Helping others is socialism!

MousaThe14

Okay, so... if I find some woman and psychologically condition her to the point where, when I rape her, she won't tell anyone because she's been psychologically conditioned to not tell anyone; and if I were to completely get away with it, is it still wrong? 

YES!

glennmagusharvey

Well, that depends on how you define gain.  Or, better yet, to use a more accurate word, utility.

If you're talking purely physical resources, such as time, food, fuel, living space, and such, then yes, altruism comes at the cost of personal utility.

However, if you consider personal utility to include your relationship with other people, then altruism may very well increase your personal utility.  You may gain happiness and improved social stature at the cost of giving someone, say, an hour of your time or a gallon of gas.

IanExMachina

^x6 wow.

All Nines

"Okay, so... if I think it's A-Okay to go rape someone, I have every right to do so?"

No, because you'll get arrested. I technically have to concede that there's no objective right or wrong action, but there is the law of the land, and there's also the basic decency sentiment that most people share that says that that is a reprehensible thing to do.

"Okay, so... if I find some woman and psychologically condition her to the point where, when I rape her, she won't tell anyone because she's been psychologically conditioned to not tell anyone; and if I were to completely get away with it, is it still wrong?"

Most people think so.

Tnu1138

Sorry Glenn that was my bad but as far as that i'm thinking more a Republic since it provides proper representation for the minority as well as the majority. it's sort of the spot that beats both a Democracy and Oligarchy which tend to be the two bnig tips of the scale. . this is the reason the founders chose a Republic over a Democracy in order to ensure maximum freedom for all instead of one given collective.  also Glenn sorry that was my pont directed at Turtle.

Wait wait. DOn't lump this guy in with Objectivists that is insulting he's a Fundimetnalist.

Turtle

We're human beings.  We can think for ourselves.  We don't need to be threatened with eternal damnation to be decent people.
Define "decent" and tell me why your definition is correct.

YES!
Why?

However, if you consider personal utility to include your relationship
with other people, then altruism may very well increase your personal
utility.  You may gain happiness and improved social stature at the cost
of giving someone, say, an hour of your time or a gallon of gas.
So if no one finds out about my murdering and raping and stealing, and as long as I don't do them to people I personally know and care for, there's nothing wrong with them?

IanExMachina

"Okay, so... if I find some woman and psychologically condition her to the point where, when I rape her, she won't tell anyone because she's been psychologically conditioned to not tell anyone; and if I were to completely get away with it, is it still wrong?"

Yes, so let her go.

Bastion

First, Turtle, I must say: though I can only speak for myself, I'm not trying to convince you the Bible is wrong. I'm just trying to tell you that people who don't believe in the Bible aren't necessarily incapable of telling right from wrong.

"These things should not be criminalized if there's no objective standard to classify them as wrong."

That doesn't change the fact that they are criminalized. And I believe the process which leads to them being so is inevitable. The people who make the laws think "I wouldn't like to be robbed or murdered." They will probably also think "Maybe other people wouldn't like to be robbed or murdered either!" But even if their concern is merely private, they will recognize that the best way to prevent it is to make it possible for others to be punished in an officially sanctioned manner for attempting to do so.

"Which is stupid.  We're thinking human beings, are we not?  We're capable of suppressing such silly, outdated beliefs."

I disagree that they are silly or outdated. I'm also not sure that they are beliefs per se. Though an intellectual construct, such as a religion or philosophy, can be built around them--attempting to justify them, clarify them, or just point them in the right direction--ultimately guilt, altruism, and empathy are impulses more than anything. Impulses as much in need of satisfaction as any other. Greed, lust, and so on are among our impulses as well, but we cannot, for instance, satisfy our empathetic impulse through theft. Rather, people will try to satisfy their greed in a way that isn't offensive to their empathy (i.e. just getting a regular job, which also offers opportunities for interaction with others which may satisfy one's desire for social interaction) or even in a way that is beneficial to it (getting a job at a nonprofit that promotes a cause one believes in, for instance).

Perhaps you may not feel the impulse for altruism, or for guilt. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist in others. Just as long as you have some reason not to kill or steal, that's fine.

Forzare

Turtle... you... that... I....

