Mere Christianity

[Fist and Faith]

Well, I mentioned that I was disappointed by C.S. Lewis' book, and Lord Mhoram asked why. May as well start a thread about it. I found the book online here:
www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

My problem is right away; Book I. Lewis posits a law that he calls variously the Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, or Rule of Decent Behavior. The idea is that there is a Law that all people feel. It tells us what is right, and what is wrong. This is why we know that, for example, we should not steal, and that we should keep our promises. He says this law is a fact, just as the law of gravity is a fact. But, while the law of gravity cannot be disregarded, the Moral Law can.

So far, I was impressed with how he explained what he had in mind. With one exception, I thought he was making very good points, and doing so logically and convincingly. He had good arguments against some things that I would have thrown at him. I was looking forward to hearing him do away with what I consider this Moral Law's true nature. I was getting upset that he seemed to be ignoring it entirely. But finally, in chapter 3, he says it:

Some people say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular person at a particular moment, still, it means what pays the human race as a whole; and that consequently there is no mystery about it. Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently. Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the world.

So far, so good. Now I wanted to hear him explain why this was not the actual explanation for the Moral Law. He continues the same paragraph:

But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point. If we ask: "Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply "Because it is good for society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?" and then you will have to say, "Because you ought to be unselfish" - which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further. If a man asked what was the point of playing football, it would not be much good saying "in order to score goals," for trying to score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you would really only be saying that football was football - which is true, but not worth saying. In the same way, if a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, "in order to benefit society," for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for "society" after all only means "other people"), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour. You would have said just as much if you had stopped at the statement, "Men ought to be unselfish."

The key is in the first sentences of each quote:

...it means what pays the human race as a whole...

But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong...

Many people do not "feel as we do about Right and Wrong," and do not care about the human race as a whole.

The thing is, he's been trying to establish that there's this Law that all people feel, despite the fact that we don't always follow it. He wrote this in the 1940's, so the Nazis were big on his mind. He says that even they felt this Moral Law, but chose to ignore it, for whatever reasons. But I see no reason to believe that. I believe the Nazis - as well as many, many, many other societies and individuals - felt and feel otherwise. I do not say that nobody feels that cheating is bad, and keeping your word is good. I feel that way, and I know that many of you do, too. But that is not proof that everybody else does.

Many individuals do what benefits them individually, without any regard for the principles of Lewis' Moral Law. The question is, why would they lie about it when caught? Some lie about it because they want to be trusted in the future. After all, it's much easier to cheat people who trust you. Some lie to keep out of jail. Still others see that it would be difficult to live safely and happily if society was in anarchy, and they lie so everybody else stays on the straight and narrow. (And yes, some do believe they did something wrong. But they tried the easy/quick way this time. And some of them lie about it because they don't want to be embarrassed.)

There are effecient ways to run the world besides the one where everybody benefits by everyone playing fair. As long as I (or a select group of friends) benefit, what do I care about the rest? When people who think like that get together, all Hell breaks loose. The Nazis are a good example. I can get what I want if I kill anyone who tells me I can't have it. In the early days of my country, the US government killed most of the Native Americans, and stole the land from those left alive. They got what they wanted NOT by following any Moral Law, but by eliminating those they would have had to share with. History is filled with groups that have lived by this law. I do not suspect many of them had any trouble sleeping at night.

Lewis never addresses this possibility. He says everyone feels this Moral Law.

[exnihilo]

Fist,

Greetings, I don't believe we've encountered one another to this point.

This is a very interesting question for me as the question of ethics seems to be central to anthropology to me. After all, one of the most important traits of humanity is our ability to cooperate socially -- even while simultaneously competing with one another. I don't want to get off on a tangent though.

I have thought about this problem for a while, which I think is really one of the automatic organization of human society via unconscious processes. In other words, I think the assumption that human motives are either rational in origin or are the rational development of arbitrary impulses is highly suspect. Rationality most often seems to be the fig leaf not the central factor, in my opinion anyway. I would even say that very few people have any idea of why they act as they do, particularly in a social context. Most social -- and by extension ethical -- processes are automatic and unconscious for virtually everyone. Our sense of right and wrong is based on feelings which, like all other feelings, emerge not from conscious choice but from the darkened depths of the psyche.

This puts me a bit closer to Lewis than to you, Fist, because I believe there is evidence for at least a basic set of human ethical conventions -- though cultural influences can change the rules that are used to govern these universal concerns, as well as establish additional rules that are either completely arbitrary or are only required due to the special characteristics of the society in question. I do differ with Lewis on the question of why, as I believe it is answerable, at least in principle if not at the moment. I think the reason is the fact that apparent acts of altruism that enhance the functionality of society are actually forms of enlightened self-interest by individuals that require society itself for survival, which means that the natural ethical impulses that organize our society are utilitarian. Establishing this scientifically would be no small task.

