The good of society

[tendomentis]

That's quite a claim you're making there, and frankly impossible to prove or disprove unless you are familiar with every recorded action in history.

If you can find a charitable action in human history that did not benefit the one performing the action in some way, I'd be happy to debate that with you.

Otherwise, the reverse is easily observed and (to my knowledge) can't be disproven.

You can't 100% prove something true, but you can 99% prove the alternatives as false.

[AFPheonix]

How about any of the soldiers in recent history who throw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades? I don't think they even get a chance to feel good about themselves.

[tendomentis]

How about any of the soldiers in recent history who throw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades? I don't think they even get a chance to feel good about themselves.

Reverse emotional kickback. They know that if they don't, they'll probably still die and if they themselves don't die they know they would have to live with the guilt of knowing what they should have done to save their fellow soldiers but didn't.

Also, the military does all they can to essentially program that behaviour into a soldier so that there ISN'T the possibility of the soldier thinking through what they should do (raised military by a military father).

[Norton]

Maybe they don't get a chance to appreciate their actions, but they do avoid the guilt of being the only survivor with the knowledge that they could have saved their comrades, but didn't.

*Tendomentis beat me to it*

Still, it doesn't make them any less heroic in my eyes.

[DesignFox]

How about any of the soldiers in recent history who throw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades? I don't think they even get a chance to feel good about themselves.

I'd consider that a selfless act.

One guy died, but a few others got to live- I'd say that's pretty helpful toward humanity as a whole.

Although, some may argue that the person may have done it to score points with their chosen deity...but with a spur of the moment decision like that, I don't think that's likely.

[DesignFox]

Norton and Tendomentis- While that argument is possible, it is also possible that they don't have the time to think that through. They just react.

Can't prove it one way or the other, though.

[tendomentis]

I'd consider that a selfless act.

One guy died, but a few others got to live- I'd say that's pretty helpful toward humanity as a whole.

Although, some may argue that the person may have done it to score points with their chosen deity...but with a spur of the moment decision like that, I don't think that's likely.

Well, there have been whole other threads to define selfless , and while I would call the act heroic, I can't define it as an act of "pure philanthropy" (which seems to be the track this forum thread appears to be going down now).

From a biological evolutionary perspective, in an internal conflict within a species, what is better for the species as a whole is for the stronger memebers of the conflict to subjugate or completely erradicate the weaker members (what becomes the losing side) as quickly as possible with as little collateral damage as possible.

[tendomentis]

Norton and Tendomentis- While that argument is possible, it is also possible that they don't have the time to think that through. They just react.

Can't prove it one way or the other, though.

In the event that they do just react (as the military would HOPE would occur), then the act is not one of philanthropy OR apathy. The emotional aspect does not even enter into it and it is as unemotional act as getting hit by a stray bullet (a bullet that MIGHT have killed someone else).

Either way, the act is not one of "pure philanthropy".

[DesignFox]

From a biological evolutionary perspective, in an internal conflict within a species, what is better for the species as a whole is for the stronger memebers of the conflict to subjugate or completely erradicate the weaker members (what becomes the losing side) as quickly as possible with as little collateral damage as possible.

Haven't we had wars centered around this attitude? That certain members of our species are weaker/inferior and must be eradicated?

Am I misunderstanding that statement?

[tendomentis]

Haven't we had wars centered around this attitude? That certain members of our species are weaker/inferior and must be eradicated?

Am I misunderstanding that statement?

No you're not misunderstanding, and you're referencing a point I made in my FIRST post in this thread. To quote my first post:
"Sure, certain people in human history (and you know who you are) have abused it, as others have abused other noble ideals, but is it wrong?".

The "it" being the ideal of "for the good of society" (hey, that's the name of this thread too ).

[Norton]

Haven't we had wars centered around this attitude? That certain members of our species are weaker/inferior and must be eradicated?

Of course wars have been started for silly reasons like that.

However, "strong" and "weak" can apply to every war. The winners are stronger as whole, which is what leads them to victory. The winners may have had more soldiers, more supplies and better medical care. Of course, it doesn't mean the people on the winning team are better humans than the losers, just better at war.

[DesignFox]

I don't think it's noble. Because I say it's impossible to prove what is ultimately best for society as a whole.

Although, I will be honest with you Tendomentis, when it comes to certain debilitating disabilities, particularly mental disabilities, I have questioned the point of forcing their existence. (I'm talking about people in comas that are never to come out of it, children born completely paralyzed and completely mentally incapacitated who have no chance of ever functioning in normal society...etc.)

Granted, people in those situations are highly unlikely to reproduce and traits like that are not inheritable as far as I know...so does it harm our evolution to keep those people around? No. Does it put a drain on society? Yes.

In those instances, those people would NOT survive without medical equipment and/or constant personal care.

Since they cannot even communicate, there is little they can possibly offer back to the community.

Although- the flip side of that- by studying these people, we can try to figure out what is "broken" and how to "fix" it, to prevent others from suffering the same fate as they. Perhaps some of them will be cured in their lifetime and can then have a good quality of life.

Since we really don't know, perhaps it's best to take care of them and see what happens. If the apocolypse were to come...well.... that would be a sad day, because those unlucky few definitely won't make it.

On the flip flip side, I sometimes think it's cruel to keep people alive just for the sake of it. If our dog were to be hit by a car and could only lie around all day and drool- we'd put it down. We wouldn't want the animal to "suffer needlessly." Why do we, in some instances, force suffering on our fellow beings?

Although, if someone cannot communicate, how can we know if they are truly suffering or not?

Sticky question.

[tendomentis]

I don't think it's noble. Because I say it's impossible to prove what is ultimately best for society as a whole.

MOD EDIT: No need to quote the whole thing. - Seshat

Although, if someone cannot communicate, how can we know if they are truly suffering or not?

Sticky question.

Of course it's impossible to PROVE what's good for a society, but it is possible to disprove what is good for society. If every infant upon birth were to decide to stop breathing, this could be very easily disproven as a "good" thing for society at large.

That same axiom could be applied to more complicated (and less immediately destructive) actions taken by our species.

[Sylvia727]

tendomentis, you've referred several times to the Red Queen principle of keeping up in the evolutionary arms race. But it seems to me that we aren't competing with other species anymore (Unless the chimps are using their sign language to plan a violent takeover - and when Hollywood makes that movie, I want royalties! ) One might argue that we're competing with viruses, but at this point I don't see those as a significant rival. For one thing, they're parasites who need bodies to procreate in.

The only evolutionary principle I can see in action with the human race is humans vs. Gaea. We need to establish an equilibrium with our environment or we will die out/diminish severely, just as the predator which depletes its prey too quickly. But that's not an evolutionary arms race. That's humanity using the tools given us by evolution to fix a problem and evolve further.

I guess my question is, who/what are we competing with?

[Seshat]

As soon as you add the subjective 'emotional kickback', you prevent the counter argument from ever being applied.

However, removing that emotional kickback from the equation, there are many, many examples of humans giving anonymous donations (thus no social approval or other external reward being available). Or, of course, the many cases of a person risking their lives to help another: bystanders simply going into a risky situation to rescue another person.

Take out 'I do charity because it feels good', and there are many acts of charity available to point to in which the charitable person receives no tangible or social reward.

Include it, and it makes my side (that pure philanthropy happens) of the argument totally unprovable because even if we find an example where a person claims no emotional reward, you can say 'well, they just didn't record it'.