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

[Rock_Happy]

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!!).

There is, of course, the biological explanation. Those societies which have altruistic and cahritable individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce.

 

[fhansen]

There is, of course, the biological explanation. Those societies which have altruistic and cahritable individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce.

so would both the dog-eat-dog world we know so well and altruism be products of evolution?

 

[Spock]

so would both the dog-eat-dog world we know so well and altruism be products of evolution?

The world is NOT black-and-white. It is a mixture of dog-eat-dog and altruism. Sometimes competition is better (dog-eat-dog) and sometimes cooperation is superior (altruism). Total selfishness is just as bad as a strategy as total selflessness. Again game-theory comes to the rescue and helps to find the optimal solution.

 

[Jocko_VT]

so would both the dog-eat-dog world we know so well and altruism be products of evolution?

This is why there the other question: Why do people ever act immorally?

The human capacity to do things for their own advantage is just part of being human–it’s an evolutionary product. Otherwise, how would any individual survive or do anything that would put them in a position to be altruistic (how would they have anything to give)?

But, immoral behaviors against others who are not competitors…that needs explained. This is why I referred to theorists like Zymunt Bauman and Ulrich Beck and Immanual Levinas above. In short, they argue that immorality is a consequence of socialization.

But before that becomes the topic, has the OP anything else to add?

 

[fhansen]

The world is NOT black-and-white. It is a mixture of dog-eat-dog and altruism. Sometimes competition is better (dog-eat-dog) and sometimes cooperation is superior (altruism). Total selfishness is just as bad as a strategy as total selflessness. Again game-theory comes to the rescue and helps to find the optimal solution.

So it would be logical to say that selfishness was a beneficial trait so it evolved in human ancestry and that selflessness was a beneficial trait so it evolved in human ancestry? As a theory that one sounds a bit too conveniently flexible, made-to-fit…

 

[Spock]

So it would be logical to say that selfishness was a beneficial trait so it evolved in human ancestry and that selflessness was a beneficial trait so it evolved in human ancestry? As a theory that one sounds a bit too conveniently flexible, made-to-fit…

Life is not rigid, life is flexible. So the theory must follow life, if it wants to be useful. Let’s clarify: sometimes selfishness is the best strategy, sometimes selflessness is the best strategy. Generally the best strategy is mixed. As I said before, I recommend the study of game theory. Since it is a relatively new branch of mathematics, (and far from intuitively obvious) it is no surprise that ancient thinkers never “stumbled” upon the best strategy.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Are selfishness and altruism truly mutually exclusive? Is not a preference for one’s own kin group simultaneously selfish, because it excludes others, and altruistic, because it includes kin?

Is it possible that selfishness is seated in a more primitive part of the brain–e.g., the so-called reptilian brain–while altruism is seated in a more “modern” part–e.g…, the limbic system or even the neocortex (not that this is necessarily the appropriate terminology, but you get my point)?

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Sometimes competition is better (dog-eat-dog) and sometimes cooperation is superior (altruism). Total selfishness is just as bad as a strategy as total selflessness.

From an evolutionary perspective, or shall we say the optimal moral philosophy for survival and reproduction(and I say “optimal” because those who practiced “non-optimal” moral philosophy died off) would be moral egoism.

Captain Spock, since we are talking philosophy, I am going to critique your definition of “altruism” (cooperation) in the context of moral egoism. When we are operating in a framework that assumes the non-existence of God, then the best explanation of morality is a scientific one. In such a scenario, we only have a explanatory moral philosophy, not an ideal one (the moral “oughts” and “shoulds” are superfluous since science is purely explanatory). Bye Bye Kant. What we are left with is only moral egoism.

In such a philosophy, there is no such thing as altruism; it is non-existent. This is a technical distinction that shouldn’t get tied up in semantics. Moral actions such as “cooperation” and “helping others” are done only because said actions are ultimately in the best self interest via the idea of reciprocity. Moral actions that do not have a possibility of aiding your own survival, or the survival of the species, are nonsensical and even, we could say,…immoral from a scientific perspective. There is only competition between human animals and actions that appear to be “altruistic” are really just one guy sacrificing a pawn so he can capture someone else’s queen later down the road. It’s dog eat dog in disguise.

