Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Is it possible to wear off evil from Humanity?
19916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/2/13 , edited 8/2/13
I think everyone have some "volume" of evil in them. Shoot, I can't count how many times I wanted to slap an annoying person up side the head. See? Evil thought because you don't just walk up to someone and slap them up side the head because they're annoying. The thing that makes me different from the person that actually slapped someone for being annoying? Self-control. Everyone has different levels of self-control, thus they have different opinions about what is evil. But history has proven time and time again that evil can be stopped and prevented. Just that, it doesn't last long till someone else comes up with an evil idea to threaten another human's existence.

So no, there is no way to get rid of evil completely. It's like trying to get rid of a disease. Some are incurable because they keep changing and evolving. Sure you can keep it under control, but it's still there to show it's ugliness and infect someone else.
28123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Newcastle, UK
Offline
Posted 8/2/13
Personally I struggle to grasp the concept of evil. Terrorism is evil. Capitalism is evil. My God is evil, your God is evil. If you put 5 people in a room I guarantee you'll be able to find at least one shared concept they all agree is evil, but equally you'll find 5 differing viewpoints on what else is evil. How can we eradicate a concept when we'll never all agree upon a definition?
10869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/2/13 , edited 8/2/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
But why would you truly believe what you're doing isn't wrong, if you have empathy and can see that you've caused someone to suffer?


???

Because that person weren't taught on what is wrong. They might do things that hurt another person, but if they've never been taught it was wrong, they wouldn't feel guilty.

Human intellects give humans the ability to empathise, but unless it was conditioned by society first, the empathy we see today wouldn't come to that person so easily.

Analogy: Human intellects give humans the ability to solve mathematical equations, but if they're never taught maths, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Having the intellect and having the required instruction are two separate things.


...are you saying not even empathy is real? What emotions do you think are real and not social constructs? Why are you so against the idea that humans feel a complicated range of emotions?




The number of people society will shun you for loving at the same time seems completely unrelated to whether or not love is a social construct. A lot of societies hail heterosexuality as the norm and will shun people for having partners of the same sex, does that mean that a gay couple in such a society is defined as not being in love?



Well, you asked me how "love" progressed from being non-existent to becoming prevalent in human society, and I gave you the examples.
In Viking periods, "love" between humans were similar to primitive humans, they breed, they have children, breed some more etc.
This love during Viking periods were mirroring the sexual desire and instincts from evolution.

However, over time it evolved into something more than just sexual desire due to continuous social condition of the meaning of love.

I answered your question of how it progressed from nothing to first stages of love to what love is today. I wasn't comparing them. It was a chronological timeline of "love".


Well, since you've brought up the homosexuality romances, did you know it was classified by The American Psychologists in the 70's as a mental disorder? Did you know that anyone caught having sex with the same sex were sent off to jail?
Do you still think people think homosexual romance is "love"? Did you know in some parts of the Middle East, homosexuals get sentenced to death if found out?
And in some parts of USA, gay marriage isn't even recognised legally?


Yeah, I'm saying that (a large subset of) people/societies don't think homosexual romance is love. That, combined with the fact that plenty of homosexual couples are in love as much as heterosexual couples, implies love is not a socially conditioned thing.

Why would anyone who was socially conditioned to only be allowed to fall in love with the opposite sex fall in love with a member of the same sex if "love" is just an illusion produced by social conditioning?




Maybe a little more than just enough to have clothes on backs/roofs over heads/food on the table is needed, then?

Or less consumer culture pumping everyone to be materialistic...

...or a stronger sense of community in the places where people live...

...or more respect for the law/better laws that deserve respect...

...or less income disparity...

Point being, I'm not sure if it's worth writing off as a lost cause just yet.


The problem with this ideal is that you assume humans have the capacity to be philosophically uniformed.

Even you and I have different philosophical stances. You can't expect a whole community to agree with one another so easily.

And, without a capitalist system, people are not going to be as innovative in their thinking. As much as I hate to admit it, money does drive innovation to some level.


You don't need to make things uniform, you just need to move the average.

What part of what I said implies changes in the capitalist system deep enough to make innovation go away?
35178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/2/13 , edited 8/2/13

Rowan93 wrote:
...are you saying not even empathy is real? What emotions do you think are real and not social constructs? Why are you so against the idea that humans feel a complicated range of emotions?


That's what I've been saying since my first reply to you...
(I even put in a scientific evidence that is the Stanford Prison Experiment, to which you didn't agree with because the sample number was too small)
And since it is now illegal and considered "unethical" to perform human experiments, there is no way we'll ever know the objective answer to whether empathy exists on a DNA or not, but the only way to support my statement/ideas is to use hypothetical situations and thought experiments.

Here's another hypothetical situation for you to consider: Why do humans only feel bad/guilty/remorse when other humans are suffering, why can't they feel this way for objects or animals? or the environment? (of course you could argue that some environmentalists care about animals, but that's not the point, the majority of humans DON'T care about animals, they only care when other humans suffer).

The answer to this is because humans conditioned one another to believe that we should feel sorry for other humans if they are suffering.


What emotions do I think are real?

Happiness.
Sadness.
Fear.
Anger.
Desire.
Greed.
Murderous instinct.

These don't NEED to be conditioned into a person. They are on the genetic code.


Why are you against the idea that humans can feel a complicated range of emotions?



I'm not against it.
In fact, I would be ecstatic if empathy/remorse/morality could be encoded on the genetic code, maybe we could finally have world peace or UTOPIA, but the truth of the matter is they're not. It is a learned trait.


There is nothing complicated about remorse or love. When you feel remorse, you basically feel sad about a particular incident taking place in life. When you feel love, you feel happy about a different set of circumstances.

Humans like to give names to things that are not even there.





Why would anyone who was socially conditioned to only be allowed to fall in love with the opposite sex fall in love with a member of the same sex if "love" is just an illusion produced by social conditioning?


Well, if you remember my first few replies to you, I said that why is there a gender barrier for a person to "fall in love"? Because people fall in love based on their sexuality--in other words sexual desires play a role in choosing who you want to love and who you don't want to.

That's why I said it numerous times in my previous replies: Social conditioning cannot override natural instinct--in this case, the natural instinct for a heterosexual person is to sexually desire the opposite gender.




You don't need to make things uniform, you just need to move the average.

What part of what I said implies changes in the capitalist system deep enough to make innovation go away?



"Or less consumer culture pumping everyone to be materialistic...
...or less income disparity..."


You can't decrease income disparity without sacrificing some level of capitalist ideals.
2843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Colorado Springs,...
Offline
Posted 8/2/13 , edited 8/2/13
Would you like to get rid of evil?

