The Problem of Charity for the non-Theist (Bill Gates founder of Microsoft)

[Jocko_VT]

No, because non-human animals do not exhibit altruistic behavior.

Just a few examples from wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

"Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.

"Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.

"Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.

"Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.

"Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.

"Chimpanzees will help humans and conspecifics without any reward in return.

"Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.

"Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.

"Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.

“Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.”

*All *of these show behavior that is not useful in perpetuating the genes of the individual. *All *of them show behaviors (“mistakes”) that are useful in perpetuating the genes of the group. *Some *of them show even bigger “mistakes,” in which the perpetuated genes will be from another species!!!

Next thing you tell me, humans are going to be spending billions of dollars every year to keep post-reproductive cats and dogs alive, thus perpetuating no genetic material at all!!! That would be ridiculous!!!

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess there will be a response like, “Yes, but these non-human animals do not realize that they’re putting themselves at risk. Humans are conscious in a way the animals aren’t.” Please prove me wrong!!! But in case that’s the response, let me repeat: The genes aren’t conscious. The human being experiences the altruistic tendency as normal and as something to be responded to. It’s just like love or hate. Yes, our intellects *can *be used to go against our drives, but it’s not abnormal, from an evolutionary point of view, for humans to be altruistic even when the altruistic act does nothing for personal genetic advantage.

This is where another presupposition may be at play. I don’t think humans are inherently evil, or are evil because they’ve drifted form god, or however you want to put it. I think humans are inherently moral animals–that’s what humans are. Thus, altruism comes naturally. It’s what being human involves. It’s the same with love and hate and jealousy and hunger and lust, etc., and eyes and ears and taste, etc. Altruism is in no more need of explanation, by non-theists or theists, than any other aspect of humanity. Theists feel compelled, it seems to me, to make everything needy of explanation so that they can claim a monopoly on it–I’m paraphrasing what someone else posted just above. What *does *need an explanation is traits that are inhumane. I’ve been discussing that elsewhere in here.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Thus, can we form a hypothesis about what we wouldn’t expect to see in any non-human creatures if man alone has the sole gift of moral enlightenment among those who roam the earth?

Interesting notion. If man is alone amongst the animals in his morality, and if the Bill Gates example is an example of said morality, the we should never see a non-human animal do anything which is directly at odds with that animal’s own survival. Or, to give the animals more credit, we should never see a non-human animal do anything which is directly at odds with that animal’s own survival or the survival of its close kin.

Does that sound like a good start?

 

[tdgesq]

But, in the small-group situation in which humans evolved, passing on the genes of the group and passing on one’s own genes are 99.999+ percent identical outcomes.

Assuming this is true, the point still stands. The distinction is between “passing on my genes” (albeit indirectly through a closely related interbred group) as opposed to “passing on any genes.” Here, Gates isn’t doing anything to pass on his genes, not even indirectly through that of his own genetic group. He is instead assisting some other genetic pool to pass on its genes. Is there a viable evolutionary theory to account for this?

I’m only talking about biological evolution. It’s all that’s real and that matters.

Well, you won’t get any disagreement from me that social evolutionary theories aren’t real. Then again, they aren’t my theories, but they are held by some people who have posted here.

Once again, humans evolved over 100s of thousands and even 10s of millions of years. For all but about the last 10,000 of those years, *all *humans lived in small groups. In the course of the previous millions of years, this self-sacrificing trait we’re discussing provided such a large survivability advantage that it spread throughout all of the species (i.e., it was a part of humans millions of years before homo sapiens emerged).

Is it 100s of thousands or is 10s of millions of years? Regardless, I am familiar with high school biology where it is taught evolution occurred in human beings over a “very long time.” It may provide a survivability advantage in terms of the perpetuation of the genes of that group of which a person is an integral part. Tribal cultures did and still do to this day kill members of other tribes.

The “mistake” aspect you speak of has only been on a large scale for the last several thousand year. This isn’t long enough for the genetically determined drive toward self sacrifice whither away due to the fact that it no longer saves people in the immediate group. Also, since virtually all humans (perhaps all who are not damaged in someway) have this trait, one needn’t survive at all for it to continue on.

1. The mistake would be both an evolutionary mistake and an intellectual mistake. I will get to the intellectual mistake later. The evolutionary consequence is that homo sapien no longer acts to perpetuate its own genes (in small groups or otherwise), but instead treats the world as its group and helps perpetuate the genes of other homo sapiens. Why? Because they can no longer distinguish between their own genetic group and those of other homo sapiens. What meaning does “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” continue to have when it doesn’t apply to one’s own gene pool? Furthermore, if homo sapiens are mistakenly viewing other gene pools as their own, we would expect this mistake to eventually to be corrected.
2. Unfortunately, experience shows us that large groups of homo sapien do not act the way you describe. Genocide is not a new concept, even where the rival group is essentially powerless. The Nazi murders of the Jews. The Rwandan massacres. These are instances where apparently homo sapien hasn’t discarded the notion of perpetuating its own genes.
3. Assuming that the trait of “passing on any genes” is correct, it is only one trait. There are many other traits to consider (intelligence, physical conditioning, procreative ability) that are worthy of passing on. You are assuming that the “passing on any genes” trait is the most important one to pass on. It is difficult to see why considering that it is a mistake in the first place and unlikely to be helpful in passing on ones own genetics.

So, yes, Gates is responding to a drive with a behavior that is no longer going to perpetuate his local gene pool, if you will. That’s apparently what you’re getting at. But so what? The trait evolved over millions of years in small groups where the trait would be advantageous, and currently functions even though it doesn’t really function to improve one’s own survivability.

Then what function does it serve. If improving ones own survivability and propagation of genetic material isn’t the driving factor, what end does this mistaken behavior serve?

Do keep in mind, there has never been a conscious effort to perpetuate ones own genetic group. Our genes never had to make that distinction between us and them because it was always consciously evident enough. Thus, Gates’ self-sacrificial drive applies to others, generally.

This is not true. The Nazi Party’s own propaganda makes it self-evident that conscious efforts in this regard have been made.

How bout another example of a mistake: When something goes bump in the night in the modern Western world, it’s nothing to be concerned about 99.999999 percent of the time. Yet, our senses detect it, our heart rate increases, our palms start to let out a bit more perspiration, etc., to get us ready for fight or flight. That’s a mistake. Currently it provides no survival advantage. But, it did provide a survival advantage on the savanna 50,000 years ago!

Yet it does provide some survival advantage, and sometimes an important one (my life and that of my family) in the fractional percentage cases. I doubt a loud noise on the savanna was something to worry about 99% of the time either. At least there is some explanation for why these genes would continue to be passed. If they are unnecessary to survival then we would expect them to eventually be weeded out. Note that something very very bad is about to happen to your theory.

 

[tdgesq]

… CONTINUED

Another “mistake theory” example: Mothers seek to protect their children–to nurture them–because they’re driven to do so by human traits that increase survivability.
. . .
In other words, out of our drive to nurture our children, we will intellectually consider the best opportunities for nurturing our children, which actually gets in the way of nurturing our children!!

No one denies that unsuccessful survival behavior exists, like a mother providing care that she believes will be beneficial to her child but isn’t. A mistake. What do evolutionary theories predict will happen to behavior like this? It will not be passed on. You propose a theory where human beings mistakenly ensure the survival of genes other than their own, and even to some degree or another compromise their own ability to ensure the survival of their own genes. What should we expect to happen from an evolutionary standpoint to this behavior?

Social evolution is irrelevant. Social evolution doesn’t trump biological evolution. Gates’ desire to help others will win out so long as he doesn’t see the people he’s helping as strangers to be feared.

You mean that Gates’ mistaken desire to help his own genetic group will win out so long as he doesn’t perceive an immediate threat to himself. If he see this as his own genetic group then it seems he would risk his own well being, just like the baboon example you gave below from wiki. It could be though that he has an intellect that distinguishes his behavior from the lesser primates.

Just a few examples from wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

Um, also:

This section contains embedded lists that may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. Please help to clean it up to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.

Jocko, it is difficult to take you seriously when you do things like this. Go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you want to learn more.

*All *of these show behavior that is not useful in perpetuating the genes of the individual. *All *of them show behaviors (“mistakes”) that are useful in perpetuating the genes of the group. *Some *of them show even bigger “mistakes,” in which the perpetuated genes will be from another species!!!

And assuming that dogs don’t routinely savage cats, squirrels, and other small mammals; what do you think is going to happen to these unverified Wiki behaviors through the evolutionary process since they don’t contribute to the survival of dogs? My bet is on more dogs eating small tasty mammals.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess there will be a response like, “Yes, but these non-human animals do not realize that they’re putting themselves at risk. Humans are conscious in a way the animals aren’t.” Please prove me wrong!!!

I think you “guessed” the response because I told you in the last post that this is where the debate would focus. So no, you didn’t go out on a limb like you did with the unverified Wiki post. More to the point, human beings can and do consider their own genetic propagation intellectually. This can most commonly be seen in parents considering adoption of a child. There is no mistake made that there is not a genetic connection, and this is one of the primary reasons why parents (particularly those who can still have children) ultimately do not go through with the adoption process. Bill Gates isn’t intellectually mistaken that he is helping a population that doesn’t share his genes. He’s helping them despite knowing they don’t share his genes. He will gain no benefit to his survival or those of his genetic pool. It may even be a detriment to him.