Total selfishness is just as bad as a strategy as total selflessness.

Here’s where I agree with you!! Total selflessness is a very very bad survival strategy or moral philosophy (if and only if it is your goal to survive). It was the philosophy of Jesus Christ, and…he did not survive or reproduce. Total selflessness is then, according to the principles of evolution, not human. Well if it’s not human, what is it? Catholics say it’s indicative of divinity which is one of the many reasons we believe Jesus Christ was God.

 

[Jocko_VT]

It’s funny how after just 15 or 20 posts, the same questions/arguments start getting recycled as if they haven’t been answered in the past 15 or 20 posts, and as if they somehow, this time, offer a coup de grace. The occasional re-definition of a term upon which the previous posts were based does little (nothing, really) to improve the original question/argument, but it does perpetuate the argument-response-ignore response cycle.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Some of them did have links. Did you look at them? The one I did look at and commented upon was “dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.” From Mutt-ernal Instincts - Dachshund adopts kitties, Pitbull adopts kitties, Border Collie adopts… tigers? - 2006-09-29 . From www.dogsinthenews.com. You can see why I might have a little bit of trouble with the reliability of these sources.

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?

The problem is that a coherent theory has yet to be presented based upon the behavioral scientific observation. If the conclusions of this study are that chimps are helping other chimps and other human beings without the possibility of improving their own genetic fitness or that of their own genetic group, then there must be some explanation for this behavior. You have proposed that simply “helping” any group, even other species, is so predominant that it will increase survivability. Notice that the study doesn’t conclude this, probably because it stands against evidence that chimps and other animals do not always act this way. They sometimes kill one another. Even human beings do this, as the crimes against humanity in Dafur illustrate so graffically.

This is why the article finds the need for an evolutionary stable explanation for the altruistic behavior it concludes was observed. The theory that simply “helping” any group, even other species, is a viable evolutionary and survivability strategy is contrary to experience and is not what is proposed by the article. You can propose a mixed theory, but it by necessity will need to explain how those behaviors increase survivability, unless you want to propose a new theory that leaves out survivability and genetic propagation as a basis.

You can appeal to the “mistake theory.” Again, there is a major problem here giving any explanatory power to this as evolutionary stable behavior. Mistakes that do not lead to survivability are not traits expected to be passed on. It is also ironic that mistaken behavior is the only behavior that is deemed altruistic. You need to explain why we would expect this mistaken behavior to continue if it does not promote survival.

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.

Human beings haven’t always exhibited this behavior, much less other animals. This is self-evident to those of us who watch animals savage one other everyday, including humans. All you can really conclude is that human beings have sometimes exhibited this behavior. When homo sapien only existed in small tribal groups, helpfulness within the group may promote survival. Helpfulness outside of the group may also promote survival if reciprocity is expected. Helpfulness that does not promote survival requires an explanation, because this is the basis of all evolutionary theories to one degree or another. A systemic “mistake” in human and animal behavior is not an explanation because one can’t expect it to continue. Those animals who have genetic traits only to promote survival will beat out those who have the “mistake” trait. I would like to see a theory that coherently could conclude otherwise.

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…

The difference of scale makes all the difference. A group of 36 chimps with human handlers who feed them may have reciprocity expectations (I mean that in the genetic sense). They operate like a small group. There can be no such expectation in the Bill Gates example. That this is a genetic compulsion on Gates’ part does not solve the problem. Those homo sapiens who are genetically disposed to be accurate about survival promoting behavior (not making the mistake of Gates) will eventually beat out Gates’ genes. That is, unless you can propose a theory as to why this wouldn’t occur.

From the same place you quoted.

Right. That is what Sober argues, but notice his theory still is founded on the basis that this behavior will result in higher inclusive fitness, and therefore spread more of their genes. The action of Gates doesn’t fit this criteria. Sober doesn’t agree with you, except to the extent that both of you argue that biological altruism is real altruism. I obviously don’t agree with you or him because neither theory explains Gates’ actions.