Study psychology. Try to realize human beings are animals. Animals who become hand shy, lash out and other negative acts depending on the circumstances of their life. Try to realize every single human is a person, even the ones who harm you personally. Try to realize most acts you perceive as harmful are more inspired by the perpetrator than the victim.

We lash out when we feel pain. We lash out when we don't know what else to do. We are still animals. Animals that defend territory, separate ourselves into categories/packs, express anger, possessive traits, and many other emotions. And then take a step back, and realize that you have expressed every evil emotion you've observed in others. The severity and complexity in which you expressed these emotions may have varied, but that doesn't make it any less of the same emotion.

We are complex animals that have learned to express ourselves in complex ways and some of those ways seem infinitely more harmful than the pure emotion that inspired it.

Welcome to life. The only evil is the imagined concept that exists within your head and the only demons are the ones you create.
10869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/3/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
...are you saying not even empathy is real? What emotions do you think are real and not social constructs? Why are you so against the idea that humans feel a complicated range of emotions?


That's what I've been saying since my first reply to you...
(I even put in a scientific evidence that is the Stanford Prison Experiment, to which you didn't agree with because the sample number was too small)
And since it is now illegal and considered "unethical" to perform human experiments, there is no way we'll ever know the objective answer to whether empathy exists on a DNA or not, but the only way to support my statement/ideas is to use hypothetical situations and thought experiments.


Sample number was too small, and the sample was non-random, and the researcher directly took part in the experiment, but that wasn't my main reason for rejecting it, my main reason was that I don't think it counts as evidence for your hypothesis, and compared to the hypothesis I think it does show (weak) evidence for, yours is ridiculously far-reaching and would take some much more thorough experimentation.

Human experimentation isn't deemed to be always unethical, it's just a problem when people inflicting abuse and psychological torture on other people is a result of the experiment.

Your thought experiments produce very different results when others try to replicate them, which is failing at the only job a thought experiment has to do.


Here's another hypothetical situation for you to consider: Why do humans only feel bad/guilty/remorse when other humans are suffering, why can't they feel this way for objects or animals? or the environment? (of course you could argue that some environmentalists care about animals, but that's not the point, the majority of humans DON'T care about animals, they only care when other humans suffer).


If we didn't feel empathy for animals, all of the guilt-tripping adverts for animal-related charities (plus the charities themselves I guess) would have no effect on anyone, and they wouldn't exist. Also, vegetarians might exist but none of them would be motivated by animal suffering so most of them wouldn't be so sanctimonious. Also everyone would completely agree that animal testing was good. Also there'd be no backlash against halal slaughter becoming more prevalent relative to modern techniques. Also, we'd never have stopped bear-baiting, and we'd probably have cat pianos. I don't think I need to keep going with this, everyone who has empathy also empathizes at least a little with animals, even if they've decided animals don't have moral standing because they don't have souls or whatever, and that particular moral position is declining in popularity anyway.

As for the environment, it has no brain, no central nervous system, nothing remotely analogous to either of those (please, no stretched-to-the-breaking-point analogies), no mind and no feelings. I'm sure some people empathize with the environment anyway, because the emotion tends to misfire a bit, but there's no reason most people should.


The answer to this is because humans conditioned one another to believe that we should feel sorry for other humans if they are suffering.


What emotions do I think are real?

Happiness.
Sadness.
Fear.
Anger.
Desire.
Greed.
Murderous instinct.

These don't NEED to be conditioned into a person. They are on the genetic code.


Murderous instinct wouldn't meet the definition of "emotion" even if it was a real thing. The closest thing to an emotion that I can think of that "murderous instinct" could mean is "lack of empathy", which is the lack of an emotion you claim isn't real anyway.

Why not also claim that the instinct that pulls your hand away from a hot stove before your brain can process it is an emotion? It obviously isn't, but why is "murderous instinct", which isn't even coherent, any higher status in the brain?



Why are you against the idea that humans can feel a complicated range of emotions?



I'm not against it.
In fact, I would be ecstatic if empathy/remorse/morality could be encoded on the genetic code, maybe we could finally have world peace or UTOPIA, but the truth of the matter is they're not. It is a learned trait.


There is nothing complicated about remorse or love. When you feel remorse, you basically feel sad about a particular incident taking place in life. When you feel love, you feel happy about a different set of circumstances.

Humans like to give names to things that are not even there.


I don't think they're that simple.




Why would anyone who was socially conditioned to only be allowed to fall in love with the opposite sex fall in love with a member of the same sex if "love" is just an illusion produced by social conditioning?


Well, if you remember my first few replies to you, I said that why is there a gender barrier for a person to "fall in love"? Because people fall in love based on their sexuality--in other words sexual desires play a role in choosing who you want to love and who you don't want to.

That's why I said it numerous times in my previous replies: Social conditioning cannot override natural instinct--in this case, the natural instinct for a heterosexual person is to sexually desire the opposite gender.


You can be in love without sexually desiring the person in question, or sexually desire someone without being in love with them. That's viewed as not being a healthy relationship, but it is still a thing that exists.

http://gawker.com/5917022/im-a-gay-mormon-whos-been-happily-married-for-10-years

If love is caused by social conditioning, why wouldn't this be the normal state of affairs? Or something more extreme, where for gay men love was actually completely detached from sexual attraction. It's possible, and if it's socially conditioned it should be what happens.




You don't need to make things uniform, you just need to move the average.

What part of what I said implies changes in the capitalist system deep enough to make innovation go away?



"Or less consumer culture pumping everyone to be materialistic...
...or less income disparity..."


You can't decrease income disparity without sacrificing some level of capitalist ideals.


Progressive taxation changes after-tax income. As long as you have things set up so that nobody will decrease after-tax earnings by increasing before-tax ones, capitalism is completely intact. The incentives may or may not be weakened a little - the fact that the numbers don't increase as much as the equivalent numbers would for a past generation won't factor into many people's decisions as to whether to try for a raise or not.
35178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/3/13 , edited 8/3/13

Rowan93 wrote:
Sample number was too small, and the sample was non-random, and the researcher directly took part in the experiment, but that wasn't my main reason for rejecting it, my main reason was that I don't think it counts as evidence for your hypothesis, and compared to the hypothesis I think it does show (weak) evidence for, yours is ridiculously far-reaching and would take some much more thorough experimentation.


Well, since my scientific evidence and thought experiment are void (according to you), why don't you try presenting some of your own evidence? I would very much like to see some scientific proof/evidence and/or objective evidence to support this rebuttal you said in your first reply:

"You know how much humans tend to hate murderers? We didn't decide on that by a rational process, that's an evolved trait.
You know how guilty you would feel if someone made you kill a guy? Evolved trait. Same goes for theft."



And I'm not being sarcastic either, I am interested in what evidence you have to support the above statements you've made. (Don't say things like people helping an old lady cross the street prove that "guilt" and "empathy" were traits that evolved by nature).

