Altruism, a possibility, a hope, or just stupid

[jab]

I haven't the confidence that an audience eagerly awaits a Socratic divulgance of my logical process, starting with fundamental premises and building a a 1000-step logical argument from it, each point of which is discussed until agreement is reached before moving on to the next step. I'm not sure [I]I[I] would even have patience for that.... If you are fascinated by my premises and conclusions, however, please let me know. It might be good for me myself to see how well my arguments look out in the light of others' scrutiny! For now, the executive summary:

Premise: Free choice is an illusion. Our brain is chemistry. The atoms, dopamine, neurons, etc., receive stimulation like all other elements in the universe, and react to those stimulations. That our human machine is so complex that it has elements that can recognize itself, can store ideas into memory, etc., does not mean that we aren't machines. The soul, if it exists, would not function differently than the brain--it would have a memory, value options that are made known to it through the senses and the memory, register urges, and make a choice--and so it is not relevant whether there is a soul. In a sense, we are what we are, whatever term we call it, and there is nothing outside of matter which influences matter because matter can only be moved by matter)

Premise: We evolved as a race into global dominance for learning the amazing power of delayed gratification and cooperation, which is a related concept as I define it: cooperation here to mean taking some losses from what I want in order to make the team strongest. I don't steal if you don't steal from me. We each give up something good (taking whatever we want or need) for something that later proves to be more valuable (security). This is the essence of social evolution in humans: realizing that societies are powerful and life-bettering, and that cooperation and delayed or abstained gratification--even altruism--is better for the whole, which in turn is better for me.

Conclusion: To speak of altruism as "real" or "not real" is not really an option: it is. It is a powerful character trait that humans, as a species, have learned to exhibit since natural selection would favor those who have an edge over others, and altruism, or cooperation, proves to be the mortar in the edifice of society. Whether we act cooperatively and socially (altruistically) cognizant of the fact that we gain from it (making it an act of selfishness) or not (making it a reflexive part of one's evolved character) is a matter of individual difference.

[hyperborean]

I disagree with your "freewill premise", but I like your conclusion on altruism.

[Redzeppelin]

Premise: Free choice is an illusion. Our brain is chemistry. The atoms, dopamine, neurons, etc., receive stimulation like all other elements in the universe, and react to those stimulations. That our human machine is so complex that it has elements that can recognize itself, can store ideas into memory, etc., does not mean that we aren't machines. ... and there is nothing outside of matter which influences matter because matter can only be moved by matter)

This fascinating argument eats itself (kind of like hyperborean's avatar): if all there is in the universe is matter, and all we are as human beings is a collection of chemical, neurological, biological and psychological processes, then why should anything you or I say be considered "true" - since we have no real control over said processes? We can manipulate those processes to a certain degree, but totally control them? No. So how can random chemical reactions and neurological-electrical "firings" produce truth?

And, if freewill is an illusion, are you telling me that you didn't pick the words you assembled in your post? Are you telling me that you were predestined to write those words, or that they were typed against your will, or that you didn't consciously choose them to express yourself with?

[Asa Adams]

This fascinating argument eats itself (kind of like hyperborean's avatar): if all there is in the universe is matter, and all we are as human beings is a collection of chemical, neurological, biological and psychological processes, then why should anything you or I say be considered "true" - since we have no real control over said processes? We can manipulate those processes to a certain degree, but totally control them? No. So how can random chemical reactions and neurological-electrical "firings" produce truth?

And, if freewill is an illusion, are you telling me that you didn't pick the words you assembled in your post? Are you telling me that you were predestined to write those words, or that they were typed against your will, or that you didn't consciously choose them to express yourself with?

Excellent Point, Redzeppelin.

[hyperborean]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with zeppelin!

[ktd222]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with zeppelin!

In the end everyone agrees, whether it's agreeing on a point or agreeing to disagree

[Redzeppelin]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with zeppelin!

I'm speechless. The apocalypse must be upon us...