What....

Tnu1138

Aww but You're one of the only sane one s here Forzare.

glennmagusharvey

> So if no one finds out about my murdering and raping and stealing, and
as long as I don't do them to people I personally know and care for,
there's nothing wrong with them?

Well, I think that's wrong too, and it's nice that we agree on that, even if we disagree on why it's wrong. 

Turtle

Perhaps you may not feel the impulse for altruism, or for guilt. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist in others. Just as long as you have some reason not to kill or steal, that's fine.
You can talk about impulses all you like, but people wouldn't steal or kill - ever - if the supposed altruistic impulse were as strong as you seem to think.

And even if they would, that still doesn't make them any less wrong in doing so, so why do the people who are criminalizing such actions have any right to restrict those people?

IanExMachina

glennmagusharvey

> You can talk about impulses all you like, but people wouldn't steal or
kill - ever - if the supposed altruistic impulse were as strong as you
seem to think.

Different people are different.  Some people are very nice; others are complete assholes.  You know this.

So the "altruistic impulse" varies from person to person.

^ What the heck is this supposed to mean?

Hatter

That's quite possibly the gayest thing I've seen today.

All Nines

"And even if they would, that still doesn't make them any less wrong in doing so, so why do the people who are criminalizing such actions have any right to restrict those people?"

The people who criminalize certain actions criminalize them because just about everyone can agree that they are unpleasant. And, if you want to get into what one has to gain from these laws being passed, from a self-serving standpoint: if those things weren't illegal, don't you think the likelihood of any of those things happening to you might increase just a tad? Would you enjoy being robbed, or having your house burned down, or getting shot?

I may or may not continue responding, since this thread seems to have died down, and since I am also starting to strongly suspect that Turtle is one of those trolls that actually puts in the time and effort necessary to be a good troll, so I might not respond because of that.

Bastion

First, I apologize in advance for the tangents which are contained in this post, on the first of which I am about to embark. I hope it will not stop you from reading or replying; I am enjoying this exchange, with such a fundamentally different viewpoint as yours, and I think I am profiting from it because it is giving me a lot to think about. I hope you are as well, and if not I should like to hear how I can express my views in a manner more engaging to you, for I worry that I have descended into some kind of narcissism by focusing on the benefits to myself of this conversation. Having recently been through an episode rather disturbing to some of my ideals, it is good to review why I believe them--from first principles--and while I am modifying my viewpoint as a result of this exchange, overall I find that the reasons to assert them are greater than the incentives which I have been given to disregard them. But I should like them to continue to be tested all the same.

"You can talk about impulses all you like, but people wouldn't steal or kill - ever - if the supposed altruistic impulse were as strong as you seem to think."

Well, of course different people have different impulses to different degrees, dependent on situation, upbringing and so on. But my point is that I don't see why, if all laws of God and man were suddenly dissolved, people would gratify only their worst desires. Indeed, I think that is the situation from which humanity as a whole rose up. The species found itself in a world empty of laws, morals or meaning, and through both the impulses to survive and to cooperate, we became what we are now.

"And even if they would, that still doesn't make them any less wrong in doing so, so why do the people who are criminalizing such actions have any right to restrict those people?"

For me, that such actions are "wrong" is either self-evident or meaningless. Either you can accept, axiomatically, that they are wrong because they hurt people, or there is no such thing as Wrong.  For you it's different--it's Wrong because it is written--and that makes things simpler for you, and in some ways that's something to be envied.

But for me: to live is to change, and if there is a book (as opposed to, I suppose, a wiki) that tells you what is right and what is wrong it seems that that is impossible. It has its disadvantages, because you can never meet a gay person and decide "maybe they're just like me after all", because in your book, or perhaps your idea of your book, it's written that they aren't. But if hurting people and stealing are really such strong desires in you that only something so absolute prevents you from satisfying them, then I'm glad that you have the Bible.