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.

I intentionally used the term “philosophical altruism,” although it is technically a misnomer. I used it because I thought it would create less confusion than the use of a phrase like “ethical behavior that does not promote the survival of the actor or his genes.” We can use whatever terminology you wish so long as we all understand what is meant. It looks like you want to discuss human morality and its basis in any event.

 

[Jocko_VT]

You can see why I might have a little bit of trouble with the reliability of these sources.

Okay. Fair enough. I thought you were making a blanket statement about all the examples rather than just some.

You have proposed that simply “helping” any group, even other species, is so predominant that it will increase survivability.

Not quite. I don’t think altruism perpetuates itself in humans today. I think it’s irrelevant to the survival of homo sapiens today. This is because homo sapiens have zero trouble reproducing. My argument is this:
A) altruism is an evolutionary advantage in small groups because it increases the odds that the group will survive and thus the trait–since group members, 100,000 or whatever years ago, were all carrying the same genes.
B) In the small group, there was no need to distinguish in-group from out-group because that was handled by fear of “others.” Thus, your genes don’t know for *whom *altruism is for, only that the carrier of the genes is altruistic toward others. de facto, altruism was for carriers of the same genetics in 99.9 percent of cases.
C) Today, we no longer live in small groups, but we are all still altruistic. This is because our genes can’t tell one person from the next and we typically treat more people as our in-group (e.g., people from our town are like us; people from our country are like us; people from our religious or other group are like us, etc.).

So, it’s not that helping just anyone increases survivability. It’s that when altruism would have evolved (based on the chimp evidence, it would be at least several million years ago), the only others we would have sacrificed for would have been related.

They sometimes kill one another. Even human beings do this, as the crimes against humanity in Dafur illustrate so graffically.

That humans kill each other (or chimps) doesn’t mean altruism isn’t present and a consequence of genetics. As I’ve said several times, though, it’s the immorality that really needs explaining–what makes humans kill humans? When people hate other people, they’re more likely to kill them. When people see other people as part of the in-group, they’re more likely to be altruistic toward them. Since all people are essentially the same, the distinction between in-group and out-group is a product of socialization and not genetics. So it is with the chimps, as well. That’s why chimps will be altruistic to humans if raised by humans.

The theory that simply “helping” any group, even other species, is a viable evolutionary and survivability strategy is contrary to experience and is not what is proposed by the article.

But that’s not the argument I proposed, as I explained above.

You can propose a mixed theory, but it by necessity will need to explain how those behaviors increase survivability, unless you want to propose a new theory that leaves out survivability and genetic propagation as a basis.

Again, it increases survivability of the gene because the altruistic behavior, in nature, virtually always targets a closely related individual. If humans or chimps evolved in mixed groups (like living in modern cities, where most people you see are *not *related to you), I’d have to agree with your point. But, they evolved in groups of more or less close kin.

You can appeal to the “mistake theory.” Again, there is a major problem here giving any explanatory power to this as evolutionary stable behavior. Mistakes that do not lead to survivability are not traits expected to be passed on. It is also ironic that mistaken behavior is the only behavior that is deemed altruistic. You need to explain why we would expect this mistaken behavior to continue if it does not promote survival.

It continues because everyone has the trait–thus, if any one human survives to reproduce, the trait would almost definitely be passed on.

But, I agree with your general point. I agree that in humans today, it’s not stable. Since it’s irrelevant to survival in humans today (so I argue), it will whither away, and humans, so long as they live in mixed groups, will become decreasingly altruistic. As I said in a previous post, though, humans have only lived in mixed settings for a very brief period of time–not nearly long enough to have such a severe impact on the general population’s genetic make up. My guess is that humans will kill themselves off before evolution kills them off by taking away their morality/altruism. It’s another “mistake” that humans’ “genius” is allowing them to destroy the environment without which they cannot live.

Human beings haven’t always exhibited this behavior, much less other animals. This is self-evident to those of us who watch animals savage one other everyday, including humans. All you can really conclude is that human beings have sometimes exhibited this behavior.