Your explanation is that the mistake gene overwhelmingly requires him to make this decision. Of course he and his progeny will eventually be weeded out by natural selection for such a mistake. On the other hand, I believe his decision is an intellectual one that perceives some greater good besides his own genetic perpetuation exists. You can accuse him otherwise, but I don’t think people will listen to you.

 

[jinminn]

@Jocko_VT:

Thanks for looking up those wiki links. Yes, you got the gist of what I was going at. In other words, since this discussion has essentially been characterized by one camp yelling, “Evolution explains!” and the other saying, “No it doesn’t,” I resorted to my favorite route: just go look and find out.

In other words, humans have an extra variable that makes it difficult to study them – for the theist, the human alone can have a soul, divinely given love for one another at cost of self, etc.

Thus, perhaps in looking at animals, we can decide more concretely whether this altruistic tendency is as a result of man’s sharing in divine personhood, or whether it is present elsewhere among earth’s species.

@tdesq

Since you didn’t like the full wiki list (despite being able to check many sources for yourself), here are the examples parred down to only those with their basis in either books or peer reviewed journals:

• Book: How Monkeys See the World
  — Also see THIS writeup on the book, published in the journal, Behavior and Brain Sciences, which states:

Tai chimpanzees, however, totally independent of kin relationship, were regularlv seen to tend wounded animals for extended periods of time. Once this care was observed for more than 2 months (Boesch in press b). Individual reactions tend to indicate that they are aware of the needs of the wounded, e.g., they lick the blood away and remove all dirt particles with their fingers and lips, as well as preventing flies from coming near the wounds. In addition, empathy for the pain resulting from such wounds was clearly emonstrated by the reaction of other group members…

• HERE is a piece from an article entitled, “The Evolution of Human Altruism” from Journal of Philosophy that delves into how altruistic tendencies have come about through biological evolutionary processes.
• HERE we have an article in Current Biology showing that Bonobos chimpanzees voluntarily share their food rather than hoarding it.
• From Sagan’s Shadow of our Forgotten Ancestors, we have this about the Macaques:

In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so – 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

• HERE is a full text article from PLoS Biology demonstrating the altruism of chimpanzees. From the abstract:

These results indicate that chimpanzees share crucial aspects of altruism with humans, suggesting that the roots of human altruism may go deeper than previous experimental evidence suggested.

Hopefully these sources will be acceptable.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Concerning the altruism issue–Did you check the links?

Concerning just about everything else, it’s already been explained. You are intentionally ignoring the argument. Again, you keep thrusting your own misunderstandings of evolution into the mix when they are the impediment.

Humans, as homo sapiens, have evolved over 10s of 1000s or perhaps a couple of hundred thousand years. BUT, homo sapiens decend from other animals, and those animals share the genetic materials, and were “altruistic” in the same way, thus, millions of years of evolution are involved.

Concerning conscious perpetuation of genes, it’s extraordinary to me how you continue to intentionally miss the point. Now, it’s clear you’re simply dodging it.

Concerning genocides, etc. Read Bauman’s book Modernity and the Holocaust, or Postmodern Ethics. They explain the immorality of those occasions. Almost everyone necessary to the Holocaust were able to view their participation as amoral–e.g., filling out paper work, making the train schedule, delivering people or chemicals, looking the other way. While the severity of the consequence is certainly worse, in my opinion, the functioning is no different than buying diamonds or Nikes in a global market that creates slave labor, or eating fast food in a system that destroys the environment and makes people obese. How guilty do you feel when you eat at mcdonalds? Ever buy a diamond, or wear one?

Virtually ALL humans have the traits we’re talking about, which make them feel sympathy for those in need and make them want to help. What gets in the way of this is socialization. For example, when propaganda is used to say Jews or Blacks are genetically inferior, people see them as less than human and they become less concerned. When black men are shown in the media as violent, out of control, and threatening to people generally and white women in particular, well, that makes it easy to imagine the plight of black men as somehow just. 30,000 years ago, strangers were seen as threatening this way–better to avoid them, be wary of them, perhaps kill them. Today, some people, like Bill Gates, are well aware of the fact that Hatians are just like him, so there’s no socialization that gets in the way of the normal human drive to reach out to other humans.

Humans do not have a survivability issue today. If I give $1,000 to someone, it doesn’t affect my own reproduction in the least. Thus, giving, in our context, does not reduce my own survivability, nor that of my group. Increasing the survivability of another group also does not decrease my survivability. Hence, there are more than 6 Billion people on earth today!!! Get it? All humans have this trait (or collection of traits, or whatever). It will be passed on if any one of them creates a reproductively viable offspring. On the other hand, exercising this trait, in our day and age, neither increases nor decreases our own capacity to reproduce.