I'm the only one who's been providing non-anecdotal support statements so far for my point of view.

If you can provide any concrete evidence for your point of view, then sure, I'll retract my original statement about herbivore/carnivore/murderous instinct in a heartbeat.



Human experimentation isn't deemed to be always unethical, it's just a problem when people inflicting abuse and psychological torture on other people is a result of the experiment.

Your thought experiments produce very different results when others try to replicate them, which is failing at the only job a thought experiment has to do.


It's deemed unethical because people have a herd mentality; "Ooh science must be evil because people have side effects from vaccines and medicines", "Ooh science must be evil because somebody got hurt from an experiment". If they truly believe in the notion that hurting people is unethical, they wouldn't allow militarism, but of course they use a reason such as, "Defending the country" as a way to justify militarism... which is a place that's worse than any unethical scientific experiment in the past (psychologically-wise).


My thought experiment didn't produce a different result, you never disagreed with me on this point: Would a person raised by wolves feel guilty if he killed a human that he never seen before?

You never said Yes, you just said that he would feel guilty if he killed a wolf.

The result is supposed to be "No". So unless you say yes, then your result is not different to mine, whether he feels guilty killing wolves or not is a totally different thought experiment and irrelevant to my thought experiment.




Murderous instinct wouldn't meet the definition of "emotion" even if it was a real thing. The closest thing to an emotion that I can think of that "murderous instinct" could mean is "lack of empathy", which is the lack of an emotion you claim isn't real anyway.

Why not also claim that the instinct that pulls your hand away from a hot stove before your brain can process it is an emotion? It obviously isn't, but why is "murderous instinct", which isn't even coherent, any higher status in the brain?


Pulling your hand away from the hot stove is a reflex, caused by pain from pain signals sent to your brain causing you to react. It doesn't qualify as an emotion, it's a reflex instinct.

Murderous instincts qualify as an emotion because your psychology changes and it's not a reflex response to anything, but an emotional response to an external stimulus, e.g. Tiger sees prey, tiger feels murderous. Tiger with cubs, tiger feels protective.

Protective instinct is also an emotion instilled in female mammals.



If we didn't feel empathy for animals, all of the guilt-tripping adverts for animal-related charities (plus the charities themselves I guess) would have no effect on anyone, and they wouldn't exist. Also, vegetarians might exist but none of them would be motivated by animal suffering so most of them wouldn't be so sanctimonious. Also everyone would completely agree that animal testing was good. Also there'd be no backlash against halal slaughter becoming more prevalent relative to modern techniques. Also, we'd never have stopped bear-baiting, and we'd probably have cat pianos. I don't think I need to keep going with this, everyone who has empathy also empathizes at least a little with animals, even if they've decided animals don't have moral standing because they don't have souls or whatever, and that particular moral position is declining in popularity anyway.

As for the environment, it has no brain, no central nervous system, nothing remotely analogous to either of those (please, no stretched-to-the-breaking-point analogies), no mind and no feelings. I'm sure some people empathize with the environment anyway, because the emotion tends to misfire a bit, but there's no reason most people should.


And why do you think it's declining in recent years? is it because people "evolved" empathy?

Humans don't evolve something within a 50 years gap, animals were treated cruelly 50 years ago and before that. It's become acceptable to stand for animal rights at the moment because that's what the animal lovers in society are conditioning people to do...

You've just supported my point, you didn't make it less true.




I don't think they're that simple.


They are simple.

People like to make it sound complicated. That's why psychiatrists and counsellors exist. They are there to help people sort out their "complicated" emotions.



You can be in love without sexually desiring the person in question, or sexually desire someone without being in love with them. That's viewed as not being a healthy relationship, but it is still a thing that exists.

http://gawker.com/5917022/im-a-gay-mormon-whos-been-happily-married-for-10-years

If love is caused by social conditioning, why wouldn't this be the normal state of affairs? Or something more extreme, where for gay men love was actually completely detached from sexual attraction. It's possible, and if it's socially conditioned it should be what happens.


What you're referring to is "platonic" love, which occurs in less than 1% of the human population.

And you called me far-reaching, I think you're really reaching here with this statement based on an anomaly occurring in the human population.

(The anomaly most likely to rise from a defect in sexual desire part of the brain)



Progressive taxation changes after-tax income. As long as you have things set up so that nobody will decrease after-tax earnings by increasing before-tax ones, capitalism is completely intact. The incentives may or may not be weakened a little - the fact that the numbers don't increase as much as the equivalent numbers would for a past generation won't factor into many people's decisions as to whether to try for a raise or not.



Yes, in your simple world it might work.

But in reality, it doesn't and it won't. You assume the government has unlimited funds and can grow money on trees. The government takes tax from people, that tax money is not even enough in some years, they have to borrow money from other countries.

Have you considered other things like inflation? World inflation? Currency exchange? International investors? Bank interest rates rise and decline?


This world economics is not a simple one--and nobody has been able to perfect it, people who dream of world peace are deluding themselves.
10869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/3/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
Sample number was too small, and the sample was non-random, and the researcher directly took part in the experiment, but that wasn't my main reason for rejecting it, my main reason was that I don't think it counts as evidence for your hypothesis, and compared to the hypothesis I think it does show (weak) evidence for, yours is ridiculously far-reaching and would take some much more thorough experimentation.


Well, since my scientific evidence and thought experiment are void (according to you), why don't you try presenting some of your own evidence? I would very much like to see some scientific proof/evidence and/or objective evidence to support this rebuttal you said in your first reply:

"You know how much humans tend to hate murderers? We didn't decide on that by a rational process, that's an evolved trait.
You know how guilty you would feel if someone made you kill a guy? Evolved trait. Same goes for theft."



And I'm not being sarcastic either, I am interested in what evidence you have to support the above statements you've made. (Don't say things like people helping an old lady cross the street prove that "guilt" and "empathy" were traits that evolved by nature).

I'm the only one who's been providing non-anecdotal support statements so far for my point of view.

If you can provide any concrete evidence for your point of view, then sure, I'll retract my original statement about herbivore/carnivore/murderous instinct in a heartbeat.


Given that the traits are exhibited, that they actually exist and do so because they are evolved traits of the human species is, I think, the null hypothesis. You can't really prove that a trait evolved, and the experiments to test whether altruism is genetic would be...

Actually, no, come to think of it, you don't have to leave people alone without society or do anything else horrible, you just need twin studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691905/

43% of the variance is genetic. Which I think means that someone left alone in the wild without morality would be about 1-2 standard deviations less moral than the mean? I'm not sure, but it probably means they'd have a sense of right and wrong.



Human experimentation isn't deemed to be always unethical, it's just a problem when people inflicting abuse and psychological torture on other people is a result of the experiment.