Humans probably have always exhibited it. What changes is the definition of the in-group and out-group–which is social rather than genetic, and genes don’t know the difference. That’s the key. We’ve only *not *lived in small groups for a very short period of human history (seriously short–less than 2 percent of the time modern humans have been around, if I’m being generous to your argument). That’s not enough time for the “mistake” to cancel itself out. Chimps, on the other hand, still live in a state of nature–they’re not going to lose it. We can pluck them out of their troupes all day long and raise them with humans and they will be altruistic toward humans, because their genes don’t know the difference. So long as humans (like Gates) don’t see others as a threat, that drive to help will prevail.

 

[fhansen]

Life is not rigid, life is flexible. So the theory must follow life, if it wants to be useful.

Sure, but theories just becomes circular when they’re squeezed too hard to conform; life can end up following the theory, at least to the theorists’ mind.

It’s funny how after just 15 or 20 posts, the same questions/arguments start getting recycled as if they haven’t been answered in the past 15 or 20 posts, and as if they somehow, this time, offer a coup de grace.

I doubt if anyone’s thought they’d dealt a coup de grace-it’s just that the arguments for biological altruism aren’t that compelling-IMO they come across as highly speculative and sort of crudely reductionistic.

Where does one who changes their minds fit in, say, someone who’s pursued one course all their lives and then decides they’d been immorally selfish in their pursuit, that they’d been wrong all along to live like that? And maybe the next person, under the same circumstances, decides just the opposite. If evolution is the determiner of both selfish and selfless behavior where/how do we pin it down it’s influences, where does free will come in? Do we deny all moral responsibility; ‘evolution made me do it?’

Is a sadist, gleefully torturing his victim for his own perverted sense of pleasure, justified in his actions because selfishness is an evolved trait after all which must explain maliciously evil behavior even if outrageous by animal standards? Is a person who sacrifices his own life in order to save another, even though he nearly fled the scene out of fear, merely acting according to predetermined behavioral directives, still sort of a biological automaton, his actions having nothing to do with his own integrity, mandated by his own will?

 

[Jocko_VT]

I doubt if anyone’s thought they’d dealt a coup de grace

Not you, bot others have.

-it’s just that the arguments for biological altruism aren’t that compelling-IMO they come across as highly speculative and sort of crudely reductionistic.

They are reductionistic. I don’t agree “crudely.” I think they’re highly compelling.

Where does one who changes their minds fit in, say, someone who’s pursued one course all their lives and then decides they’d been immorally selfish in their pursuit, that they’d been wrong all along to live like that? And maybe the next person, under the same circumstances, decides just the opposite. If evolution is the determiner of both selfish and selfless behavior where/how do we pin it down it’s influences, where does free will come in? Do we deny all moral responsibility; ‘evolution made me do it?’

This is exactly why I think the question of why we act immorally is the key question. The answer is that we act immorally because we live in social systems that impede our natural moral drive. We have to define others as a threat, or non-human, or whatever, for us to justify *not *helping them. We have to separate ourselves from the consequences of our actions in order to not feel responsible for those actions.

So, contrary to what you’re suggesting, evolution made us moral, which means we can’t deny any moral responsibility. We have to explain our bad behaviors–not our good ones.

Evolution does not determine behavior. It doesn’t make us run, even though it provided the capability. It doesn’t make us look at things, even though it gave us eyes. It doesn’t make us love, even though love is a product of evolution.

Is a sadist, gleefully torturing his victim for his own perverted sense of pleasure, justified in his actions because selfishness is an evolved trait after all which must explain maliciously evil behavior even if outrageous by animal standards?

Is sadism a product of evolution? I say no. Sadism is a product of socialization. Sadism requires dehumanizing the victim, and that is done socially, not genetically. On the contrary, genetically, we’re clearly wired to be the opposite of sadistic. We even feel compelled to help non-human animals.