You are assuming that the “passing on any genes” trait is the most important one to pass on.

Passing on genes is the only important trait. That’s it. That’s all the gene is there for–to perpetuate itself. Passing on altruism is only important insofar as it passes on genes. Physical conditioning or intellect are only important insofar as they pass on genes. Strength, intellect, altruism, are not ends in themselves from an evolutionary perspective, though they are from a human perspective.

Now, if you want to keep this up, be more concise–you continue to make the same argument time and time again within the same post. Condense it. You’ve yet to say anything new, and you’re so defensive that you’re refusing to think critically about others arguments. I’ve already explained the answer to the O.P., and you’re just trying to muddy the water with examples that require that we go way beyond. This is why the real question is “why do people do evil.” Why the Rwandan massacre, Yugoslavia, the Holocaust, human sacrifice, etc. The answer to those questions are what we really need, because we already know why people do good–that’s what people are by their very nature.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Very nice.

This one is particularly useful to me:

• HERE is a full text article from PLoS Biology demonstrating the altruism of chimpanzees. From the abstract:

These results indicate that chimpanzees share crucial aspects of altruism with humans, suggesting that the roots of human altruism may go deeper than previous experimental evidence suggested.

tdgesq:
This is why it’s 10s, and 100s of 1000s of years, and millions and 10s of millions of years–humanity is a consequence of ALL the evolution before it.

 

[tdgesq]

@tdesq

Since you didn’t like the full wiki list (despite being able to check many sources for yourself)

It isn’t just me who didn’t like the wiki list. Wiki itself didn’t like it, which is why it explained that the list Jocko provided was unreliable. It’s a little bit ironic that I’m being chided for not checking the sources in the face of being presented with unsourced material, particularly when I did specifically refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

And that is where I will begin; with philosophical altruism, as this is the philosophy forum after all. Philosophical altruism is not the same thing as biological altruism. It is why it was very easy for me to conclude that non-human animals are’t altruistic in their behavior. I know that from a philosophical standpoint it is difficult to prove that human beings behave altruistically, much more so for other animals. Here are the definitional differences:

The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real’ altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real’ altruism nor therefore of ‘real’ selfishness either. Ants and termites, for example, presumably do not have conscious intentions, hence their behaviour cannot be done with the intention of promoting their own self-interest, nor the interests of others. Thus the assertion that the evolutionary theories reviewed above show that the altruism in nature is only apparent makes little sense. The contrast between ‘real’ altruism and merely apparent altruism simply does not apply to most animal species. plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/#5

Please note what biological altruism is trying to explain: fitness consequences, whether that be individual fitness or fitness of other individuals in the population. It is further attempting to explain how certain animal behavior reconciles with established evolutionary theories, all of which to some degree rely upon the notion of natural selection and survival of the fittest. If certain observed animal behavior is not explained by these evolutionary theories then some other theory that does explain it needs to be presented. With these concepts in mind, let’s examine what you’ve presented.

here are the examples parred down to only those with their basis in either books or peer reviewed journals:

Thank you. These are the types of sources that will be helpful to this discussion.

• HERE is a full text article from PLoS Biology demonstrating the altruism of chimpanzees. From the abstract:

I did scan the other works you provided. I chose this one to discuss for several reasons. First, it seems to have sparked the most interest among the other posters. Second, it deals with chimpanzees, who are genetically very similar to human beings. Third, it also tests human infants in the same study. Finally, it does at least make the attempt to study the matter under uniform scientific conditions. Now my comments.

The article does honestly admit that previous studies with chimps have not yielded results where it is clear they will assist other chimps, except under very restricted conditions. It does criticize some of those testing methods as being inadequate to give conclusive results, and it seeks to change those methods to try and give a clearer answer. While this may be true, before engaging in any scientific study the test group must be appropriate for the experiment. Here is the test group of chimps:

We tested 36 semi–free ranging chimpanzees living at the Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda (21 females and 15 males aged 3 to 20 y, M = 10 y). All of the chimpanzees were born in the wild, were unrelated, were orphans as a result of the illegal trade in chimpanzee bushmeat, and were confiscated from poachers. During the day, the chimpanzees were released to range freely in the 39 hectares of tropical forest on the island. In the evening, the chimpanzees returned to eat food provided by caregivers and slept in a large holding facility (4 m high and approximately 140 m2) consisting of seven rooms (3 × 5m) with interconnecting raceways. Therefore, subjects could be tested in their indoor enclosure before being released into the forest each day. The subjects were never food deprived and water was available at all times throughout the tests. Subjects could choose to stop participating at any time. Chimpanzees were mostly naive to empirical testing. One third of chimpanzees had participated in a social learning study 3 y prior to our experiment [30]. Most importantly, none of the subjects had previously been fed or tested by the first experimenter (BH).

These chimps were removed from their natural environment (at what age we don’t know) and placed in an environment where they were cared for by human beings. They were tested in an indoor enclosure. A minority had been subject to testing before. In fact, in experiment three the scientists “tested nine chimpanzees from Ngamba Island who, during an individual pretest, had been skillful in manipulating the door mechanism.” While I think they were trying to be fair in choosing an experimenter who none of the chips had been fed or tested by before, it is clear that they had at least some prior interaction with the experimenter.

. . . continued

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

All three experiments involved manipulating some kind of instrument: a wooden stick that was being struggled with by the experimenter, toy cubes, and a door that opened via a chain being pulled. What struck me immediately with the “struggling stick” experiment is that it looked like the subjects were having fun, particularly the children. I tried a crude version of the experiment at home with my own child. I don’t particularly believe that he was trying to help me, although he did seem to enjoy removing the stick that was “stuck” in the ground.

Similarly in the third experiment, the chimps knew how to open the cage by using the chain and had done so before while interacting with human beings. Whether they were enjoying playing with the mechanism or simply doing what they had been taught to do by people I can’t really say. What I can say is that this group of chimps appear to be much closer to domesticated dogs and cats than wild animals. The experimenters did try to stay neutral in the sense that they wouldn’t give a food reward for certain behavior. Then again, they have a group of chimps who have been taught to pull a chain to open cages. While playing tennis a dog still tries to retrieve the ball even after being cuffed several times. Does this really indicate that the test subjects are trying to “help” another without any benefit, or does it indicate that they are having fun doing something they have been taught to do by people?

Well, the researchers certainly conclude that it indicates altruistic behavior, but I think other conclusions such as my own are also reasonable - more reasonable. However, let’s assume that the conclusion of the researchers is correct. The behavior exhibited still doesn’t preclude group selection theories based on reciprocity, at least where the chimps are seen “helping” other chimps. More importantly, if none of the current selection theories (including kin selection) can account for this behavior, then what does account for it? The research article is keenly aware of this difficulty: “A crucial question for future research is to determine the proximate mechanisms by which these types of helping behaviors in chimpanzees are maintained as evolutionarily stable strategies.”

Indeed. How is this behavior accounted for if it doesn’t aid the fitness of the individual or the group (some type of expected reciprocity)? Frankly, I think the article suggests that researchers will find some explanation that fits in these categories. Otherwise there is no explanation for why chimps act this way, unless you want to come up with an entirely new evolutionary theory.

Finally, please notice that if you are correct you have just demolished Jocko’s theory. His theory is that human beings exhibit altruistic behavior because they are now part of a large worldwide group that they mistakenly perceive as their own chronologically primitive small group. Clearly chimps are not in this situation, yet they ostensibly also exhibit altruistic behavior, even towards human beings. If you want to propose a new evolutionary theory that accounts for the conclusions in the article, I would like to see it.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I still don’t understand what the problem with the wiki link was. Many of those examples had sources, in the wiki link that I provided.

Indeed. How is this behavior accounted for if it doesn’t aid the fitness of the individual or the group (some type of expected reciprocity)? Frankly, I think the article suggests that researchers will find some explanation that fits in these categories. Otherwise there is no explanation for why chimps act this way, unless you want to come up with an entirely new evolutionary theory.

We’ve already covered this above with humans. The chimp’s genes don’t care who/what the chimp helps. The behavior has, for millions or 10s of millions of years, now, increased survivability. It’s done this because in natural conditions, helping behaviors like this increase the likelihood that group members will survive, and group members share the same traits. We’ve been over this. Are you asking a different question and I’m missing it?

Finally, please notice that if you are correct you have just demolished Jocko’s theory. His theory is that human beings exhibit altruistic behavior because they are now part of a large worldwide group that they mistakenly perceive as their own chronologically primitive small group. Clearly chimps are not in this situation, yet they ostensibly also exhibit altruistic behavior, even towards human beings. If you want to propose a new evolutionary theory that accounts for the conclusions in the article, I would like to see it.

No. This is *not *what I said. Humans don’t exhibit altruistic behavior *because *they’re part of a worldwide group… Humans have *always *exhibited this behavior. Note that chimps, if they’re taken out of their natural habitat and placed with non-family members, including humans, are in precisely the same situation. The difference is only of scale. Like the humans, the chimps don’t care who they’re helping. They simply feel compelled to help. They feel compelled to help even animals not of their own species, just like humans do.