Your thought experiments produce very different results when others try to replicate them, which is failing at the only job a thought experiment has to do.


It's deemed unethical because people have a herd mentality; "Ooh science must be evil because people have side effects from vaccines and medicines", "Ooh science must be evil because somebody got hurt from an experiment". If they truly believe in the notion that hurting people is unethical, they wouldn't allow militarism, but of course they use a reason such as, "Defending the country" as a way to justify militarism... which is a place that's worse than any unethical scientific experiment in the past (psychologically-wise).


My thought experiment didn't produce a different result, you never disagreed with me on this point: Would a person raised by wolves feel guilty if he killed a human that he never seen before?

You never said Yes, you just said that he would feel guilty if he killed a wolf.

The result is supposed to be "No". So unless you say yes, then your result is not different to mine, whether he feels guilty killing wolves or not is a totally different thought experiment and irrelevant to my thought experiment.


The fact that a person who had never seen another person and didn't know what a person was wouldn't feel guilty for killing someone is irrelevant. They wouldn't know that "killing someone" is what they had done. If they subsequently learned that the person they killed was a person, they'd probably feel super-guilty, but I'm not sure how to disentangle that such that you can't just complain that it's social conditioning and that's where guilt comes from. To avoid that difficulty, I just point out an example of guilt being something that someone raised by wolves would be able to feel in some circumstances - I don't think the circumstances that cause the feeling matter, if you're arguing that the emotion only exists at all because of social conditioning.





Murderous instinct wouldn't meet the definition of "emotion" even if it was a real thing. The closest thing to an emotion that I can think of that "murderous instinct" could mean is "lack of empathy", which is the lack of an emotion you claim isn't real anyway.

Why not also claim that the instinct that pulls your hand away from a hot stove before your brain can process it is an emotion? It obviously isn't, but why is "murderous instinct", which isn't even coherent, any higher status in the brain?


Pulling your hand away from the hot stove is a reflex, caused by pain from pain signals sent to your brain causing you to react. It doesn't qualify as an emotion, it's a reflex instinct.

Murderous instincts qualify as an emotion because your psychology changes and it's not a reflex response to anything, but an emotional response to an external stimulus, e.g. Tiger sees prey, tiger feels murderous. Tiger with cubs, tiger feels protective.

Protective instinct is also an emotion instilled in female mammals.


I don't think "murderous" is an emotion the tiger feels (given that tigers feel as wide a spectrum of emotions as humans anyway). The tiger already feels hungry, and is acting on that emotion, why complicate it with a completely unrelated extra emotion?

Also, the tiger isn't thinking of what it's doing as "murder", doesn't ave any approximation of the concept of murder, and doesn't necessarily even consider the fact that the thing it's hunting has a mind that will be extinguished when it's killed - how do you know the tiger's brain isn't processing the prey as a plant that runs away?



If we didn't feel empathy for animals, all of the guilt-tripping adverts for animal-related charities (plus the charities themselves I guess) would have no effect on anyone, and they wouldn't exist. Also, vegetarians might exist but none of them would be motivated by animal suffering so most of them wouldn't be so sanctimonious. Also everyone would completely agree that animal testing was good. Also there'd be no backlash against halal slaughter becoming more prevalent relative to modern techniques. Also, we'd never have stopped bear-baiting, and we'd probably have cat pianos. I don't think I need to keep going with this, everyone who has empathy also empathizes at least a little with animals, even if they've decided animals don't have moral standing because they don't have souls or whatever, and that particular moral position is declining in popularity anyway.

As for the environment, it has no brain, no central nervous system, nothing remotely analogous to either of those (please, no stretched-to-the-breaking-point analogies), no mind and no feelings. I'm sure some people empathize with the environment anyway, because the emotion tends to misfire a bit, but there's no reason most people should.


And why do you think it's declining in recent years? is it because people "evolved" empathy?

Humans don't evolve something within a 50 years gap, animals were treated cruelly 50 years ago and before that. It's become acceptable to stand for animal rights at the moment because that's what the animal lovers in society are conditioning people to do...

You've just supported my point, you didn't make it less true.


Just because empathy isn't an illusion created by society doesn't mean social trends don't change anything at all.

Animal-lovers condition the larger society to empathize with animals because they've been conditioned by society (somehow) to feel empathy for animals because...

Who was socially conditioning people to love animals back when animal cruelty was considered to be all in good fun? And if nobody was, how do you explain the current state of affairs?

These social trends have to start somewhere, and without an actual real emotion being involved at the start of it, things just remain inexplicable at the end of the chain of "because"s.



You can be in love without sexually desiring the person in question, or sexually desire someone without being in love with them. That's viewed as not being a healthy relationship, but it is still a thing that exists.

http://gawker.com/5917022/im-a-gay-mormon-whos-been-happily-married-for-10-years

If love is caused by social conditioning, why wouldn't this be the normal state of affairs? Or something more extreme, where for gay men love was actually completely detached from sexual attraction. It's possible, and if it's socially conditioned it should be what happens.


What you're referring to is "platonic" love, which occurs in less than 1% of the human population.

And you called me far-reaching, I think you're really reaching here with this statement based on an anomaly occurring in the human population.

(The anomaly most likely to rise from a defect in sexual desire part of the brain)


How can you get rare anomalous things that people are born with in something that's completely not genetic and caused by social conditioning?

I'm not sure if you can call a capacity for platonic love (I'm pretty sure that's a thing that exists in more than 1% of the population. Isn't the love one is talking about when one says "I love you, man" to a good friend called platonic? Everyone has that, right?) a defect.




Progressive taxation changes after-tax income. As long as you have things set up so that nobody will decrease after-tax earnings by increasing before-tax ones, capitalism is completely intact. The incentives may or may not be weakened a little - the fact that the numbers don't increase as much as the equivalent numbers would for a past generation won't factor into many people's decisions as to whether to try for a raise or not.



Yes, in your simple world it might work.

But in reality, it doesn't and it won't. You assume the government has unlimited funds and can grow money on trees. The government takes tax from people, that tax money is not even enough in some years, they have to borrow money from other countries.

Have you considered other things like inflation? World inflation? Currency exchange? International investors? Bank interest rates rise and decline?


This world economics is not a simple one--and nobody has been able to perfect it, people who dream of world peace are deluding themselves.


Progressive taxation just means taxing the rich more than the poor. Just about every country does that anyway, the point would be just to emphasize it more and get rid of the loopholes. Why would the government not having unlimited funds be a problem for a government trying to squeeze more money out of the rich?