I do agree that some individuals are either lacking the usual ethical sense or choose to ignore this sense for various reasons, but I do not think that lasting societies are organized without addressing the basic ethical needs that are common to any human societies.

[exnihilo]

I cannot edit my post, so I should note that when I say "enlightened self interest" I mean that our controlling impulses emerged as a product of a response to environmental pressures that pushed us towards acting in our "best" interest as defined with the broadest (social) basis, not that this action is a product of conscious awareness and choice in individuals. Acting in your own best interest does not necessarily involve the knowledge that one is acting in one's best interests.

[Avatar]

If you look in the top right of your post, next to the "quote" button, there is an edit button as well. (Not important really, just FYI.)

I agree with much of what you said ExNihilo. Certainly that people are often unaware of the motives of their own actions and/or beliefs/feelings. And certainly I agree about their origin.

Like Fist though, I strongly dispute the fact that these are things that all people feel, or that they are in any way inherent in people.

(For those who enjoy such things, I once again highly recommend Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh.)

Social processes are automatic and unconscious in many, perhaps most or even almost all cases, yes.

But they do not "crystallise" in the human mind in the absence of input. On the contrary, they are instilled. Inculcated.

The very process of socialisation that every child goes through inevitably, simply by existing within a society, drums these processes so deep into the mind that they do become automatic. So deeply that there is no sense of having had to learn them.

However, the nature of these principles is dependant largely on the nature of the particular culture/society in which the child is raised.

You could as easily raise a child to be completely selfish and self-serving as to be kind and altruistic. More easily perhaps in fact.

Society in any form is a relatively recent anthropological development. And constantly at war with the social mores are the biological drives that are purely "selfish" and the product of a survival mechanism far older than social necessity.

The social consciousness is an artificial construct that has survived so well because it works. It serves us, and it is becoming as important as ever the concept of "mine" was.

But "mine" has had a lot longer time to influence the development of the neurology and psychology of the brain than "ours" has. Perhaps one day it will be supplanted entirely, but I don't think that day is near.

--A

[exnihilo]

If you look in the top right of your post, next to the "quote" button, there is an edit button as well. (Not important really, just FYI.)

I agree with much of what you said ExNihilo. Certainly that people are often unaware of the motives of their own actions and/or beliefs/feelings. And certainly I agree about their origin.

Like Fist though, I strongly dispute the fact that these are things that all people feel, or that they are in any way inherent in people.

(For those who enjoy such things, I once again highly recommend Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh.)

Social processes are automatic and unconscious in many, perhaps most or even almost all cases, yes.

But they do not "crystallise" in the human mind in the absence of input. On the contrary, they are instilled. Inculcated.

The very process of socialisation that every child goes through inevitably, simply by existing within a society, drums these processes so deep into the mind that they do become automatic. So deeply that there is no sense of having had to learn them.

However, the nature of these principles is dependant largely on the nature of the particular culture/society in which the child is raised.

You could as easily raise a child to be completely selfish and self-serving as to be kind and altruistic. More easily perhaps in fact.

Society in any form is a relatively recent anthropological development. And constantly at war with the social mores are the biological drives that are purely "selfish" and the product of a survival mechanism far older than social necessity.

The social consciousness is an artificial construct that has survived so well because it works. It serves us, and it is becoming as important as ever the concept of "mine" was.

But "mine" has had a lot longer time to influence the development of the neurology and psychology of the brain than "ours" has. Perhaps one day it will be supplanted entirely, but I don't think that day is near.

--A

Avatar,

I appreciate your reply, and I feel that a few remarks are in order.

When I discuss society I am using it in the sense that would accord with any social animal, of which humans are clearly one. I am not referring to specifically *advanced* or modern societies, if that is what you mean.

The question of an inherent social sense is complex. If you are suggesting that humans develop their social skills through socialization, I agree with you there. Social skills do not spring from the head of Zeus fully grown, unlike Athena. But it is equally clear that humans possess certain aptitudes and tendencies that predispose them towards socialization. Quite simply, most of us are programmed from birth to value social interactions and to be stressed when they are either not present or are inadequately reassuring. Virtually all of us seem to need at least a degree of social reassurance and acceptance to function normally -- and this need has far-reaching implications in terms of our willingness to accomodate others.

In terms of ethics, I do not deny the role of culture, but I believe that culture is operating on a pre-existent necessity, some of which could be instinctual. For instance, an ethics which does not protect children (and therefore the imperative of reproduction) is not a human ethical system. Homicide is also limited by all systems of ethics, at least within the social group. Ethical systems also tend to place limits on the ability of the strong to prey on the weak, and of men to prey on women. Limits on sexual behavior are also characterisic of all ethical systems, as are at least rudimentary regulations or customs regarding the distribution and retention of resources. (I am not trying to provide a comprehensive list, just examples.) The development of these ethical issues are obviously relative, and a more *advanced* culture can lead to a greater development of ethics (though not necessarily for the better).

