Why do you care about the rights of others?

[hmkpoker]

I'm all ears.

[Sharkey]

Why do you care about your own rights?

[guesswest]

Well there may be many reasons, but to start with the obvious one - social contract. Which is to say, you protect and defend the rights of others because you want them to do the same for you, essentially because you value your own 'rights'.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm all ears.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want others to be happy, and I want others to care about my rights.

[chezlaw]

We're evolved to care about others. Cooperation is a +ev stratagy and caring is the evolved mechanism to cause cooperation.

chez

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
We're evolved to care about others. Cooperation is a +ev stratagy and caring is the evolved mechanism to cause cooperation.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesnt case anything. Things are caused because of evolution. Cooperation obviously is a better traitin humans than individualism. Hence those who practice it survive better and reproduce more.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're evolved to care about others. Cooperation is a +ev stratagy and caring is the evolved mechanism to cause cooperation.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesnt case anything. Things are caused because of evolution. Cooperation obviously is a better traitin humans than individualism. Hence those who practice it survive better and reproduce more.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, that's what I said. Sorry if you don't like my phrasing /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
We're evolved to care about others. Cooperation is a +ev stratagy and caring is the evolved mechanism to cause cooperation.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but +EV to whom?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but +EV to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

+EV to the species... not neccesarily to an individual.

[bunny]

Because I have a moral faculty that tells me it is right to respect their rights.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but +EV to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

+EV to the species... not neccesarily to an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is not to the percieved benefit of the individual, he will not do it.

Note that this is not countered by things like martyrdom, as that is an action only undergone by individuals who have placed phenomenal value on something outside their physical bodies...a political or religious cause or something...that they act toward those state of affairs even if it results in physical demise. No one who is not passionately dedicated to a cause martyrs himself.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but +EV to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

+EV to the species... not neccesarily to an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is not to the percieved benefit of the individual, he will not do it.

Note that this is not countered by things like martyrdom, as that is an action only undergone by individuals who have placed phenomenal value on something outside their physical bodies...a political or religious cause or something...that they act toward those state of affairs even if it results in physical demise. No one who is not passionately dedicated to a cause martyrs himself.

[/ QUOTE ]
it is of perceived value, it makes us happy (its what we want). That's the point.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is not to the percieved benefit of the individual, he will not do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite acceptable in evolutionnary terms, that a species where individual make "mistakes" resulting in a -VE outcome for the individual but a +VE outcome for the species, will be successful as a species, as long as the individual has time to breed.

[Philo]

[quote
If it is not to the percieved benefit of the individual, he will not do it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that no one will act to respect the rights of others if they do not perceive that it is in their own benefit to do so? If so, it seems patently false to me.

I'm actually not sure what you're claiming--what you've said seems unclear to me. When you specify 'rights' in particular do you mean to preclude acts that are intended to help others but do not necessarily involve protecting or respecting their rights? I have in mind acts that are of negative utility to one's self or that put one's self in danger but that are done to help others--like risking one's life to save someone from a burning building.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that no one will act to respect the rights of others if they do not perceive that it is in their own benefit to do so? If so, it seems patently false to me.

I'm actually not sure what you're claiming--what you've said seems unclear to me. When you specify 'rights' in particular do you mean to preclude acts that are intended to help others but do not necessarily involve protecting or respecting their rights? I have in mind acts that are of negative utility to one's self or that put one's self in danger but that are done to help others--like risking one's life to save someone from a burning building.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forget that people can have vastly different priorities, and that their actions are directed toward the benefit of the priorities of greatest worth.

For example, hippies are willing to destroy their bodies and bank accounts with drug use (sometimes even knowingly so), but that is because they value altered states much, much more than sober ones (or simply fear the withdrawal symptoms). A parent may self-sacrifice for her child, because she places great priority on the child's well-being (thus intrinsically tying her own to it)

Some people adopt paradigms that put great priority on what would be perceived by others as self-damaging. This is called morality. It can take on all kinds of weird forms. A soldier may go and fight gallantly on the battlefield for his country (even in an unjust war) because it is "the right thing to do." Christians go out of their way to glorify God even after securing their place in Heaven. A samurai would rather split his guts open than live a shameful life because of how much stock he has put into "honor." Hardcore Libertarian Socialists will purposely avoid wealth because they believe it takes money away from other people.

But these actions are dependant on the individual value system. The Christian isn't going to kill himself after he embarasses himself. The libertarian socialist isn't going to charge the battlefield. The samurai isn't going to glorify god and the soldier isn't going to turn down money.

