|
|
|
|
#1
10-14-2007, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
[ QUOTE ]
Whether they are in front of you or not is irrelevant, which I believe is part of Lebowski's point [/ QUOTE ] Whether they are in front of you or not is not irrelevant, which is my point. There is no rational metric for measuring altruism. 
|
|
#3
10-14-2007, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
[ QUOTE ]
If it were relevant it would only be in the sense that it triggers a completely illogical response to this situation. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think that you would act rationaly? Bravo.
|
|
#4
10-14-2007, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
[ QUOTE ]
If it were relevant it would only be in the sense that it triggers a completely illogical response to this situation. [/ QUOTE ] How is it illogical? We function much better socially by concentrating our compassion and concern more on those who are closer to us geographically and/or relationship-wise.
|
|
#5
10-14-2007, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
I most likely let the baby burn. But society's reaction is the critical difference between the two. I might care more about saving the burning baby, because then I'm a hero, and if he/she has a hot single mom, then I hit the jackpot. As with the starving babies, well, let's just leave it at you're welcome.
But seriously, the difference between the two is a good example of contrived empathy. OMG babies I don't know and are of no consequence to me are dying!!! I need to try to care about this!!! The truth is there's probably no truly objective reason to care about the baby burning in front of you either. But who said our instincts are perfect? It might be good just because it irrationally makes us feel good. These instincts of ours were developed based on a slightly different equation. Our natural human bias will find reasons to care, and that bias will be encouraged by society's response, since they share the bias. Since society responds much more favorably to "you risked your life and saved the baby from the burning building" than "you donated a dime a day to help African babies" it becomes perfectly rational to care about one more than the other. Social approval is something we humans value pretty highly. But, if I was a robot, I see no reason why I would ever do either. As we progress as a species, we'll break this bias and care less (as we also learn to build fire proof houses or super protective bubbles for our babies to live in when we leave them alone, etc.).
|
|
#7
10-14-2007, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
Well he is speaking big words, but ya know, then some dramatic happens the weirdest thing can spark. People you'd assume to be the heroes will do nothing and the cold cynical sounding ones will suddenly wake up and do a heroic act. Now I don't believe that is a general principle - but the essence is that talk is cheap, and that actually goes both ways - most of us don't really know how we react in extremely dramatic situations.
|
|
#8
10-14-2007, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
[ QUOTE ]
god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow. [/ QUOTE ] Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy.
|
|
#9
10-14-2007, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow. [/ QUOTE ] Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy. [/ QUOTE ] lol, funny as that is, I don't think so. My intuition ( do you believe that that's a contrived attribute also?) tells me we couldn't be further apart in idealogies & I think it'd be a very fruitless discussion for both of us.
|
|
#10
10-15-2007, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow. [/ QUOTE ] Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy. [/ QUOTE ] lol, funny as that is, I don't think so. My intuition ( do you believe that that's a contrived attribute also?) tells me we couldn't be further apart in idealogies & I think it'd be a very fruitless discussion for both of us. [/ QUOTE ] The problem is that you seem to have the idea that your "idealogy" is morally superior to mine, and then when you're probed beyond "zomg how can you say that??" you are unwilling to elaborate or open your mind to a different perspective. That's scary. "You're [censored] CRAZY!" "I am?" "Let's just drop it." I agree we hold 2 very different mindsets, but the difference is I'm actually willing explain and defend my position. IMO, empathy evolved because it had very real and practical benefits to us. How else could a trait evolve? So, giving to people who are of no consequence to you will be a misapplication of the instinct. It's an inefficient result based on instincts that come from a slightly different equation (we couldn't communicate with people on different continents until extremely recently). If it makes you feel good, fine. Do it. To whatever extent we can observe inefficient instincts, we should expect to desire inefficient results, and obtaining them can certainly be seen as a good thing. But I just find it hard to reduce it to anything that is not ultimately self-interest. I don't think that makes me a bad person, just an honest person who's actually thought about these things and doesn't worry about coming off as palatable to someone who will claim a knee jerk moral high ground.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