Problems that come up as inflation, investment rates, whatever else are affected can be dealt with in their turn. Fixing those problems can be treated as a completely separate thing, to be dealt with by people who actually understand macroeconomics (or, failing that, economists). If stopping the rich from keeping their money in tax havens will break the economy, then let it break: They've had it coming.
35178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/3/13

Rowan93 wrote:
Given that the traits are exhibited, that they actually exist and do so because they are evolved traits of the human species is, I think, the null hypothesis. You can't really prove that a trait evolved, and the experiments to test whether altruism is genetic would be...

Actually, no, come to think of it, you don't have to leave people alone without society or do anything else horrible, you just need twin studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691905/

43% of the variance is genetic. Which I think means that someone left alone in the wild without morality would be about 1-2 standard deviations less moral than the mean? I'm not sure, but it probably means they'd have a sense of right and wrong.



That was an interesting read, I genuinely believed that article could change my views about empathy and human nature, until I got to the method of the experiment.
Did you read the methods?

How can you criticise the Stanford Prison Experiment and not see any flaws in this experiment?

Firstly, the experiment in that twin study article was done by asking participants to complete "questionnaires", which are already subjective in itself.

Secondly, the participants are twins who have already been socially conditioned, they were then asked to complete questionnaires to prove whether their altruistic/aggressive behaviour was genetically linked or environmentally linked, but they have already been socially conditioned, how can their answers be "objective"?

Thirdly, how do you know the participants were telling the truth? You can't. Therefore the results are not reliable.


At least in the Stanford Prison Experiment, they can tell that the experimental subjects weren't acting, they were able to observe psychological and behavioural changes. Those are reliable observations, not based on "questionnaires".




The fact that a person who had never seen another person and didn't know what a person was wouldn't feel guilty for killing someone is irrelevant. They wouldn't know that "killing someone" is what they had done. If they subsequently learned that the person they killed was a person, they'd probably feel super-guilty, but I'm not sure how to disentangle that such that you can't just complain that it's social conditioning and that's where guilt comes from. To avoid that difficulty, I just point out an example of guilt being something that someone raised by wolves would be able to feel in some circumstances - I don't think the circumstances that cause the feeling matter, if you're arguing that the emotion only exists at all because of social conditioning.


Again, you're just supporting my point.

If a person doesn't know when he's "killing someone", then wouldn't it make sense to conclude that he doesn't know "empathy" until he was told about it?

The point of my thought experiment was to indicate that a human growing up in the wild would not feel any guilt for killing things because he was never taught that killing things were wrong, so there would be no guilt. He would feel sad for killing wolves, because humans are naturally social animals with emphasis on family bonding.

And I believe you're confusing "empathy/guilt" with the nature of humans. Some people are gentle in nature due to genes yes, and some people are aggressive in nature because of genes, which relates back to my original statement, that there are still murderous instincts present in today's humans, just some is stronger in some humans than in others. The people whose ancestors have decreased murderous tendencies will obviously become gentler and gentler in nature over time as those genes will get passed on and those murderous instincts become weaker and weaker for that particular family.




I don't think "murderous" is an emotion the tiger feels (given that tigers feel as wide a spectrum of emotions as humans anyway). The tiger already feels hungry, and is acting on that emotion, why complicate it with a completely unrelated extra emotion?

Also, the tiger isn't thinking of what it's doing as "murder", doesn't ave any approximation of the concept of murder, and doesn't necessarily even consider the fact that the thing it's hunting has a mind that will be extinguished when it's killed - how do you know the tiger's brain isn't processing the prey as a plant that runs away?


I can't take this sentence seriously.
Animals are smarter than you give them credit for.

The concept of "murderous" wouldn't exist in a tiger's mind nor would the concept of "mother/child", yet we still use these words to describe animals anyway, this is for communication's sake between humans.

Based on human observations, most carnivorous/omnivorous ARE hunters/predators. They have a unique way of hunting prey, some animals stalk their prey, some build a trap etc. These actions require more than just "hunger", they need something else to be able to motivate them to effectively kill a prey.



Just because empathy isn't an illusion created by society doesn't mean social trends don't change anything at all.

Animal-lovers condition the larger society to empathize with animals because they've been conditioned by society (somehow) to feel empathy for animals because...

Who was socially conditioning people to love animals back when animal cruelty was considered to be all in good fun? And if nobody was, how do you explain the current state of affairs?

These social trends have to start somewhere, and without an actual real emotion being involved at the start of it, things just remain inexplicable at the end of the chain of "because"s.


There's always a reason why and how people become socially conditioned into feeling something.

The love of animals? When humans first started domesticating animals such as sheep, cows, dogs, cats etc. At first, it was about conveniently harvesting food from animals. Over time, humans become attached to animals. And then at one point in time in the last 50 years, some group decided to start an animal rights group... because of all the unfairness they see... they can't stand the sight of seeing their favourite animal being harmed, so they wanted to see it stopped. They weren't born with empathy for animals, they were born, probably grew up with animals, got attached to those animals and decided one day, they will advocate for that particular animal's safety.

That's why animal groups like PETA are hypocritical and stupid. They care about the furry cuddly animals, but do they give a damn about ALL animals equally?

Why do you think PETA only use high profile celebrities for their advertisement to socially condition others?
Because people have a herd mentality.



How can you get rare anomalous things that people are born with in something that's completely not genetic and caused by social conditioning?

I'm not sure if you can call a capacity for platonic love (I'm pretty sure that's a thing that exists in more than 1% of the population. Isn't the love one is talking about when one says "I love you, man" to a good friend called platonic? Everyone has that, right?) a defect.


I don't understand the first sentence. A person born without sexual desires can still love someone, because they're are still part of society... and can still be socially conditioned.


No, I'm not referring to the friendship meaning of platonic. Platonic love can mean a romantic relationship without any sexual desire.

From dictionary.com:
3. purely spiritual; free from sensual desire, especially in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex.





Progressive taxation just means taxing the rich more than the poor. Just about every country does that anyway, the point would be just to emphasize it more and get rid of the loopholes. Why would the government not having unlimited funds be a problem for a government trying to squeeze more money out of the rich?

Problems that come up as inflation, investment rates, whatever else are affected can be dealt with in their turn. Fixing those problems can be treated as a completely separate thing, to be dealt with by people who actually understand macroeconomics (or, failing that, economists). If stopping the rich from keeping their money in tax havens will break the economy, then let it break: They've had it coming.


That's the problem/complexity of economics, you can't treat those issues as separate problems--they tie back to the population's income and standards of living.

For example, a rise in interest rates will affect a person with low income, but not someone with higher income or worldwide inflation.
8967 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Offline
Posted 8/3/13
No, it wouldn't matter what happened to this world evil will always exist. now there may be peace but the way to achieve peace in my mind requires evil like oppression and a king too rule.
10869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/3/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
Given that the traits are exhibited, that they actually exist and do so because they are evolved traits of the human species is, I think, the null hypothesis. You can't really prove that a trait evolved, and the experiments to test whether altruism is genetic would be...