What one person believes is a negative utility action another may think is positive utility.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
it is of perceived value, it makes us happy (its what we want). That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but groups don't act. Individuals act. It makes each individual happy, but it cannot instill happiness in some collective "us," because it doesn't exist.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is of perceived value, it makes us happy (its what we want). That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but groups don't act. Individuals act. It makes each individual happy, but it cannot instill happiness in some collective "us," because it doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
If Theweatherman will forgive my vernacular: our genes con us into enjoying what's best for them.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
our genes con us into enjoying what's best for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would modify that to "would usually be best for them". Which leads us to making some really stupid looking moves at times.

Attraction to symmetrical faces.
Fight or Flight triggers. gdozens of them.

When the detail of the situation turns out to be more important than the general setting, our evolved responses/decisions do not align with our good on any level, perceived, real, species-wide, they can be just dummmmb choices.

Our rationality normally kicks in to bail us out, but nowhere near as often as we'd like to think. We-they, territory protection, alpha issues, peer factors... are hard to overpower AND get it right.

luckyme

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If Theweatherman will forgive my vernacular: our genes con us into enjoying what's best for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep speaking in terms of collective ownership, and I do not understand why. *My* genes con *me* into doing what's best for *myself.* While these actions take the form of mutual benefit as people civilize (through actions like voluntary trade), there is no denying that my genes make me value my well-being way above yours.

Same species animals do not do this. They are largely self-motivated. Many animals fight each other for scarce resources. Many insect mothers *devour* their young. Sand tiger shark fetuses will actually cannibalize each other in utero until only one survives. Male grizzly bears will *kill* their young just so the mother will pay more attention to them and [censored] more. Genes fight against each other for survival. This is natural selection at work. The individual gets priority over the group; that's how it's always been.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
The individual gets priority over the group; that's how it's always been.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theterms of one generation only. For thegeneral populace evolution is not an individual thing. Themost evolved human may get killedin an unforseen, and largely unpreventable way.

Evolution cares little for individuals and only applys to group dynamics. If a certain indiviual does a certain thing and it survives then it mey reproduce more.

However self action is a misnomer. Only in certain situations is total self action beneficial to the group. If a certain male gets it into his head to kill all thefemales who refuse to mate with him, then the population may suffer losses too great to sustain their continuance. While it may be in your best interest to do this it is very much not in the best interest of the species.

You are wrong about genes coding for you to always act in your own interst. Male black widow spiders are eaten in order to supply nourisment for the female afterthe male has passed along its genedic code. This is decidedly bad for the males, but good for the species.

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
We're evolved to care about others. Cooperation is a +ev stratagy and caring is the evolved mechanism to cause cooperation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Empathy is the thing we've developed for this.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm all ears.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> HMK are you trying to infect all of 2+2 with your cold hard AC economics logic one forum at a time? /images/graemlins/smile.gif </font>

[Philo]

I'm not sure whether to continue with this, because you didn't answer my question, at least not directly. You just sort of went off on a tangent. I'll try once more.

My question was straightforward, and primarily clarificatory--do you think that people can act for the benefit of others even when they do not perceive the act as being in their prudential interest?

[I'm not sure why you infer that I forget that people have different priorities--why would I forget such a thing? Nothing I said implies that people don't have different priorities (interests, concerns, desires, goals, etc.).]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
However self action is a misnomer. Only in certain situations is total self action beneficial to the group. If a certain male gets it into his head to kill all thefemales who refuse to mate with him, then the population may suffer losses too great to sustain their continuance. While it may be in your best interest to do this it is very much not in the best interest of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why social norms develop; they redefine what is in an individual's best interests. If you go out into a society and kill every woman that doesn't mate with you, any rational person will know that this is NOT in your best interests; you will quickly be identified as a threat to the well-being of others, and force will be used to restrain or destroy you. In our society we appoint the police to do this, but even in the ideal infoshop.org anarchist world the same thing will happen; people will realize that you're a threat, and they'll kill you. Social norms will evolve to promote group and individual well-being by incentivizing self benefits that are constructive.

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong about genes coding for you to always act in your own interst. Male black widow spiders are eaten in order to supply nourisment for the female afterthe male has passed along its genedic code. This is decidedly bad for the males, but good for the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and the same thing happens with the praying mantis. You are assuming, though, that the male in question is either aware of this fact (animals are really dumb, btw), or that he values a life of celibacy over getting laid. Animals are driven by instinct and are not as rational (that is, cannot apply as much useful information) to individual situations as we can. I see no reason to believe that this isn't driven by self-benefit.