To circle back to the point I was trying to make, whether or not it is Wrong to restrict others from hurting others is in many ways immaterial. That those actions are criminal is an objective fact, and to commit them one will have to risk the benefits of civilization. In most cases the analysis comes out against committing them, but I think the greatest and easiest crimes are corporate. In such cases, the cost of the crime is frequently less than that of avoiding it, which is unfortunate (for instance, the fine for polluting a river may be less than the cost of properly disposing of waste). Further, that factor which I have been calling the altruistic "impulse" is diffused by bureaucracy, which both spreads responsibility out among many and separates those involved from the consequences of their choice. 

So, in a roundabout way, I think the lack of corporate accountability is the best test of what you believe. To me, it appears to be one of the greatest flaws in the current system, because neither individual impulse nor the threat of criminalization properly deals with it as things stand. While I'm uncertain how applying the Bible as an absolute measure would correct it, I should like to hear your viewpoint as you are more familiar with it than I am.

Turtle

because you can never meet a gay person and decide "maybe they're just like me after all", because in your book, or perhaps your idea of your book, it's written that they aren't.
Just to make things clear, the Bible doesn't teach anything about gays being freaks or otherwise drastically different from other people.  It just says that it's a sin to sleep with someone of the same gender.  I'm perfectly fine with gay people as people, just not so much with the actual "homosexual" part.  Make no mistake, I think that the Westboro Baptist Church and other such people are going about this completely the wrong way - hate the sin, love the sinner, and all that.  I'm sure you've heard it before.

While I'm uncertain how applying the Bible as an absolute measure would correct it, I should like to hear your viewpoint as you are more familiar with it than I am.
Well, the Bible already is the underlying basis for many of our laws.  Or rather, the Judeo-Christian system of ethics is, which got its start from Scripture.  As far as correcting the flaws in the system goes, I should make it clear here and now that no matter what law code we adopt, we're never going to completely eliminate evil or crime.  That's just something we have to deal with thanks to human nature.  But according to the Bible, we're also not supposed to give evil free reign. 

In any case, the law is not meant for the betterment of the people, but rather, as I touched on before, for the restraint of evil and wrongdoing (which isn't to say it's simply a necessary evil and not a good thing in and of itself).  The mistake has been made several times throughout history, really - the mistake of thinking that anything we can do or enforce will make us "good people."  It is, of course, what eventually sparked the Protestant Reformation.  The only way to effect a change in the people's motive for following the law is to effect a change in their hearts, rather than hoping to force that change through legislation.

Also, thanks to you, too for making me think as well, taking the time to lay out your points, and not just calling me a moron or a sociopath.

Longfellow

Well, there'd be no logical reason to have qualms about any of those things.  So yeah, I'd be fine with 'em.

[Re: rape, murder, etc.]

One logical reason is that we're social people and it's in our best interest to keep society stable and prosperous. Rape and murder tend to undermine that.

Also we mightn't emotionally handle it. The thought of murdering or raping somebody makes me squeamish. Why do I feel this way? Dunno. Seeing people get hurt makes me uncomfortable for the same "reason" chocolate makes me happy; it's just who I am. And it's just who we all are, theist or atheist.

glennmagusharvey

> Or rather, the Judeo-Christian system of ethics is, which got its start from Scripture.

I think the Judeo-Christian system of ethics is just a compiling of generally common ethics traditions that people had already been using.

Rules against murder, assault, and property damage tend to pervade cultures and times.

Beholderess

@Turtle

This one wonders since when Bible endorsed capitalism? Again, this one is not arguing about merit of economic systems per se, but for one who bases their morality on religion to also believe that rich should get richer and poor left to die seems somewhat weird, if for some reason not unusual. I know that you have said hat it is not state's role to promote moral behaviour (and I agree with it), but do you hold the same opinion about other instances of trying to use state to impose values on people? Can a state forbid people from gay marriage, abortion, teen sex etc but not force people to share wealth?

I do not presume to know what your position are - please accept my apologies it it appeared that way - but if one's answer to these questions is different, then it seems to me that there is an inconsistency. I can be wrong about it, of course.


As for morality - thinking that without God there is no basis to be moral is oversimplification. Why this one consirers murder, rape and theft to be wrong? Because she does not wish to be murdered, raped or stolen from, and so would prefer to live in society where noone is permitted to do so to her. Which of course means that she is not permitted to do such things also.