Actually, no, come to think of it, you don't have to leave people alone without society or do anything else horrible, you just need twin studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691905/

43% of the variance is genetic. Which I think means that someone left alone in the wild without morality would be about 1-2 standard deviations less moral than the mean? I'm not sure, but it probably means they'd have a sense of right and wrong.



That was an interesting read, I genuinely believed that article could change my views about empathy and human nature, until I got to the method of the experiment.
Did you read the methods?

How can you criticise the Stanford Prison Experiment and not see any flaws in this experiment?

Firstly, the experiment in that twin study article was done by asking participants to complete "questionnaires", which are already subjective in itself.

Secondly, the participants are twins who have already been socially conditioned, they were then asked to complete questionnaires to prove whether their altruistic/aggressive behaviour was genetically linked or environmentally linked, but they have already been socially conditioned, how can their answers be "objective"?

Thirdly, how do you know the participants were telling the truth? You can't. Therefore the results are not reliable.

At least in the Stanford Prison Experiment, they can tell that the experimental subjects weren't acting, they were able to observe psychological and behavioural changes. Those are reliable observations, not based on "questionnaires".


The first and third objections wouldn't actually bias the results, just increase the variance, and that problem can be solved with large sample sizes.

As for the second objection... I'm not even sure what your objection is. Are you sure you understand how twin studies are supposed to work?




The fact that a person who had never seen another person and didn't know what a person was wouldn't feel guilty for killing someone is irrelevant. They wouldn't know that "killing someone" is what they had done. If they subsequently learned that the person they killed was a person, they'd probably feel super-guilty, but I'm not sure how to disentangle that such that you can't just complain that it's social conditioning and that's where guilt comes from. To avoid that difficulty, I just point out an example of guilt being something that someone raised by wolves would be able to feel in some circumstances - I don't think the circumstances that cause the feeling matter, if you're arguing that the emotion only exists at all because of social conditioning.


Again, you're just supporting my point.

If a person doesn't know when he's "killing someone", then wouldn't it make sense to conclude that he doesn't know "empathy" until he was told about it?


No, it wouldn't make sense, because when two hypothesis predict the exact same result from an experiment, getting that result can't support one such hypothesis over another.

Would you expect a different result from the thought experiment if my position were true? How?


The point of my thought experiment was to indicate that a human growing up in the wild would not feel any guilt for killing things because he was never taught that killing things were wrong, so there would be no guilt. He would feel sad for killing wolves, because humans are naturally social animals with emphasis on family bonding.


Yes, we are naturally social animals with emphasis on family bonding! One of the tools we have evolved for that purpose is empathy! Also guilt for bad things we do! That's how it works!


And I believe you're confusing "empathy/guilt" with the nature of humans.


You can't confuse empathy and guilt with human nature, they ARE (parts of) human nature!




I don't think "murderous" is an emotion the tiger feels (given that tigers feel as wide a spectrum of emotions as humans anyway). The tiger already feels hungry, and is acting on that emotion, why complicate it with a completely unrelated extra emotion?

Also, the tiger isn't thinking of what it's doing as "murder", doesn't ave any approximation of the concept of murder, and doesn't necessarily even consider the fact that the thing it's hunting has a mind that will be extinguished when it's killed - how do you know the tiger's brain isn't processing the prey as a plant that runs away?


I can't take this sentence seriously.
Animals are smarter than you give them credit for.

The concept of "murderous" wouldn't exist in a tiger's mind nor would the concept of "mother/child", yet we still use these words to describe animals anyway, this is for communication's sake between humans.

Based on human observations, most carnivorous/omnivorous ARE hunters/predators. They have a unique way of hunting prey, some animals stalk their prey, some build a trap etc. These actions require more than just "hunger", they need something else to be able to motivate them to effectively kill a prey.


If the only thing that registers as food to you is a live animal, and you're hungry but aren't feeling any other "emotion" like murderous instinct, will you act any differently from a tiger acting on a "murderous instinct" emotion as you describe?

Are there any animals that build traps that aren't the animal's home? Those that live in their traps probably just have instincts driving them to shape their nest a certain way, which would be adaptations of the nesting instincts, no need for a separate "murderous instinct" as you describe.




Just because empathy isn't an illusion created by society doesn't mean social trends don't change anything at all.

Animal-lovers condition the larger society to empathize with animals because they've been conditioned by society (somehow) to feel empathy for animals because...

Who was socially conditioning people to love animals back when animal cruelty was considered to be all in good fun? And if nobody was, how do you explain the current state of affairs?

These social trends have to start somewhere, and without an actual real emotion being involved at the start of it, things just remain inexplicable at the end of the chain of "because"s.


There's always a reason why and how people become socially conditioned into feeling something.

The love of animals? When humans first started domesticating animals such as sheep, cows, dogs, cats etc. At first, it was about conveniently harvesting food from animals. Over time, humans become attached to animals. And then at one point in time in the last 50 years, some group decided to start an animal rights group... because of all the unfairness they see... they can't stand the sight of seeing their favourite animal being harmed, so they wanted to see it stopped. They weren't born with empathy for animals, they were born, probably grew up with animals, got attached to those animals and decided one day, they will advocate for that particular animal's safety.


I don't think you've elaborated enough on how people go from not feeling empathy/caring about a creature to caring about it/empathizing with it. This is where my objection lies, as I've said repeatedly, and you seem to have just skipped over it with an "over time".



How can you get rare anomalous things that people are born with in something that's completely not genetic and caused by social conditioning?

I'm not sure if you can call a capacity for platonic love (I'm pretty sure that's a thing that exists in more than 1% of the population. Isn't the love one is talking about when one says "I love you, man" to a good friend called platonic? Everyone has that, right?) a defect.


I don't understand the first sentence. A person born without sexual desires can still love someone, because they're are still part of society... and can still be socially conditioned.


A person born without sexual desires is asexual. Have we mentioned asexuals? You brought platonic love up in response to my mentioning homosexuals, asexuality is completely unrelated.




Progressive taxation just means taxing the rich more than the poor. Just about every country does that anyway, the point would be just to emphasize it more and get rid of the loopholes. Why would the government not having unlimited funds be a problem for a government trying to squeeze more money out of the rich?

Problems that come up as inflation, investment rates, whatever else are affected can be dealt with in their turn. Fixing those problems can be treated as a completely separate thing, to be dealt with by people who actually understand macroeconomics (or, failing that, economists). If stopping the rich from keeping their money in tax havens will break the economy, then let it break: They've had it coming.


That's the problem/complexity of economics, you can't treat those issues as separate problems--they tie back to the population's income and standards of living.