If anything, I would even argue that evolution, by resulting in certain behaviors feeling good and others bad, and by providing the capacity to be empathetic, justifies moral behavior and condemns bad behavior. Notwithstanding the occasional sociopath/psychopath, people aren’t sadistic. People treat others how they want to be treated, assuming those others haven’t been dehumanized through socialization. And people, for the most part, want to be treated the same way, again, notwithstanding differences produced by socialization.

I know you don’t want to be beaten because I don’t want to be beaten. That’s a consequence of evolution.

Is a person who sacrifices his own life in order to save another, even though he nearly fled the scene out of fear, merely acting according to predetermined behavioral directives, still sort of a biological automaton, his actions having nothing to do with his own integrity, mandated by his own will?

You’re throwing the idea of “free will” into the mix. It’s a whole other topic. Does everyone really want to go there?

Again, though, they aren’t directives in the sense that they mandate behaviors. No one has said otherwise. This is a straw-man, don’t you agree? It’s not automation. Let’s say hunger is “sort of a biological automation”: but we still have the capacity to starve ourselves to death, and to fast, and would anyone argue that hunger is *not *an evolutionary advantage? On the other hand, as another example of an evolutionary “mistake,” obesity is on the rise in the west because how we eat takes advantage of an evolutionary drive to get food–and it’s killing us!!! Is it predetermined? It’s not simply individual weakness that causes such a large number of people to be so unhealthy.

 

[fhansen]

So, contrary to what you’re suggesting, evolution made us moral, which means we can’t deny any moral responsibility. We have to explain our bad behaviors–not our good ones.

Evolution does not determine behavior. It doesn’t make us run, even though it provided the capability. It doesn’t make us look at things, even though it gave us eyes. It doesn’t make us love, even though love is a product of evolution.

In a sense what you’re saying has similarities to Catholic belief-and Catholic teaching also compels us to explain our bad behavior, maintaining that good behavior should be the norm.

Stated more generally, one could say that nature made us moral and provides the capability for us to run, to see, and to behave rightly. But to limit the genesis of unrighteous or immoral behavior to socialization seems too narrow a perspective to me. The Catholic position would be that free will must enter into this argument, and that this freedom first of all provides the means or the possibility for immorality.

I guess we’d both agree that there actually was an innocence which was lost, but we’d differ on how that occurred. In Catholic teaching, humans originally lived without need for or regard to thought or consideration of the rightness or wrongness of an act-they simply acted according to their natures, to the “natural law”, if you will. So the original sin was to consider alternative moralities to the one they were given, i.e. to “eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This constituted an abuse of their freedom, a breech with the order of nature, a rebellion against God.

The problem, IMO, with recognizing morality as merely a law of nature, so to speak, provided by/through evolution, is that even if we could agree on what that morality consists of, we’re still in the drivers seat, because a natural process such as evolution could never be considered superior to us and certainly would be nothing we could feel compelled to bow to or subjugate ourselves to. I think we’d inevitably end up with amorality with this tack, unconvinced in our heart of hearts that morality can have any real anchor point.

Is sadism a product of evolution? I say no.

But how do we know? Who’s going to decide?

 

[Jocko_VT]

In a sense what you’re saying has similarities to Catholic belief-and Catholic teaching also compels us to explain our bad behavior, maintaining that good behavior should be the norm.

Stated more generally, one could say that nature made us moral and provides the capability for us to run, to see, and to behave rightly. But to limit the genesis of unrighteous or immoral behavior to socialization seems too narrow a perspective to me. The Catholic position would be that free will must enter into this argument, and that this freedom first of all provides the means or the possibility for immorality.

I guess we’d both agree that there actually was an innocence which was lost, but we’d differ on how that occurred. In Catholic teaching, humans originally lived without need for or regard to thought or consideration of the rightness or wrongness of an act-they simply acted according to their natures, to the “natural law”, if you will. So the original sin was to consider alternative moralities to the one they were given, i.e. to “eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This constituted an abuse of their freedom, a breech with the order of nature, a rebellion against God.

The problem, IMO, with recognizing morality as merely a law of nature, so to speak, provided by/through evolution, is that even if we could agree on what that morality consists of, we’re still in the drivers seat, because a natural process such as evolution could never be considered superior to us and certainly would be nothing we could feel compelled to bow to or subjugate ourselves to. I think we’d inevitably end up with amorality with this tack, unconvinced in our heart of hearts that morality can have any real anchor point.

