If you dont believe in God than why are you kind to people?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
81

Possibly, but if people were really selfish (concerned about themselves–genes don’t count) enough they wouldn’t obey.

fuse, I didn’t think we were talking about selfishness, which is why I only mentioned it when I had to relate it to selflessness. I generally think of most human activities in terms of a dichotomy of selflessness and selfishness. I also did say selflessness comes from selfishness, so I agree with you there.

Selflessness is sacrificing your interests for the sake of another’s; if you make the timetable long enough and pick the right variables, this synthesizes with selfishness. Compassion is hardwired to make people sacrifice their interests; they do it in terms of their own mind for selfish reasons, but they wouldn’t be themself if they didn’t. In terms of their interests in general, however, it’s still selfless, which is where the term really means anything.

82

You know, selflessness and selfishness seem to me to be two perfectly useful words, within the proper contexts. I do not see why it is important to reduce one to the other. It may be important - I just wish someone would explain how. What is the purpose of the exercise?

83

faust,

As one of those incomprehensible Taoist hippies, I would suggest that there is no selflessness without selfishness nor could selfishness exist without selflessness. They are mutually coterminous and entailing. It is a western concept that we struggle against ourselves. Good triumphs over evil - not in a degree of, but in totality. Have you ever noticed that we are always in a war with the world? We go about “conquering” nature, space, bad hair, depression, and finding a perfect latte. We work at, not with. uhhh, what was the question? :astonished:

84

I think my question is “Why is this a struggle?” I am not struggling with the idea that I can act on my own interest solely, and also in the interests of others for the duration of the effective period of the act. This thread is about freezing concepts in time. As if we can only be one or the other for eternity. It’s about some essence we, or an act is supposed to have.

I don’t get it.

85

alun -

Sometimes it is in our self-interest to obey, and sometimes it’s not. I think the whole question presupposes that we know what is right to do, and that we always do what we know to be right.

I will admit that I do not understand the rest of your post.

86

faust,

Please be careful! You’re dangerously close to being a closet Taoist. :smiley:
That you see both as operant and not a giant clash of black and white says a great deal…

87

I love the danger, tent. I see no reason why I should be a slave to logic - why I must be reasonable at any cost. Why this must be rendered mathematically. Why I need to think about every act, to determine if it is reasonable, if it is, indeed, reducible to one motive or the other. For these are not motives at all, but effects.

88

For me, it’s to define where–or understand how to define where–these proper contexts are, and how the words change meaning within them.

It may do more supposing than that, but my thinking is that an individual will usually see a person in authority conflicting with a lot of their interests, as authority is never perfect enough to please everyone. Of course, they could still theoretically hold authority through fear or force if there were no compassion, but I find it hard to believe that authority could be maintained without somebody actually submitting to it out of more than the transient motivation of fear.

Considering how smart you are and how vague my post is, I think that’s my fault. Sorry.

“Selflessness is sacrificing your interests for the sake of another’s; if you make the timetable long enough and pick the right variables, this synthesizes with selfishness” -an example could be contrived out of recycling. It’s inconvenient, and generally the selfishness of the moment is what directs people to not bother with it. But if a person were to think ahead, their contribution to maintaining resources, and the potential rippling effect they’d have on people around them, could help society in the long run. So, perhaps the guy who recycles paper’s grandchildren can afford paper for schoolwork, and have the learning to entice a partner into a lasting relationship. Thus, it would be selfish in the big scheme for the person to recycle, because it helps his genes last.

“Compassion is hardwired to make people sacrifice their interests; they do it in terms of their own mind for selfish reasons, but they wouldn’t be themself if they didn’t.” Ok, “selfishness” doesn’t really carry any of the same egoentric connotations, or shouldn’t, in terms of oneself. You’re submitting to yourself when you do anything, because you’re in control of yourself; the same goes for compassion. The way I described compassion as selfless wasn’t in terms of just inside a person’s head, but in terms of their interests. A person who dives into freezing water to save a stranger out of compassion is selfish, because they chose to do it in response to their own desires; compassion. But it’s silly to use the word that way and expect it to mean something negative, as “selfish” is usually interpretted.

Ok, that was a mouthful to explain three sentences :slight_smile:

89

Alun - I’m not sure I like the recycling example, because I think recycling is a scam. But I don’t want to get hung up on the example, because I can certainly accept your assumptions as a point of argument. Well, not all of your assumptions. The genes - you have to assume that we have some inborn desire for this. I do not think that I do - by which I mean to suggest at least one counterexample. The problem is that the farther out you need to draw the scenario, the less certain are the facts. To reduce human motivation to blind instinct, to biology, sounds good in theory, but is difficult to show in actual cases. Or is it biology to truly wish to reduce it to?

This is a little complex - for me, anyway, because I think that cause and effect can only be shown “backwards”. To posit a latent, sub- or unconscious drive that effects an unkown future, and how it effects that future, is too tricky for me to accept so easily. If we are to get biological, we might do well to note that most survival decisions are made in a much shorter time-frame. What may be bred into us is not obviously a capacity to ensure the long-term survival of the race, but our own individual survival. And this is how we usually think of “survival instincts”. The actual desire for the preservation of the race through conscious decisions, however influenced by inborn drives, takes a bit more than you have argued for, I think. The desire to copulate itself can overcome prudence quite easily. It’s a numbers game only, this survival of a species.