If anything, what this does show is that chimps, like humans, have a social world that trumps genetics.

 

[Jocko_VT]

@ tdgesq:

From the same place you quoted. In fact, the last paragraph, which is in the same section you quoted:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/#5

“Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism. Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one’s children — a quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their childrens’ welfare, i.e., who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.”

In other words, “biological altruism” may be, and I’ve been arguing is, “real” altruism. For the same reasons, it appears not only in humans, but in other primates, at least. I suspect in other animals, too. I’d differ with the article you’ve cited in how I’d make the argument. I don’t think it’s “selfish” to act in a certain way just because it’s reproductively advantageous. After all, we aren’t our genes. We are humans, which is, to me, something more. Of course, my capacity to say and think that is based on my ability to be a meaning-providing, thinking, self-reflecting being, and all that’s a result of billions of years of evolution.

As a caveat, I think you used the term “philosophical altruism,” which I didn’t see in the link’s text. I’m basing my points on the assumption that you meant “psychological altruism,” and accidentally typed “philosophical” because we’re in the philosophy forum.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I think that appealing to evolution as an explanation to charity is a little problematic. It may be true that animals exhibit several forms of selfless acts, but many things happen in natural selection and in the animal kingdom that we would not consider moral. A male mates with a female and leaves the female to raise the young on her own. A mother drags off a deformed or deficient newborn to die somewhere in seclusion. Some animals (like baboons) are really cruel to each other and alpha males end up killing less prominent males. And on and on and on we see many examples of behavior that humans would consider immoral or at least not worthy of imitating.

Now I know the people on this thread appealing to evolution as the source of charity, selflessness, and altruism aren’t necessarily arguing “whatever comes along via natural selection and evolution is moral”. I would just suggest that there has to be some other factors to account for why we view charity and altruism as moral and virtuous. After all I’m sure you would admit that at least at face value, giving money away for no benefit or reciprocal advantage seems pretty irrational. I suppose someone could say, “ I don’t have to explain my actions, I felt like helping these people out and that’s all there is to it.” Well that’s fine, but I don’t think that can be a good explanation for explaining why charity is a moral thing to do; rather it seems like that explanation simply claims that giving money to the poor and needy is a subjective, personal preference.

I think the non theist is in the position of having to show why charity is moral in the sense that it is something we should expect of people who have enough wealth to give their money to those in need. If an appeal to natural selection is made than the non theist should explain why charity is morally commendable (as distinct from advantageous in a primitive animal communal setting) and it is different from other behavioral occurrences that happen in the animal kingdom. None of this is to imply that theists are morally superior to non theists and that non theists are incapable of acting morally. I just want to get a better understanding of how atheists and agnostics can defend charity as moral. Christians could simply say that Jesus said, “ Love your neighbor as yourself” and “by this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another”.

I just skimmed over all the pages of this thread so I apologize if I’m touching on issues that have already been addressed.

 

[jinminn]

@tdgesq:

Thanks for the reply. We seem to be going in circles a bit. Perhaps we should take a step back. Would you please answer each of these?

• What type of evidence would you expect to see if animals had “real” altruistic behavior (perhaps present a few sentence description of a hypothetical study method and results)?
• What type evidence would you expect to see if humans did not have “real” altruistic behavior?
• Do you believe that one is consciously aware of the difference between “genetic” altruism and “human/real” altruism?
• Related to the last question, do you believe that feeling/perceiving that you are acting with “real” altruism implies that you are actually being altruistic according to that definition?

I think these questions may help the discussion. Otherwise, answering inquiries and objections is a bit of a moving target. I asked the last two questions as it seems that this topic may have been doomed to fail from the beginning – in other words, since you may believe that it is a priori impossible for a non-human to be altruistic (due to man’s sharing in the divine nature), no evidence will sufficiently convince you that it is happening in other species.

There also seems to be an underlying assumption in this discussion that because we, as humans, feel much different than other species when it comes to morality, communication, altruism, etc… that we actually are different. In other words, no matter how much another species looks like they are doing something human-esque, since we can’t know their thoughts or communicate adequately, they must be acting according some lower/base/primitive motivations.

To flip this question upside down, what evidence can be provided that humans are being “really” altruistic vs. simply demonstrating a “misfiring” form of “genetic” altruism? In other words, were an insect to have consciousness, I doubt it would know the difference between “actually” navigating via the sun/moon, and “feeling” like it’s navigating due to a misfiring of it’s phototaxis toward an artificial light.

How might we “look from outside ourselves” to know the difference between being altruistic and feeling altruistic?

 

[jinminn]

@Curious Hobbit:

I think you may be falling into the trap of thinking that any being that is operating within the mechanism of natural selection is somehow consciously aware of it. You won’t ever feel like you’re passing on your genes.