I may have oversimplified in my earlier post when describing the ethical sense as inherent. Perhaps a better paradigm is that the ethical sense is indispensable, and any viable society will automatically provide at least rudimentary cultural elements (including ethics) which, in concert with whatever instinctual drives are present, will ensure the basic functions of society -- if that society is to survive. I continue to assert, however, that these processes are generally automatic and unconscious.

PS I am aware of the edit function (smartass ), as my past posts attest... for whatever reason the server wouldn't let me edit that post the other day.

[Fist and Faith]

Hail, exnihilo!

And, uh, holy cow, nice way to introduce yourself! I've been working on this reply for a few days. But I'm on vacation, and I've been taking my kids on day trips since it's their last week of vacation, so... Anyway, the short of it is that you and I agree on most things you say. Before your reply to Av, I wrote something that you very nearly ended up saying to him. Anyway, let's see...

I have thought about this problem for a while, which I think is really one of the automatic organization of human society via unconscious processes. In other words, I think the assumption that human motives are either rational in origin or are the rational development of arbitrary impulses is highly suspect.

Well, they may not be rational, but they make sense. Heh. *ahem*

I would even say that very few people have any idea of why they act as they do, particularly in a social context. Most social -- and by extension ethical -- processes are automatic and unconscious for virtually everyone.

I agree.

Our sense of right and wrong is based on feelings which, like all other feelings, emerge not from conscious choice but from the darkened depths of the psyche.

I'm not sure about "darkened depths," but I agree that the psyche is the key. I think that, just as we have physical similarities (two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc, etc), we have psychological similarities. Among them is our need for human interaction. Before there is the slightest bit of education, babies want to be loved and talked to. As they grow, they learn to share. True, we tell them to share. After all, we know that they feel as we feel. We want them to have friends, and don't want others avoiding them and calling them selfish. But even when we don't tell them, when they don't know we're listening, we hear one being selfish, the other saying "I'm leaving," and the first giving in. They want friends, and they learn that sharing is a necessary part of friendship. Sharing becomes associated with the good feeling of friendship.

This puts me a bit closer to Lewis than to you, Fist, because I believe there is evidence for at least a basic set of human ethical conventions --

I agree. I just disagree with Lewis about which they are, and how they got there. Sharing is probably among them. But one can attempt to steal and cheat, hoping to not get caught, and hoping to appear like a good, sharing person all the while. After all, a thief can still want friends, and can want those friends to think he is worth having as a friend. Someone may understand, consciously or un-, that society needs to respect ownership, but that doesn't mean he personally has to respect ownership.

though cultural influences can change the rules that are used to govern these universal concerns, as well as establish additional rules that are either completely arbitrary or are only required due to the special characteristics of the society in question.

Yup, sounds right to me.

I do differ with Lewis on the question of why, as I believe it is answerable, at least in principle if not at the moment. I think the reason is the fact that apparent acts of altruism that enhance the functionality of society are actually forms of enlightened self-interest by individuals that require society itself for survival, which means that the natural ethical impulses that organize our society are utilitarian. Establishing this scientifically would be no small task.

I'm not sure I'm following you. I don't expect all people to feel or behave the same. There's lots of variation in us. Yes, we all have two arms, but no two sets of arms are exactly the same. And even when identical twins are raised together, they can have widely different feelings on things. IMO, altruism is just a roll of the dice. When the grenade lands in the foxhole, everyone scatters, thinking only of himself, desperately trying to figure out how to survive, with only a second or two to think. Some even hold another still, and use him as a shield. Then there's the one who throws himself on the grenade. Somehow, in half a second, his mind flashed on the idea that he was going to die no matter what, so he may as well do it in a way that lets his friends live. He certainly didn't do it because he requires society itself for survival. At the very least, he did it out of love/comeraderie. Maybe he even thought bigger, realizing his country was safer with as many of his friends alive as possible. I don't think everyone who has ever thrown himself on a grenade was brought up by parents who pushed altruism. And when that has been the case, I don't assume his brother would have also thrown himself on a grenade in the same circumstances.

I'm not sure if this addresses what you had in mind?

I do agree that some individuals are either lacking the usual ethical sense or choose to ignore this sense for various reasons, but I do not think that lasting societies are organized without addressing the basic ethical needs that are common to any human societies.

Again, I agree. But I see two different issues. First, the basic ethical needs. Which are derived from basic human needs/desires. (Like the baby I mentioned above.) Like sharing.