From the point of view of evolution, acting for immediate self-gain might be beneficial for individual's survival. However, it can and often does interfere with survival of population. There is no contradiction here - "selfish" member has a higher chances of survival in comparison with "selfless" members, but enough such "selfish" members - and the whole population dies, "selfish" along with it. While more "selfless" population survives. That's why most people (sociopathy is a medical condition for a reason) have inherent capabilities for empathy, sense of fairness and cooperation with their group - populations which did not have these qualities did not survive.

Of course there is a temptation to both have the cake and eat it - to live in cooperative society and at the same time exploit it. That's why we have criminals. There is some interesting research on this problem in games theory, such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat ; Overall it seemed to be that while being "selfish" around "cooperative" players is fast and easy winning strategy, it causes others to adopt the same, and soon there is noone to prey upon, and sum of the game is dropping to almost zero. While a disposition for cooperation ensures less individual games won while having much greater score for each player. Although blind cooperation ensures being preyed upon, so recuperation strategy is one of the best overall.

There are many other variations, of course, and it's quite fascinating to read.

Forzare

"Also, thanks to you, too for making me think as well, taking the time to lay out your points, and not just calling me a moron or a sociopath."

I'm sorry, I just can't come to any conclusion other than sociopath when threat of eternal torment is literally all that's keeping you from rape and murder.

Turtle

Can a state forbid people from gay marriage, abortion, teen sex etc but not force people to share wealth?
Yes.  The difference is that doing the former is a matter of stopping evil, while the latter is a matter (heheheh) of trying to force goodness.  Again, it's not about making people do the right thing, it's about keeping them from doing the wrong thing.

Of course there is a temptation to both have the cake and eat it - to live in cooperative society and at the same time exploit it. That's why we have criminals. There is some interesting research on this problem in games theory, such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat  Overall it seemed to be that while being "selfish" around "cooperative"
players is fast and easy winning strategy, it causes others to adopt the same, and soon there is noone to prey upon, and sum of the game is dropping to almost zero. While a disposition for cooperation ensures less individual games won while having much greater score for each player. Although blind cooperation ensures being preyed upon, so recuperation strategy is one of the best overall.
Okay, to put it on a larger scale... were the slave traders in the past few centuries in the right when they abducted African natives and did horrible things to them for their own benefit?  It could be argued that the ends justified the means, since eventually a great deal of slaves were freed and got the chance to get an education, which they would have never gotten had they not been abducted from their homes.  In this case, not only could selfishness be justified in a world without a God, but it could also be said that it helped society.

What about one tribe attacking and wiping out another for that tribe's land and resources?  It's not like society is going to come grinding to a halt because some insignificant group of about a hundred was killed and their land taken.

And what about killing the homeless and others who have fallen on hard times?  You're just putting them out of their misery and removing a drain on society, right?

I'm sorry, I just can't come to any conclusion other than sociopath when
threat of eternal torment is literally all that's keeping you from rape
and murder.
What makes you think that fear is what motivates me?  Have you considered the possibility that I want to obey God?

GuyInWhite

I'm sorry, but since when are gay marriage, abortion, and teen sex evil?

Turtle

Since the Bible says so (teen sex not necessarily so, although the teens in question would have to be married).

GuyInWhite

Oh, well pardon me for not thinking that your book of make-believe is right about what is good and evil.

Turtle

Who ever said it was make-believe?  Can you prove that it's make-believe?

More importantly, do you have an objective standard for morality?

Forzare

" Can you prove that it's make-believe?"

Can you prove that it's not? 

But I don't want to get into an argument over whether God is real or not.  What I have a problem with right now, is that I don't see what gives anyone the right to force those beliefs on others.  Believe that homosexuality is evil?  Sure, you have the right to think that.  Want to tell them that you think that homosexuality is evil?  Sure, you can do that too.  But prevent them from getting married because you think it's evil?  What gives you that right?

Turtle

God says "don't allow this" it's probably a good idea to not allow it.

I've gotta get to bed for now.

Forzare

"God says "don't allow this" it's probably a good idea to not allow it."

That's all well and good for Christians, but to an atheist, or a Buddhist, or anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian God, that's like saying you better be good because Santa said so.