Re. morality, I’m not sure that the conversation will be fruitful. I have no issue with morality being “that which humans can universally agree on, to the best of their ability” is moral. Or more simply, that we’re “moral” beings only because we have consciousness advanced enough to register and discuss the concept.

Jesus was by far not the inventor of love being an admired concept/trait/behavior, so I’m not sure if that argument holds in terms of a justification of Christian action. I suspect one would be hard pressed to find massive evidence that the human species underwent a wild re-write of virtuous behavior once the 10 Commandments were carved, either. Surely we don’t hold that these were revolutionary instructions for their time, do we?

Conversely, play along and imagine new evidence arose that established conclusively that some core tenet of Christianity was false. Would your immediate impulse be to carry about immorally, as though the only thing keeping you in line was your theology?

 

[Jocko_VT]

I think that appealing to evolution as an explanation to charity is a little problematic.

If evolution can explain altruism, though, I think it explains charity, which is altruistic.

I would just suggest that there has to be some other factors to account for why we view charity and altruism as moral and virtuous.

I think this is a good point. It’s not the topic of the thread, though, so that may be why you haven’t seen any answers to it.

After all I’m sure you would admit that at least at face value, giving money away for no benefit or reciprocal advantage seems pretty irrational. I suppose someone could say, “ I don’t have to explain my actions, I felt like helping these people out and that’s all there is to it.” Well that’s fine, but I don’t think that can be a good explanation for explaining why charity is a moral thing to do; rather it seems like that explanation simply claims that giving money to the poor and needy is a subjective, personal preference.

These are two questions, though: Does altruism make evolutionary sense? Why do we consider altruism “moral,” and other evolutionarily derived behaviors otherwise?

I think the non theist is in the position of having to show why charity is moral in the sense that it is something we should expect of people who have enough wealth to give their money to those in need. … Christians could simply say that Jesus said, “ Love your neighbor as yourself” and “by this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another”.

This was already mentioned, but I don’t think you get off this easily. Just saying that “Jesus said so” does not sort it out, since Jesus was not the first to say so, and because you’re discussing this with atheists who may admire most of Jesus’ teachings but don’t see him as a deity. Thus, (From the atheist perspective) since christianity is false, theists are, in reality, in the same position as atheists–they can’t explain why X is moral and Y is immoral, because Jesus is no better placed than anyone else to make that determination. Jesus, also, was working with what evolution gave him.

The only thing I can come up with at the moment is that the assessment of these behaviors is part of the behavior itself–they come hand-in-hand through evolution. Altruism was always considered “moral.” It felt a certain way, which is different from the way that exercising physical power/domination over others felt. For example: Most of us have been bullied somehow in life. We don’t like it. Most of us have been beaten up, knocked down, broken hearted, cheated, betrayed, etc. We don’t like it. It feels bad. When others feel that way, whether we’ve caused it ourselves or not, we recognize it because we’re emotionally advanced creatures–we feel others’ pain. On the other hand, when someone gives us something, or comforts us, laughs with us, etc., it feels good. We know others feel that way, too.

Thus, I’m arguing, off the cuff, that the behavior didn’t evolve and then get the label “moral.” Instead, the behavior was always “moral,” (and I understand that the way we think about “morality” today is relatively new, but the point is that what we call moral–and I’m not talking about traditional marriage here, but lying and cheating and killing–feels good to us, so we know if feels good to others. This may be why the law of reciprocity is ancient–it’s so evident!)

So, maybe the easy way to say it is that an action toward another is moral if we like that action toward ourselves. I.e., do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

I know there are problems with this–not everyone has the same pleasures or whatever–but I think those are the consequence of socialization rather than lying at the core of moral behavior (e.g…, don’t harm others).

What do you think?

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

If evolution can explain altruism, though, I think it explains charity, which is altruistic.

For those interested, this user, Jocko has gotten into a debate with me in another thread titled “Atheistic Charities” and he refuses to respond.

To summarize, he said that I could only use evolution as a means to explain a “genetic” phenomenon.

In this thread he attempts to to use evolution to explain things such as “morality”, “altruism”, and “charity”. All things that he has not shown are genetic.

I just wanted to warn other users that a rational or logical discussion with this individual may not be possible because he holds a double standard. That being said, I respect said individual.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I just wanted to warn other users that a rational or logical discussion with this individual may not be possible because he holds a double standard. That being said, I respect said individual.

Actually, I did reply. But you followed it by spewing hate. This is why I left the thread. Now you’ve followed me here to harass me?