[Neo_Sephiroth]

I haven't the confidence that an audience eagerly awaits a Socratic divulgance of my logical process, starting with fundamental premises and building a a 1000-step logical argument from it, each point of which is discussed until agreement is reached before moving on to the next step. I'm not sure [I]I[I] would even have patience for that.... If you are fascinated by my premises and conclusions, however, please let me know. It might be good for me myself to see how well my arguments look out in the light of others' scrutiny! For now, the executive summary:

Premise: Free choice is an illusion. Our brain is chemistry. The atoms, dopamine, neurons, etc., receive stimulation like all other elements in the universe, and react to those stimulations. That our human machine is so complex that it has elements that can recognize itself, can store ideas into memory, etc., does not mean that we aren't machines. The soul, if it exists, would not function differently than the brain--it would have a memory, value options that are made known to it through the senses and the memory, register urges, and make a choice--and so it is not relevant whether there is a soul. In a sense, we are what we are, whatever term we call it, and there is nothing outside of matter which influences matter because matter can only be moved by matter)

Premise: We evolved as a race into global dominance for learning the amazing power of delayed gratification and cooperation, which is a related concept as I define it: cooperation here to mean taking some losses from what I want in order to make the team strongest. I don't steal if you don't steal from me. We each give up something good (taking whatever we want or need) for something that later proves to be more valuable (security). This is the essence of social evolution in humans: realizing that societies are powerful and life-bettering, and that cooperation and delayed or abstained gratification--even altruism--is better for the whole, which in turn is better for me.

Conclusion: To speak of altruism as "real" or "not real" is not really an option: it is. It is a powerful character trait that humans, as a species, have learned to exhibit since natural selection would favor those who have an edge over others, and altruism, or cooperation, proves to be the mortar in the edifice of society. Whether we act cooperatively and socially (altruistically) cognizant of the fact that we gain from it (making it an act of selfishness) or not (making it a reflexive part of one's evolved character) is a matter of individual difference.

Confusing...Though understandable to a certain extent. Don't mind me, I don't pride myself on being intelligent. "Ignorance is bliss.", they say.

This fascinating argument eats itself (kind of like hyperborean's avatar): if all there is in the universe is matter, and all we are as human beings is a collection of chemical, neurological, biological and psychological processes, then why should anything you or I say be considered "true" - since we have no real control over said processes? We can manipulate those processes to a certain degree, but totally control them? No. So how can random chemical reactions and neurological-electrical "firings" produce truth?

And, if freewill is an illusion, are you telling me that you didn't pick the words you assembled in your post? Are you telling me that you were predestined to write those words, or that they were typed against your will, or that you didn't consciously choose them to express yourself with?

Not so confusing...The answers the questions, however, might be.

Now I say, let's hear what Jab's response is. This is very interesting.

[Asa Adams]

I'm speechless. The apocalypse must be upon us...

[AstroCity]

in regards to JAB's second Premise. I am a little lost (very well written though)
"cooperation here to mean taking some losses from what I want in order to make the team strongest."
gotcha, this is not altruism but a delayed gratification.

"I don't steal if you don't steal from me"
i didnt get this example, this is not an example of "cooperation", there is no loss by your part and no gain either, this is actually just "ignore".

"This is the essence of social evolution in humans: realizing that societies are powerful and life-bettering, and that cooperation and delayed or abstained gratification--even altruism--is better for the whole, which in turn is better for me."
the act is in any way better for you, it is not altruism.

Your conclusion states that it doesnt matter, it is "a matter of individual difference"

The problem is that we dont see others as we see ourselves. to perceive someone as a stranger causes you to lose sight of the fact that they are actually human beings.(im not that bright someone had to have said this before me)
i believe that one's free will is vital when distinguishing things not as they are but how they should be, not a stranger but a person. if the act of kindness was somehow predetermined then that wouldnt be altruism,nor would altruism exist, that would be i think determinism.

Sorry, Im new to this idea so im not sure if i am even on the right track..please correct me if necessary.

[Triskele]

So...You stand by your first statement saying that there is no such thing as "altruism"?

that is correct i think, that altruism is a foregone conclusion but the goodwill between men is still essential. which is why i follow the train of thought that puts enlightened self interest before all other ideals

[Triskele]

You know, I've been thinking about this ever since this thread got started and something has been bugging me. Shouldn't it feel good to do something good for someone else? I mean, it would be a little bit unusual if you did something that really made a difference in someone's life, and it didnt' make you smile, or give you the warm-fuzzies. So, what the hell, why can't you be altruistic and still get a sense of joy from your good deeds. I think you've earned a little bit of happiness, right?

yeah, that would be wierd, but normalcy is not exacltly the basis of this debate.