I should add here that what I have said is not in contradistinction to the Will to Power, but to knowledge about it effects. The WTP does not guarantee results, it only describes desires.

The lifesaver (of a stranger) may be reacting to social conditioning - there are many more nonheroes than heroes. I’m not sure that we can ascribe anything inborn to such various behavior. Some lifesavers may simply be in error, and some might get away with it. I think you are describing agency, and not selfishness.

But the problem of error is the biggest one for me. You seem to suggest that whatever we do, it follows from an inexorable drive, and that we cannot simply be in error. That we cannot misinterpret the circumstances, or have learned the wrong lessons - that our decisions are, at bottom, always right in terms of this characteristic of self-somethingness.

Can we not simply be in error in selflessness? Is it always utile? Functional?

And isn’t there such a thing as true risk? “I will risk this, not for my own good, not even to project power, for I do not know I have this power, but precisely because I don’t know”. That is a big risk. How can we be sure that your fatalistic paradigm will bail us out?

To act even if we do not know if it is good for us. Even if it doesn’t help the race. Even if we know it is not good for us. Isn’t there risk, sometimes? Can’t we lose?

90

there’s no denying the survival instinct

we’ve covered it up well with our complex “social” institutions

: )

91

fuse,

While there is no denying the survival instinct, like faust, I have a problem with locking up the conclusion in the definition, which is what much of the Dawkins theory attempts to do.

The is many a slip between cup and lip…

92

I am in agreement, I did not mean to limit all human motivation to survival.

Most of us live so comfortably now compared to the past, that the days are long gone when we were concerned with basic survival; now the quest is how well can I survive, or better yet, how close can I come to my potential as an individual.

This has got to be the main goal, however, that isn’t to say that a person couldn’t stray from acting toward his (or her) functional end. I’m sure we could come up with an example of risk which was not functionally motivated. (however, I cannot think of one at the top of my head)

When you do something you do that something for a reason and, unless your functional end is masochistic, I can’t think of any example in which a person would make a decision that he/she percieved unbeneficial. Of course, perceptions are easily distorted.

93

We help others to benefit ourselves. It’s no secret that the wellbeing of others has an effect on us. Duh.

94

exactly :smiley:

95

Honestly, I am much more interested in discussing the opposite question.

What reasons do theists give for “being kind,” because the thread so far is supposed to be concerned only with the non-religious reasons. Shouldn’t we discuss both sides?

What reasons do theists give for “being kind” since they do believe in god?

Anybody? : )

-this is just starting to get interesting

96

Just a note - I think we are, tent, fuse and I are talking the same lingo - just checking. I don’t deny that we possess inborn abilities, aptitudes, and/or traits for survival - I do not think it is necessary to narrow this down more for the present purposes - but that this characteristic is effectively present in a way that reacts to the “facts on the ground” vis a vis the individual, and that any “survival instinct” (read the quotes any way you like) is not operative upon the species as a whole. No act of altruism can be sensibly seen as saving the entire species. Except a couple of things that Superman has done, but he’s not human.

Survival instinct is survival instincts, and these operate within individuals. There is a limit to the amount of generalisation that remains meaningful.

As your question, fuse, I have a question. Don’t theists qua theists do as God says? Isn’t that why they are kind (unless they are torturing heretics or something)? Do you have to be a theist to know this?

I’m not being a smartass (okay, except for that “heretic” remark). I just think that’s the assumption in the original question.

97

Faust,

I couldn’t agree more. The tendency is to posit statements as an either/or position. We have a difficult time saying that we don’t have enough knowledge to know anything but the most general, which has nothing to say about the individual. Sometimes, all of the pieces don’t quite add up to one.

Too often, the discourse is more about the logic or lack thereof, which is just the construct, than it is about the question at hand. It is here that I pull out Wittgenstein and ask, how is it being used? Forget the definitions, the logic, the preconceived meanings, how is it being used and how can we act on that? Usually, I end up talking to myself. Of course, that’s all right by me. I like my answers. :wink:

98

Faust,

Just as each athiest will give you a personal variation of why they are"kind," I believe we will find varying reactions from the religious as well.

And maybe…you are right. Someone is just going to pop in and say…well, I do what I do beacause of Him, you know, the big guy ^ there.

In that case I would like to know why it is exactly they do what they do because of Him. That seems to defy reason, logic, the value of the self, and a number of other important things and I would like to discuss it…

so that’s what I’m looking :unamused: forward to…

99

I don’t care if you live your life being the kindest person on the earth, I would agree with your behavior, and I would love to be your friend, but I can’t quite have all the respect for you in the world if you’re making choices because someone else told you to.

Now, I believe people do what they believe to be right, but then that means that theists believe that religion is good and truthfull, not on account of their own moral values, but because they believe in God’s.

If this is true, it’s not a very stable grounding for morality. It becomes a source for theists to justify their actions, and it’s just plain…plain something…not good.

How can we learn to be better, more moral species if we are limited to following directions? (Isn’t it obvious that God’s directions have always been confusing and even misleading at times?)

**I want the discussion to continue, keeping in mind that the Christian God is not the only God that I am concerned with

BTW for everyone who is just tuning into this thread, I would like to move on to the question: “Why are theists kind?”

100

fuse,

Yes, there is always the problem of morality as expressed in an “operator’s manual”. However, can you see the paradox? As soon as you define morality you’ve placed constraints on expression. Theist or nontheist, holy scripture or scribble on toilet paper, is it not the same? :astonished: