Epos Nix on 14/4/2008 at 13:01
Quote:
Personally I think that someone who only wants to help other people because God(s) told them to and will punish them if they don't has no compassion at all.
A good many people, the vast majority even, are not born altruists. I see people who do good for the sake of pleasing God as those who are cultivating altruism into their being so that it will one day be a conditioned response. While I agree that someone who does something merely because God demands it so might be lacking something in the way of pure moral judgment, people still gotta learn to crawl before they can run a hundred-meter dash.
...oh, and while you may not be using it for this reason, I've seen "Personally I think that someone who only wants to help other people because God(s) told them to and will punish them if they don't has no compassion at all" used by certain individuals in the past to justify their almost total lack of compassion, as if they are better because, while they may not be helping people, at least they aren't falling into the God trap! It's a crap justification, imo. Any reason to show compassion is a good reason.
Thirith on 14/4/2008 at 13:26
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
...oh, and while you may not be using it for this reason, I've seen "Personally I think that someone who only wants to help other people because God(s) told them to and will punish them if they don't has no compassion at all" used by certain individuals in the past to justify their almost total lack of compassion, as if they are better because, while they may not be helping people, at least they aren't falling into the God trap! It's a crap justification, imo. Any reason to show compassion is a good reason.
Very good point, as far as I'm concerned. I'd specify one thing, though: any reason to show (more or less)
unconditional compassion is a good reason. Though I would call myself religious to some extent, I have massive problems with Christian charities that link giving help to missionary work. It's okay in my books if they try to lead by good example and thereby convert people, but I find it quite problematic to blackmail people into professing belief.
d0om on 14/4/2008 at 13:43
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
...oh, and while you may not be using it for this reason, I've seen "Personally I think that someone who only wants to help other people because God(s) told them to and will punish them if they don't has no compassion at all" used by certain individuals in the past to justify their almost total lack of compassion, as if they are better because, while they may not be helping people, at least they aren't falling into the God trap! It's a crap justification, imo. Any reason to show compassion is a good reason.
I don't see how this argument follows; some people only being compassionate out of fear of divine wrath doesn't mean that compassion is bad, just that fear is a "bad" reason for helping others compared to genuine compassion.
Its the people who say things like "you can't be compassionate without believing in a God / all atheists are selfish" which annoys me, since a compassionate atheist is non-selfish while a theist can appear compassionate but really be selfish.
Thirith on 14/4/2008 at 13:53
Quote Posted by d0om
Its the people who say things like "you can't be compassionate without believing in a God / all atheists are selfish" which annoys me, since a compassionate atheist is non-selfish while a theist can appear compassionate but really be selfish.
True, but a theist following Christ's teachings should strive to love his fellow man, which means that in the end he or she should act compassionately out of love, not out of fear. You will get atheists who act compassionately because they want something in return; you get theists who act compassionately for selfish reasons.
While I would consider myself religious, I think it's inaccurate and stupid to suggest that believers behave more ethically than atheists. I know many atheists or agnostics who I'd consider to be vastly more ethical - and, in effect, behaving as God wants them to - than many religious people. Sometimes Christians make the worst Christians. :angel:
Epos Nix on 14/4/2008 at 13:54
Its the action more than the motivation that matters here.
A person might not have a compassionate bone in their body but if one day they get the idea that they should help someone because they are being 'watched', that action of helping could go on to foster true altruism in the future. This person may associate the idea of being 'watched' with his being compassionate for some time, but there will most likely come a day when he realizes that he can be compassionate without this false justification and that this is the way it should have been done all along.
And people who say "you can't be compassionate without believing in a God / all atheists are selfish" are ignorant. The only prerequisite of being truly compassionate is the desire to alleviate suffering.
Ben Gunn on 14/4/2008 at 14:11
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Its the action more than the motivation that matters here.
Yep. We usualy have no access to one's true motivations- whether Bill Gates is donating those shitloads of money out of compassion or to glorify himself or for MS PR or a bit of all, you can only speculate- so it's a good, pragmatic way to count the actions alone.
Altruistic actions are rare enough to discard the ones that were made out of selfish reasons.
BEAR on 14/4/2008 at 15:22
Do you really think that there are compassionate acts that are done completly altruistically? There was a interesting (
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13658-brain-scanner-predicts-your-future-moves.html) article on new scientist recently that could help shed some light on that. We always get something out of it, even if it is just pleasure endorphins released by the brain as a self reward for doing something because our brain has decided that thing is good for us even if we dont know it.
So much is going on that you ignore when you just state it in human terms of what we think we feel and why we think we do things. On that human body show on Discovery the other day they were talking about why people eat hot peppers. When someone ate a hot pepper (example was a specific kind, dont recall which), it physically hurt. The brain decided that the nutrients in the pepper were good for you, so it released endorphins and other pleasure chemicals triggered by the pain nerves, causing the individual to experience pleasure as a result of the pain. This showed that liking hot peppers and other things that cause you pain was a learned response that was almost entirely chemical, when we just "think" we like hot stuff. Im not sure whether this makes life more clear or less but it certainly makes you think.
Not that that has anything to do with anything, just an observation. In a way its scary to read about such things and think about free will, I almost wish we would just decide we had it and not do research into it because its unnerving.
Thirith on 14/4/2008 at 15:28
Quote Posted by BEAR
Not that that has anything to do with anything, just an observation. In a way its scary to read about such things and think about free will, I almost wish we would just decide we had it and not do research into it because its unnerving.
If there is no such thing as free will and our actions, thoughts and feelings are determined, then so is our belief that we have free will. Which is why I think this is an interesting idea but discussing it is fairly pointless. Even more so, that is. :p
Ben Gunn on 14/4/2008 at 15:41
Quote Posted by BEAR
Do you really think that there are compassionate acts that are done completly altruistically?
Well, as said, we can't really know and it doesnt really matter.
Quote Posted by BEAR
Not that that has anything to do with anything, just an observation. In a way its scary to read about such things and think about free will, I almost wish we would just decide we had it and not do research into it because its unnerving.
Dont worry- the entire structure of our social system is based on the concept of free will and it will never change, no matter what science will discover.
That article was intersting, thanks for linking, but it's not really conclusive is it? Who said that my "un-concious" will is not, in the end, MY will. Maybe it's an even more authentic "version" of me, before I was spoiled by education and TV.
BEAR on 14/4/2008 at 16:49
Finding a meaning for that kind of data is perhaps the most complicated thing about.
Also, saying that your "un-concious" will is the same thing as your will is not really the point. Its not that your unconcious is making decisions that your mind wouldnt or vice versa. In their experiments, they were testing a decision that was made more or less randomly, like pushing a button. We would think that we decide pretty much right before we push the button, and then we push it. What they found however was that the real decision happened well before we conciously decided to push the button. This doesnt mean we have no choice, but it opens a window into how decisions are really made. Its just interesting.
You raise a good point though as to whether it matters. At some point, the more we intellectualize things to the point where nothing we do matters, it ends up being that everything matters, so we pretty much end up right where we started.