The lost period of “innocence” is the loss of living in small groups. As humans have become more technologically advance, they’ve lived in larger groups, and immorality has become the norm. This is because humans are increasingly removed from the consequences of their behaviors. “Paradise Lost” and similar stories, perhaps including the christian versions of the Fall, are probably getting at the same thing, I have little doubt.

I do feel compelled to bow down/subjugate myself to my conscience. In fact, I don’t fee like I’m bowing down to it–I feel like it’s just me!! We are in the driver’s seat, but we are the drivers and we are moral. That’s just what we are. We can no more opt out of morality than we can opt out of oxygen.

I’m not saying that evolution did not provide the capacity to kill and rape and do what we call immoral things. Certainly, that’s always happened, just as it happens in chimp troupes. I’m saying that, for one thing, “morality” is not a list of behaviors we can and can’t do, but is instead a way of making decisions about what to do (I covered this way back in this thread). Do we want to go back into that? When I say immorality is what needs to be explained, I’m referring to how we’ve set up systems that allow us to exploit, for example, child slavery around the globe without feeling badly about it. Certainly neither you nor I likes slavery at all, yet when we buy clothing from western retailers, there’s a good chance we’re supporting it, and how much sleep do we lose? Likewise, while people have done the most heinous things to one another for 10s of 1000s of years, an event like the Holocaust required the participation of millions of “evil doers.” One just can’t kill on that scale without a lot of participants. So, the paper-pushers and the deliverymen and the guy who scheduled the trains and the wives who made dinner at home all played a role in supporting the system that killed 6 million Jews and perhaps 6 million other people, but, for the most part, those integral actors did not feel responsible, and indeed were no more responsible than you or I are for slave labor in SE Asia when we buy a pair of shoes made there.

But how do we know? Who’s going to decide?

We don’t get to decide. But, perhaps sadism is a product of evolution, but you’d have to explain to me how that would be. I see sadism as an ailment–a psychopathy or sociopathy. How would it have ever had a survival benefit? Empathy is in the way. Amongst “normal” human beings, one must dehumanize others to do sadistic things to them, and the process of dehumanization is a social process, not evolutionary.

 

[tdgesq]

Not quite. I don’t think altruism perpetuates itself in humans today. I think it’s irrelevant to the survival of homo sapiens today.

Since you concede that altruism does not perpetuate itself in humans today, I am somewhat confused by your question Here

The real question is why we aren’t *more *empathetic, more self-sacrificing, etc.

Maybe the question is: how do we account for selfish behavior given your conclusion that helpfulness traits are so prevalent among homo sapiens?

A) altruism is an evolutionary advantage in small groups because it increases the odds that the group will survive and thus the trait–since group members, 100,000 or whatever years ago, were all carrying the same genes.

I agree that this would explain biological altruism.

B) In the small group, there was no need to distinguish in-group from out-group because that was handled by fear of “others.” Thus, your genes don’t know for *whom *altruism is for, only that the carrier of the genes is altruistic toward others. de facto, altruism was for carriers of the same genetics in 99.9 percent of cases.

I also agree that this would explain biological altruism.

C) Today, we no longer live in small groups, but we are all still altruistic. This is because our genes can’t tell one person from the next and we typically treat more people as our in-group (e.g., people from our town are like us; people from our country are like us; people from our religious or other group are like us, etc.)

.

This would explain biological altruism for a limited time-frame. Passing on helpfulness genes in this time-frame is a mistake in promoting survival, and, therefore, incidental to survival. This is important as we will see later.

That humans kill each other (or chimps) doesn’t mean altruism isn’t present and a consequence of genetics. As I’ve said several times, though, it’s the immorality that really needs explaining–what makes humans kill humans?