[Triskele]

First off, I find it very frightening that you are likening a hand out with euthenasia. It seems to display a lack of respect for life(I of course don't wish to say that you have a lack of respect for life, that is just how it comes off in your post). While you are in control of a handout, that is not the same thing as taking a human life, no matter what the situation is. As a Christian, I feel compelled to assist the homeless because God teaches us to take care of those who are less fortunate. Euthenasia is the taking of a life before it has run the course God has preordained to it. Suicide is of course, a sin in the bible. So is despair, it could be said, because it is doubting God's plan. Putting an animal is not the same, because animals do not have souls. I am an animal lover, and I don't want to sound like I am not sympathetic to them, but killing an animal is NOT the same thing as killing a human being.
Playing God does not include doing deeds for other people. God charges us with the responsibility to take care of others. God, however doesn't ever condone euthenasia. And whether a person thinks they are playing God doesn't matter because they are when they assist in a suicide. Just because a person doesn't think that stealing is wrong, is it then okay for them to steal? Ignorance of the law is no excuse( and that includes Biblical law).

but i think that assisted suicide is a step forward in the preservation of human dignity, and so is actually maybe the closest thing that we can get to altruism, in that there is no benefit for us, merely the potential to do good for another human.

[Triskele]

I haven't the confidence that an audience eagerly awaits a Socratic divulgance of my logical process, starting with fundamental premises and building a a 1000-step logical argument from it, each point of which is discussed until agreement is reached before moving on to the next step. I'm not sure [I]I[I] would even have patience for that.... If you are fascinated by my premises and conclusions, however, please let me know. It might be good for me myself to see how well my arguments look out in the light of others' scrutiny! For now, the executive summary:

Premise: Free choice is an illusion. Our brain is chemistry. The atoms, dopamine, neurons, etc., receive stimulation like all other elements in the universe, and react to those stimulations. That our human machine is so complex that it has elements that can recognize itself, can store ideas into memory, etc., does not mean that we aren't machines. The soul, if it exists, would not function differently than the brain--it would have a memory, value options that are made known to it through the senses and the memory, register urges, and make a choice--and so it is not relevant whether there is a soul. In a sense, we are what we are, whatever term we call it, and there is nothing outside of matter which influences matter because matter can only be moved by matter)

Premise: We evolved as a race into global dominance for learning the amazing power of delayed gratification and cooperation, which is a related concept as I define it: cooperation here to mean taking some losses from what I want in order to make the team strongest. I don't steal if you don't steal from me. We each give up something good (taking whatever we want or need) for something that later proves to be more valuable (security). This is the essence of social evolution in humans: realizing that societies are powerful and life-bettering, and that cooperation and delayed or abstained gratification--even altruism--is better for the whole, which in turn is better for me.

Conclusion: To speak of altruism as "real" or "not real" is not really an option: it is. It is a powerful character trait that humans, as a species, have learned to exhibit since natural selection would favor those who have an edge over others, and altruism, or cooperation, proves to be the mortar in the edifice of society. Whether we act cooperatively and socially (altruistically) cognizant of the fact that we gain from it (making it an act of selfishness) or not (making it a reflexive part of one's evolved character) is a matter of individual difference.

you are wrong on the "matter can only influence matter" premis. subatomic particles are constantly moving in and out of existance, which thus relegates all newtonian logic to be obsolete. and as far as the soul being a mere piece of machinery, does that place you in the eastern philosophy of Mu, or Wu, in which there is no individuality, and that all human suffering comes from our misconception that we are unique? your second premis is definitely what i think, that all acts of charity are actually acts of selfishness in their ultimate result. and as far as your idea on altruism, i think that you are bastardizing the definition of the word.

[jab]

I'm planning on replying -- I'll be back in time. Right now work is overloading me, and I don't have time to reply thoughtfully! Suffice to say that there are some great observations and critiques of my premises and conclusion that I'd like to build on and clarify ASAP. Thanks for the great replies.