- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Tom,
I have a question for you.
Imagine you are standing on the side of a busy road alongside an elderly lady carrying a heavy load of groceries. Presented with these three choices:1. Push her into the oncoming traffic
2. Ignore her
3. Take her load and help her across the road.What would you say is the most right thing to do?
One thing you might want to consider before you answer: from a pragmatic, evolutionary viewpoint (i.e. survival of the fittest) the elderly disadvantage society.
To DVD,
I would certainly not push the elderly lady into the street in fact I would probably help her across, because from my point of view it's the most pragmatic thing to do. Why? Very simply it's the principle of reciprocity I don't kill off the elderly, because some day I hope to be elderly and I would like not to be killed myself. Does a pack of wolfs kill off it's elderly?
In fact I disagree with the point of view that keeping sick and elderly people alive hurts the fitness of our society for survival. The medical knowledge we gain through trying to help these people could potentially be valuable to anyone. As well men like Stephen Hawking who would be dead without current medical technology has contributed greatly to our knowledge of space and time, and in doing so raised the odds of our long-term survival.
Hi Tom,
Whether or not you push the lady is not relevant to the future of the race. That is an individual and personal decision that does not alter the nature of man one iota.
Your “principle of reciprocity” makes it no more or less likely that in the future some lout may give you a shove. It does not change the genes of the race. Unless of course there is a benign unseen force observing and making sure the books remain balanced.
Besides haven't we heard of that principle somewhere?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”Quote (Guest @ May 24 2005,15:36) To DVD, I would certainly not push the elderly lady into the street in fact I would probably help her across, because from my point of view it's the most pragmatic thing to do. Why? Very simply it's the principle of reciprocity I don't kill off the elderly, because some day I hope to be elderly and I would like not to be killed myself. Does a pack of wolfs kill off it's elderly?
In fact I disagree with the point of view that keeping sick and elderly people alive hurts the fitness of our society for survival. The medical knowledge we gain through trying to help these people could potentially be valuable to anyone. As well men like Stephen Hawking who would be dead without current medical technology has contributed greatly to our knowledge of space and time, and in doing so raised the odds of our long-term survival.
Tom,
Actually it's relatively common for animals to cull off the weaker members for the benefit of the group. Thats just one key diferences between them and us. Also, the altruistic option you chose invalidates your argument.To Nick and DVD,
Before we begin to stray off topic I think it's important that I go back to what your original assertions are (at least what I think you asserted) and my argument against those assertions.
Nick you asked “But what reason would you have to believe in morals at all? If our God does not exist then surely neither do morals or any need for moral judgments? Where do morals come from? Our conscience? Where did that come from?”
In saying this I can only think that you believe it is impossible for rational men to come up with there own moral code. The fact of the matter is that history and philosophy show this to be false. Eastern Philosophers as well as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates have all made rational arguments about morality without the help of the bible or modern Christianity. As well, our sense of what is moral and immoral has undergone changes overtime, because we have further refined our sense of right and wrong (for example most industrialized nations don't have the death penalty anymore). If God had created absolute morality then these fluctuations could not have occurred but if we look back at an issue like slavery (or racial superiority) we see people on both sides of the debate using the bible to defend their side.
Furthermore, if you think it is impossible for rational men working in there own rational interests could not possible create an outcome that is beneficial to humanity/society. Then you must also reject capitalism because this is the principle upon which free markets are founded i.e. firms/consumers making decisions in their own interest leads to the most beneficial outcome for all parties involved.
As far as reciprocity is concerned it doesn't take a bible to know that, any third grader can learn that on the playground without the aid of Christianity.
As far as how a rational mind(brain) has developed(evolved) overtime I simply don't know enough evolutionary biology to answer your question, but if I accepted that it could only have been created than I would stop looking for a natural explanation, and if one was found I might not believe it even if it were true.
DVD,
I think your position is that without morals (from god) we would go around killing old ladies and the sick because it helps the gene pool or increases the survivability of society somehow.
First of all killing old ladies has will have no affect on the gene pool anyway so the practice would be a waste of effort. One might contend that keeping old ladies alive is draining the resources of society to such an extent it is costing the lives of healthy people. Obviously this is not the case. So there is really no logical basis for pushing an old lady into a street, quite simply the action serves no purpose.
