now consider, what would change if you would make it clear that you only assume those positions are honest.

For example, by what right do you demand others to make that same assumption?

It could be consistent to demand that others would not make an assumption you know to be false, or to demand that they would avoid making any assumption, if you would also do likewise. But the demand that others would assume as you do requires some special conditions. Are you sure you can meet them (and show that you do)…?

I’d say there are enough problems here, even if we ignore the complications caused by your belief that morality is subjective…