This does need to be explained, and from an evolutionary standpoint. If helpfulness genes are as prevalent as you theorize them to be then we should no longer see genocidal behaviors. Neither should we see wars of nation against nation. Yet we do see these things all too commonly, even in highly developed countries. When human beings are not directly threatened, they still do these things. The explanation that many in the Nazi regime saw themselves not as killers but as helpers to humanity is a fairly distasteful conclusion. It also doesn’t square with the many who did directly treat those of Jewish descent like lower animals. We killed many of those at Nuremberg. It is even less explanatory of the murders and gang rapes of women and children in Dafur by military and other opportunists.

Since all people are essentially the same, the distinction between in-group and out-group is a product of socialization and not genetics.

Well, I hope you aren’t proposing a social evolutionary explanation since you rejected that earlier in this thread. The fact is though that socialization of many groups (Jews and Germans, Israelis and Palestinians, Serbians and Muslims) has not led to the behavior your theory predicts.

But, I agree with your general point. I agree that in humans today, it’s not stable. Since it’s irrelevant to survival in humans today (so I argue), it will whither away, and humans, so long as they live in mixed groups, will become decreasingly altruistic.

Or perhaps the genes of those who do not display altruistic behavior will prevail, just as those evolutionary biologists who propose selfishness genes predict. Those theories at least explain why human beings do act selfishly, as opposed to proposing a fantasy world where these behaviors really don’t exist.

My guess is that humans will kill themselves off before evolution kills them off by taking away their morality/altruism. It’s another “mistake” that humans’ “genius” is allowing them to destroy the environment without which they cannot live.

This isn’t a valid distinction in your worldview, although it may be in mine. Human intelligence is just as much of a product of evolution as anything else. There should be no conflict between human genius and evolution. These mistakes must be explained by evolutionary behavior that we no longer expect to be successful, including altruism and destruction of the environment.

 

[tdgesq]

Humans probably have always exhibited it. What changes is the definition of the in-group and out-group–which is social rather than genetic, and genes don’t know the difference. That’s the key. We’ve only *not *lived in small groups for a very short period of human history (seriously short–less than 2 percent of the time modern humans have been around, if I’m being generous to your argument). That’s not enough time for the “mistake” to cancel itself out.

If we are living in a period of time where the helpfulness traits are as strong and prevalent as you suggest, and if those traits are causing human beings to be altruistic in a way that does not promote their survival (although mistakenly and, therefore, temporarily) then this would explain the behavior of Bill Gates. The problem is that your premises are unfounded, so the the theory should be rejected.

1. Altruistic behavior that does not promote survivability is far from universal. Selfishness is a quite common human characteristic, arguably more common than helpfulness that does not promote survival. Selfishness does not exist only in situations where human beings perceive threats to themselves or some expanded social group. The world you propose does not exist in reality. It is a fantasy world.
2. Group theories of altruism are difficult to explain not only because of contrary behavior we actually observe, but also because we would expect it to be weeded out in favor of individual genetic survival. As held by many evolutionary biologists:

The major weakness of group selection as an explanation of altruism, according to the consensus that emerged in the 1960s, was a problem that Dawkins (1976) called ‘subversion from within’; see also Maynard Smith 1964. Even if altruism is advantageous at the group level, within any group altruists are liable to be exploited by selfish ‘free-riders’ who refrain from behaving altruistically. These free-riders will have an obvious fitness advantage: they benefit from the altruism of others, but do not incur any of the costs. So even if a group is composed exclusively of altruists, all behaving nicely towards each other, it only takes a single selfish mutant to bring an end to this happy idyll. By virtue of its relative fitness advantage within the group, the selfish mutant will out-reproduce the altruists, hence selfishness will eventually swamp altruism. Since the generation time of individual organisms is likely to be much shorter than that of groups, the probability that a selfish mutant will arise and spread is very high, according to this line of argument. ‘Subversion from within’ is generally regarded as a major stumbling block for group-selectionist theories of the evolution of altruism.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

1. Finally, your conclusion that we are living in a time of systemic evolutionary “mistakes” is highly speculative. As the above article excerpt makes clear, these types of mistakes would be expected to be quickly weeded out. Combined with the reality that human beings do act selfishly, it makes your explanation highly improbable.