Also, had you read this thread, you’d see that it’s a discussion of how to explain morality, altruism, and charity with evolution. You were trying to explain atheism and theism as products of evolution, and argued that atheists should organize based on a natural-selection argument–if they don’t, you argued, they would die out, because they’re a minority. You then equated atheism with Nazism by suggesting that an atheist group might want to fund advertising campaigns to promote euthanasia, eugenics, and the elimination of the disabled. For that hate, I walked away. Now you follow me here to hate on me some more. All I ask is that you leave me alone.

 

[Rock_Happy]

The problem of evil is much written about here by atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists as a problem for Christianity and theism in general. It seems to me though that charity and self-sacrificial love present a dilemma to the non-theist. Can such a notion really make sense in the non-theistic worldview? Here is an example from the Haiti disaster:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s thoughts are with the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that struck on January 12, 2010. We have awarded three grants to respond to the immediate-, medium-, and long-term needs of those affected by the earthquake.

On January 14, the foundation provided a $1 million grant to Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which has experienced personnel and a stock of emergency supplies in Haiti. This grant will help cover CRS’s initial relief efforts, which include addressing the immediate shelter, food, water, sanitation, health and other needs of those affected by the quake. CRS will also continue on-the-ground assessment of the damage. Gates Foundation

Now it is well known that Bill Gates has publicly declared himself to be agnostic. Bill Gates. What explains, from a non-theistic viewpoint, this act of gift to a Catholic institution for the relief of suffering of a Catholic people whom Bill Gates has never met?

I could hardly believe that I was reading this. Compassion and empathy have absolutely nothing to do with any faith or religious tradition. They are human basic human emotions which predate religion.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I could hardly believe that I was reading this. Compassion and empathy have absolutely nothing to do with any faith or religious tradition. They are human basic human emotions which predate religion.

He’s not saying that atheists don’t have compassion or empathy, only that they have no explanation for compassion or empathy. tdgesq has actually been pretty explicit about agreeing that non-believer/non-catholics are compassionate and empathetic. So, what s/he is trying to do is challenge people to explain, for example, altruism without god. It’s been done in this thread several times, now, in my opinion, but it’s been an interesting thread (though I now have a stalker!!).

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

(though I now have a stalker!!).

Maybe God is your stalker (no I can’t prove it [not His existence, I can do that], although I suspect He is also stalking me. I am subscribed to this thread so that is why I keep commenting. I am just a logical person who refutes untenable philosophical positions. If theism were untenable, then I would be refuting that.

Actually, I did reply. But you followed it by spewing hate. This is why I left the thread. Now you’ve followed me here to harass me?

No, not at all interested in harassing you. Let me make a valid logical analogy. You came to a Catholic message board and posted a contrary opinion that was devoid of logic. I pointed out the logical errors and you failed to respond with counter points. I equate that to trespassing on someone else’s property and spray painting graffiti. I merely erased the graffiti. We welcome atheists and they are free to speak their opinion so long as they don’t vandalize our intellectual property.

Also, had you read this thread, you’d see that it’s a discussion of how to explain morality, altruism, and charity with evolution. You were trying to explain atheism and theism as products of evolution, and argued that atheists should organize based on a natural-selection argument–if they don’t, you argued, they would die out, because they’re a minority.

The thread title is “the problem of charity for the non-theist”. That is your problem, not mine. Also, That is not what I argued at all which makes me believe that you did not read my post in this thread or you did not understand what I was saying. You proposed the question, “what reason do atheists have to unite?” It was a matter of explaining the reason all human beings have to unify irrespective of their beliefs. Your opinion is a minority opinion and is faced with immanent extinction. I therefore used evolutionary explanatory power to explain the behavior of human beings who are currently unifying and labeling themselves as “atheists”. Then you fallacious argued that “atheists have no reason to unite much in the same way that non-stamp collectors, non-toyota drivers, and non-harley drivers do not have a reason to unite.” I pointed out your logical error here and you did not respond.

You then equated atheism with Nazism by suggesting that an atheist group might want to fund advertising campaigns to promote euthanasia, eugenics, and the elimination of the disabled.

I never mentioned the word “Nazism”, but I did hint at atheistic regimes who practiced social darwinism in the 20th century. I guess you are not familiar with them? I recommend this book, which is a free download. Hopefully that will clarify things for you.

For that hate, I walked away. Now you follow me here to hate on me some more. All I ask is that you leave me alone.

“that hate” what does it signify? Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose you were correct in misinterpreting me…and I did equate atheism with Nazism and suggested that the logical implications of no existing God or gods were Social Darwinism. How is that “hate”? How do my logical deductions have any relation to my emotional disposition toward you as a person?

Note for anyone new reading this…I did not say that the logical implications of atheism was Social Darwinism.

Have a terrific evening everyone. God bless you all, each and every one. -tiny tim