For example, a rise in interest rates will affect a person with low income, but not someone with higher income or worldwide inflation.


So what if a rise in interest rates affects low-income people more than high income people? What does that have to do with progressive taxation?

Besides the case of the specific example, I think that's actually my point generally - yes, actually you can treat issues in economics as being separate.
35178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/3/13 , edited 8/3/13

Rowan93 wrote:
The first and third objections wouldn't actually bias the results, just increase the variance, and that problem can be solved with large sample sizes.

As for the second objection... I'm not even sure what your objection is. Are you sure you understand how twin studies are supposed to work?


You're confusing me.
I'll try and break down the discussion:

You said "empathy" and "guilt" are evolved traits and not caused by "rational thoughts".
I said empathy and guilt are caused by social conditioning resulting from humans' high intelligence and the makeup of society/civilization.

You used this twin study article to support your points, but the study doesn't actually support that empathy and guilt are naturally occurring in humans, if anything, the article is trying to find out the differences between twins, their behaviour and how genetics play a role in whether someone is more benevolent or malevolent than another twin who has the same genetic makeup.

It's not about whether empathy actually exists on the DNA, if anything, this article is further supporting my point of view, because it's trying to find out the ratio between genetics or environmental factors (upbringing) affecting on someone's behaviour (benevolent or malevolent).

So, it's clear that environmental factors (social conditioning) can affect how a person behave, which is what I've been saying all along, someone can be malevolent in nature, but if he's been socially conditioned by benevolent parents, his malevolent nature is likely to be suppressed. Someone can be benevolent in nature, but if he's raised by the malevolent parents, he will most likely end up to be malevolent.


However, the experiment obviously have the flaws that I have mentioned. So the data is still unreliable, although it does have some credibility.
[From the experimental methods] Questions like these, ‘It is always important to finish anything you have started’ are highly subjective and are based on the experimenter's discretion of what is benevolent or malevolent.



No, it wouldn't make sense, because when two hypothesis predict the exact same result from an experiment, getting that result can't support one such hypothesis over another.

Would you expect a different result from the thought experiment if my position were true? How?

Yes, we are naturally social animals with emphasis on family bonding! One of the tools we have evolved for that purpose is empathy! Also guilt for bad things we do! That's how it works!



They wouldn't feel guilty if they knew they killed a person, because they haven't been taught that "killing" is wrong and shameful.


Family bonding is not caused by empathy, it's caused by environmental factors such as upbringing. A person will bond to his mother because she always look after him, but might not bond to the father because of dissociation when growing up.
A person might be attached to his mother when he's a child, but will feel distanced from the mother when in adulthood because he doesn't need to depend on the mother anymore.
Why do you think some people never visit their parents when they become adults?
Female lions don't eat their youngs, but male lions will eat their own male youngs because of the need to dominate.


You try to bring empathy into family bonding, when it's not about empathy, empathy is not even a uniformed emotion that exists. It is something that society dictates. In Asia, people have a stronger family bond than people in non-Asian countries, due to social conditioning and cultural norms.



You can't confuse empathy and guilt with human nature, they ARE (parts of) human nature!


I didn't say human nature, I said the nature of humans... which have a slightly different meaning. Human nature can refer to everything that human does, while "nature of humans" refer to the personality of humans from genetics.



If the only thing that registers as food to you is a live animal, and you're hungry but aren't feeling any other "emotion" like murderous instinct, will you act any differently from a tiger acting on a "murderous instinct" emotion as you describe?


I don't understand this question, why are you comparing carnivorous animals to omnivorous animals (that is humans), both of which are meat eaters? Think about what I said earlier, herbivorous animals wouldn't see a live animal as "food" no matter how hungry they are, because they lack a murderous instinct to kill.






Are there any animals that build traps that aren't the animal's home? Those that live in their traps probably just have instincts driving them to shape their nest a certain way, which would be adaptations of the nesting instincts, no need for a separate "murderous instinct" as you describe.


Homo sapiens aka Humans.




I don't think you've elaborated enough on how people go from not feeling empathy/caring about a creature to caring about it/empathizing with it. This is where my objection lies, as I've said repeatedly, and you seem to have just skipped over it with an "over time".



Your argument doesn't make sense.
I've already explained how it developed from early stages of animal loving (domestication) to the advanced stages (animal rights groups) we see today.

How do you think maths came about? How do you think democracy came about? They weren't encoded in the genetic codes; the first group of people have an ideal about those things, and then the ideal starts to influence more and more people locally first, then globally later.

It's not like one day, somebody woke up with a new feeling of empathy towards loving animals. It is progressed over time by a small group of people's ideals.

Why do you think Hindu's are the only one worshiping cows?
Why doesn't everyone worship cows?


It's a logic game, really, you either follow the logic, or you don't. You can't debunk my statements because you can't prove that empathy existed uniformly among human populations.




A person born without sexual desires is asexual. Have we mentioned asexuals? You brought platonic love up in response to my mentioning homosexuals, asexuality is completely unrelated.


Homosexuality and heterosexuality are two sides of the same coin. You can't socially condition a heterosexual person to desire the same sex and you can't condition a homosexual person to desire the opposite sex.




So what if a rise in interest rates affects low-income people more than high income people? What does that have to do with progressive taxation?

Besides the case of the specific example, I think that's actually my point generally - yes, actually you can treat issues in economics as being separate.


It's more to do with my original statement about how you can't have a society without crimes when there are people with low incomes and they're not satisfied with such income. The interest rates will further affect those people. It doesn't matter if the government use progressive taxation, unless rich people are willing to give their money away to the government.
34567 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / 風の山
Online
Posted 8/3/13
honestly if humans were independent by nature than these things would be extremely normal. the only thing making it morally wrong is that we are dependent on each other.

basically no, its impossible. in the basis of it all these things are not morally wrong, but just another aspect of humanity.

its like a coin. you remove one side, you simply remove the coin. things are always balancing itself out extremities for extremities.
10869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/4/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
The first and third objections wouldn't actually bias the results, just increase the variance, and that problem can be solved with large sample sizes.

As for the second objection... I'm not even sure what your objection is. Are you sure you understand how twin studies are supposed to work?


You're confusing me.
I'll try and break down the discussion:

You said "empathy" and "guilt" are evolved traits and not caused by "rational thoughts".
I said empathy and guilt are caused by social conditioning resulting from humans' high intelligence and the makeup of society/civilization.

You used this twin study article to support your points, but the study doesn't actually support that empathy and guilt are naturally occurring in humans, if anything, the article is trying to find out the differences between twins, their behaviour and how genetics play a role in whether someone is more benevolent or malevolent than another twin who has the same genetic makeup.