The cost of proposing a theory that could account for the altruistic behavior of Bill Gates is that it doesn’t account for anything else we observe in human behavior. Therefore, it is not a coherent theory and should be rejected.

 

[Jocko_VT]

If we are living in a period of time where the helpfulness traits are as strong and prevalent as you suggest, and if those traits are causing human beings to be altruistic in a way that does not promote their survival (although mistakenly and, therefore, temporarily) then this would explain the behavior of Bill Gates. The problem is that your premises are unfounded, so the the theory should be rejected.

1. Altruistic behavior that does not promote survivability is far from universal. Selfishness is a quite common human characteristic, arguably more common than helpfulness that does not promote survival. Selfishness does not exist only in situations where human beings perceive threats to themselves or some expanded social group. The world you propose does not exist in reality. It is a fantasy world.
2. Group theories of altruism are difficult to explain not only because of contrary behavior we actually observe, but also because we would expect it to be weeded out in favor of individual genetic survival. As held by many evolutionary biologists:

The major weakness of group selection as an explanation of altruism, according to the consensus that emerged in the 1960s, was a problem that Dawkins (1976) called ‘subversion from within’; see also Maynard Smith 1964. Even if altruism is advantageous at the group level, within any group altruists are liable to be exploited by selfish ‘free-riders’ who refrain from behaving altruistically. These free-riders will have an obvious fitness advantage: they benefit from the altruism of others, but do not incur any of the costs. So even if a group is composed exclusively of altruists, all behaving nicely towards each other, it only takes a single selfish mutant to bring an end to this happy idyll. By virtue of its relative fitness advantage within the group, the selfish mutant will out-reproduce the altruists, hence selfishness will eventually swamp altruism. Since the generation time of individual organisms is likely to be much shorter than that of groups, the probability that a selfish mutant will arise and spread is very high, according to this line of argument. ‘Subversion from within’ is generally regarded as a major stumbling block for group-selectionist theories of the evolution of altruism.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

1. Finally, your conclusion that we are living in a time of systemic evolutionary “mistakes” is highly speculative. As the above article excerpt makes clear, these types of mistakes would be expected to be quickly weeded out. Combined with the reality that human beings do act selfishly, it makes your explanation highly improbable.

The cost of proposing a theory that could account for the altruistic behavior of Bill Gates is that it doesn’t account for anything else we observe in human behavior. Therefore, it is not a coherent theory and should be rejected.

I’ve already answered every question you ask here and in the previous post. I’ve also thoroughly answered the OP. If you want literal proof rather than a viable argument (and one based on those of people in the know), you’re not going to get it on anything. What I’ve presented is a viable argument based on evolutionary theory and the works of Levinas, Bauman, Beck, and others (sociologists/philosophers). It answers your question. I can’t make you accept it. But I’m not going to continue to answer exactly the same questions over and over again.

This has been an excellent thread, though! Thank you for the reasoned debate. I appreciate your efforts and those of others in here.

 

[tonyrey]

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?

The fact that non-theists believe in the principle of fraternity even though they have no rational foundation for their belief. If there is no reason why we exist there is no reason why we should regard others as our brothers and sisters.

 

[Jocko_VT]

The fact that non-theists believe in the principle of fraternity even though they have no rational foundation for their belief. If there is no reason why we exist there is no reason why we should regard others as our brothers and sisters.

This depends on what you mean by “rational foundation.” If you mean that the foundation can’t be understood and explained, then I think you’re incorrect. I’ve explained it in this thread. If you mean that empathy/compassion/morality is not rational, then I think I’d agree with you. It also depends on what you mean by “believe in the principle…” If you’re simply referring to the way we’ve rationally described how humans are, I’d agree with you, in general. If you’re referring to how humans *are *instead of the rational description of it, I’d disagree with you–it’s not that people **believe **in it, but that it is.

For example, we believe that we need oxygen to survive, and that we breath to bring in that oxygen. On the other hand, humans are living breathing animals, and no belief is necessary for that to be the case–one needn’t have a rational foundation for the fact that they are living breathing animals.