I also believe that the fact of the matter is that keeping the elderly alive as well as the sick actually advances medical science in ways that help healthy “fit” people too. This argument is in no way altruistic nor is the argument above so they do not contradict the way in which I believe morality has been derived.
Hi Tom,
Conscience is the issue. As you say all men seem to have it to some degree or other. It has influenced philosophers and social thinkers. It is the basis for Law in societies and any individual who not only breaks the law but his behaviour shows no evidence of conscience incurs greater guilt and condemnation by society. And it is used to varying degrees by individuals.
On the other hand we have selfishness. You seem to suggest they are the same. I disagree. Selfishness and self centredness are also part of every man's nature. Yes it is the basis of capitalism and since all men use it it has a self balancing effect that has no relationship to conscience. They may reach the same conclusions-that what is good for someone else is also helpful to me but they are different.
Conscience does not take “me” into account. In fact it may ignore risk to me to achieve it's ends and thus be totally unselfish. It recognises values that are deeper than those on the surface. It says even that my life is less valuable than that of others. If we are only bodies who may survive only 70-80 years then what sense is there in risking shortening or damaging that life for others? If there is nothing else then nothing is achieved surely by such actions?
No, conscience is strong evidence that all of us sense that we are not alone and there is a higher being with higher values and that He has instilled them in us too, in my opinion.To Nick,
Hmmmm… the question of conscience?
Well this is slightly more difficult for me because I have limited knowledge of psychology. I assume when you speak of conscience you mean that little voice inside our head that tells us when something is wrong or when we believe it's wrong. Rather than proposing an explanation for where conscience comes from I would like to suggest a thought experiment. If we took a new born child that has not experienced the world in any way and kept that child safely isolated from the rest of us and taught him or her that it is morally wrong for them to touch their ear with anything even their hand. Then we brought this child as a full grown adult into the real world where using the phone is a virtual necessity. Do you think they might have a strong urge not to use the phone? Do you think if they did use the phone they would feel guilty? If you think they might it would then suggest that conscience is not a voice put in our heads by God but rather our own construct which society can control.
Hi Tom.
Psychosis is one condition where people have no evidence that conscience influences their behaviour in the slightest. Sociopaths also behave in this way. So prisons and mental hospitals are busy dealing with people with this disability. That is not to say that some such people cannot also live successfully and largely avoid such problems and perhaps rise to great prominence such as Adolf Hitler did.
Generally speaking though their influence is not regarded as helpful to society. Is there evidence that upbringing provokes these problems? Not strong at least and I am sure you would generally concede that men are not that different because of our backgrounds. Men do not lack conscience because of poor early teaching. I do believe lack of discipline does cause society problems though.To Nick
Hmmmm…. Let's see what the medical definition of Psychosis is.
According to Yahoo health a source I'm assuming is reliable, “Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, typically including delusions (false ideas about what is taking place or who one is) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things which aren't there).”You said, “Psychosis is one condition where people have no evidence that conscience influences their behavior in the slightest.” In my previous post, and I'm assuming you agree with me, I defined conscience as the little voice inside your head that tells you right and wrong. However it seems that Psychopath rather than having no little voice at all actually could have a rather loud voice in there head only it tells them something completely the opposite of reality. Thus, rather than as you seem to suggest that these people somehow ignore their conscience it seems to be that they were either given a faulty one in the first place (which means good old infallible god messed up again). Or that some other possibly human influence messed it up.
Hi Tom
Yes I agree with your medical definition as it is my area of work. I also work with the police so I see both sides. It is the effects of the condition that I am talking about. Their distorted view of reality is what leads some to murder or damage others as if they have no influence of conscience. They hear voices and are driven by compulsions to do what is clearly bizarre or dangerous to themselves or others.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 25 2005,06:24) Hi Tom,
Whether or not you push the lady is not relevant to the future of the race. That is an individual and personal decision that does not alter the nature of man one iota.
Your “principle of reciprocity” makes it no more or less likely that in the future some lout may give you a shove. It does not change the genes of the race. Unless of course there is a benign unseen force observing and making sure the books remain balanced.
Besides haven't we heard of that principle somewhere?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”
Just found this from a while ago.There is a very real evolutionary advantage in having grandparents, who are a store of accumulated knowledge and who of course can help in the passing on of their own genes by helping with the raising of their grandchildren. if the particular 'old lady' in mind is not herself a grandmother, the principle of looking after the elderly remains a product of the advantage we gain in living long enough to be grandparent-aged.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