It's not about whether empathy actually exists on the DNA, if anything, this article is further supporting my point of view, because it's trying to find out the ratio between genetics or environmental factors (upbringing) affecting on someone's behaviour (benevolent or malevolent).


So, it's clear that environmental factors (social conditioning) can affect how a person behave, which is what I've been saying all along, someone can be malevolent in nature, but if he's been socially conditioned by benevolent parents, his malevolent nature is likely to be suppressed. Someone can be benevolent in nature, but if he's raised by the malevolent parents, he will most likely end up to be malevolent.


We're not arguing over whether environmental factors have some effect on how much empathy affects a person, we're arguing over whether it's entirely due to environmental factors. Genetics have some effect (43% of the variance is quite a large effect, in fact) so claiming that empathy is only due to environmental factors is clearly contrary to the evidence.

When did you even suggest benevolent people were a thing? And how can someone be benevolent without feeling empathy?


However, the experiment obviously have the flaws that I have mentioned. So the data is still unreliable, although it does have some credibility.
[From the experimental methods] Questions like these, ‘It is always important to finish anything you have started’ are highly subjective and are based on the experimenter's discretion of what is benevolent or malevolent.


Well, "pro-social" is the trait this particular study was after, I think the main reason I picked this one out is because it mentions other previous studies of related traits. Check those studies out too - obviously, they'll have used more or less the same techniques, we don't have some magical goodness scale to read people on, but you clearly need to learn the value of large sample sizes.



No, it wouldn't make sense, because when two hypothesis predict the exact same result from an experiment, getting that result can't support one such hypothesis over another.

Would you expect a different result from the thought experiment if my position were true? How?

Yes, we are naturally social animals with emphasis on family bonding! One of the tools we have evolved for that purpose is empathy! Also guilt for bad things we do! That's how it works!


Family bonding is not caused by empathy, it's caused by environmental factors such as upbringing. A person will bond to his mother because she always look after him, but might not bond to the father because of dissociation when growing up.
A person might be attached to his mother when he's a child, but will feel distanced from the mother when in adulthood because he doesn't need to depend on the mother anymore.
Why do you think some people never visit their parents when they become adults?
Female lions don't eat their young, but male lions will eat their own male young because of the need to dominate.


You try to bring empathy into family bonding, when it's not about empathy, empathy is not even a uniformed emotion that exists. It is something that society dictates. In Asia, people have a stronger family bond than people in non-Asian countries, due to social conditioning and cultural norms.


This seems like some unrelated drabble, with the parts that actually support your point just being assertions in your favour.



You can't confuse empathy and guilt with human nature, they ARE (parts of) human nature!


I didn't say human nature, I said the nature of humans... which have a slightly different meaning. Human nature can refer to everything that human does, while "nature of humans" refer to the personality of humans from genetics.


Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure the ability to feel empathy, guilt, etc. makes up part of a personality, and it's someone people are born with from genetics, so the "confusion" is still there.




If the only thing that registers as food to you is a live animal, and you're hungry but aren't feeling any other "emotion" like murderous instinct, will you act any differently from a tiger acting on a "murderous instinct" emotion as you describe?


I don't understand this question, why are you comparing carnivorous animals to omnivorous animals (that is humans), both of which are meat eaters? Think about what I said earlier, herbivorous animals wouldn't see a live animal as "food" no matter how hungry they are, because they lack a murderous instinct to kill.


Your assertion is contrary to the evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9vxHN8_jSE




Are there any animals that build traps that aren't the animal's home? Those that live in their traps probably just have instincts driving them to shape their nest a certain way, which would be adaptations of the nesting instincts, no need for a separate "murderous instinct" as you describe.


Homo sapiens aka Humans.


We don't have any instinct driving us to build traps. Humans, with our abundant ability for abstract reasoning, can just be acting on the emotion of hunger when we set traps. Or our knowledge that we will be hungry at a later date. Our actions aren't completely tied to whatever emotions we're feeling at the time, so blaming our actions as evidence of the existence of some made-up anti-occamian emotion that isn't needed to explain the evidence is even less sensible than with lions/tigers/bears/oh my.




I don't think you've elaborated enough on how people go from not feeling empathy/caring about a creature to caring about it/empathizing with it. This is where my objection lies, as I've said repeatedly, and you seem to have just skipped over it with an "over time".


Your argument doesn't make sense.
I've already explained how it developed from early stages of animal loving (domestication) to the advanced stages (animal rights groups) we see today.


No you didn't. You posited an environment wherein people would empathize with animals a lot if they felt empathy for animals in the first place, assumed that they start feeling empathy for animals "over time" just because, and then suggested how the trend became more prevalent in society. The jump from sociopathy to non-sociopathy is still inexplicable/magical.


How do you think maths came about? How do you think democracy came about? They weren't encoded in the genetic codes; the first group of people have an ideal about those things, and then the ideal starts to influence more and more people locally first, then globally later.


Those are things that were actually planned and organised, there's no such emotion as "liking democracy" or "liking maths", nor is there something analogous to what you're claiming empathy is. These ideas are things that live entirely within our ability for abstract reasoning, and the comparison to a process whereby people magically gain an extra emotion is ridiculous.




A person born without sexual desires is asexual. Have we mentioned asexuals? You brought platonic love up in response to my mentioning homosexuals, asexuality is completely unrelated.


Homosexuality and heterosexuality are two sides of the same coin. You can't socially condition a heterosexual person to desire the same sex and you can't condition a homosexual person to desire the opposite sex.


That's not really related to what I said, except in that it sounds like an admission that asexuals are nothing to do with the discussion.




So what if a rise in interest rates affects low-income people more than high income people? What does that have to do with progressive taxation?

Besides the case of the specific example, I think that's actually my point generally - yes, actually you can treat issues in economics as being separate.


It's more to do with my original statement about how you can't have a society without crimes when there are people with low incomes and they're not satisfied with such income. The interest rates will further affect those people. It doesn't matter if the government use progressive taxation, unless rich people are willing to give their money away to the government.


I don't know how to deal with changes in interest rates, the economics involved is more complicated. A competent government would presumably fix it somehow, but this discussion of interest rates continues to be irrelevant. Interest rates will occasionally rise and decline, and maybe those tend to correlate with crime rates? So what?

I'm pretty sure people don't have to be willing to give their money away in order to get taxed.
4907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Earth
Offline
Posted 8/4/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

It has to do with free will. There is no unlimited choices if evil is not allowed. And, some are tempted by the evil sides of life. If a designer were to stop all evil, it would that make it obvious that such designer exists.


Close, but no. If a designer were to eliminate the people's ability to CHOOSE evil, (evil is a choice) ie. eliminate free will, then there would be no free will. I really doubt it would make it obvious that there was a designer. People are obstinate and hard-hearted, a creator could be standing right in front of them, but people would still be in denial.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.