Second, governments. When people live in groups, there have to be rules. The people who make those rules might keep the basic human needs in mind when they make them. Or they might decide to rule with an iron fist, taking everything for themselves. Either way can work, and both ways have worked. But the latter can't last. No iron first has been able to last forever. Eventually, there's rebellion. But when all are respected and equal, and there's cooperation, there isn't rebellion. Yes, groups will always come along trying to seize power, and some succeed. For a while, at least. But you can't convince everyone you're abusing that you should be allowed to abuse them forever. Throughout history, people have been willing to die to stop others from abusing them.

[exnihilo]

Fist, I am quite pleased to make your acquaintence under these terms, although it would be more stimulating if we disagreed more...

A few items still require comment, however.

This puts me a bit closer to Lewis than to you, Fist, because I believe there is evidence for at least a basic set of human ethical conventions --

I agree. I just disagree with Lewis about which they are, and how they got there. Sharing is probably among them. But one can attempt to steal and cheat, hoping to not get caught, and hoping to appear like a good, sharing person all the while. After all, a thief can still want friends, and can want those friends to think he is worth having as a friend. Someone may understand, consciously or un-, that society needs to respect ownership, but that doesn't mean he personally has to respect ownership.

You raise a good point, but I would submit that most thieves (to continue the example given) do not see themselves so cynically. Consciously they see themselves as not so dissimilar to anyone else -- except that they are cleverer in avoiding or less afraid of the consequences they think keep everyone else in check. They are unable to entertain the idea of generativity as a real phenomena, although they might ascribe (usually in error) something similar to idealized persons they identify themselves with (grandfather, trusted uncle, criminal mentor). Their ethics are atrophied, but they still exist.

Only the rare few sociopaths are so dissociated from human feeling that they can be unapologetic about it -- because this inability to feel renders them indifferent. I think people like this are almost always the victim of an inherent mental defect.

I do differ with Lewis on the question of why, as I believe it is answerable, at least in principle if not at the moment. I think the reason is the fact that apparent acts of altruism that enhance the functionality of society are actually forms of enlightened self-interest by individuals that require society itself for survival, which means that the natural ethical impulses that organize our society are utilitarian. Establishing this scientifically would be no small task.

I'm not sure I'm following you. I don't expect all people to feel or behave the same. There's lots of variation in us. Yes, we all have two arms, but no two sets of arms are exactly the same. And even when identical twins are raised together, they can have widely different feelings on things. IMO, altruism is just a roll of the dice. When the grenade lands in the foxhole, everyone scatters, thinking only of himself, desperately trying to figure out how to survive, with only a second or two to think. Some even hold another still, and use him as a shield. Then there's the one who throws himself on the grenade. Somehow, in half a second, his mind flashed on the idea that he was going to die no matter what, so he may as well do it in a way that lets his friends live. He certainly didn't do it because he requires society itself for survival. At the very least, he did it out of love/comeraderie. Maybe he even thought bigger, realizing his country was safer with as many of his friends alive as possible. I don't think everyone who has ever thrown himself on a grenade was brought up by parents who pushed altruism. And when that has been the case, I don't assume his brother would have also thrown himself on a grenade in the same circumstances.

I apologize for using the phrase *enlightened self interest* in my post. I tried to clarify what I meant but I fear that my attempt was insufficient. Let me try again.

What I am trying to say, is that we possess social impulses that *appear* altruistic with only a cursory examination. Falling on a grenade is a good example, though it highlights a difference between modern and primitive societies and therefore raises a side issue. I will get to that later.

Why would an animal that ought to be interested in personal survival and reproduction experience the impulse (and I think we are talking about impulses, not reasoned thought processes) to sacrifice himself for the good of others? Some do not think there is an answer to this question, but I am not among them.

I like to fall back to a concept introduced by Kant, the categorical imperative, as a way of explaining it.

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

The explanation also follows from work biologists have done with social altruism in nature. Basically, if everyone or mostly everyone with a particular function in a society (soldier being an example) is willing to act altruistically as a unit, and this altruistic cooperation enhances the competitive ability of that society vis-a-vis other societies where selection occurs at the level of social organization (think social darwinism without the racial and ethnic connotations), that trait will be selected either culturally or genetically. In the human animal, I think we have both cultural and instinctual components of this behavior. Genetic selection only occurs when the social group is small enough to ensure a high degree of relatedness within the society, but it is important to remember that humans existed and were shaped by those conditions for the entire history of the human race prior to the recent invention of agriculture.

Parental protection of children is one example of an *altruistic* behavior with a genetic basis. Some basic forms of social cooperation are also likely have a genetic basis, such as military cooperation that includes a limited degree of solidarity when confronted with a competing society. We can observe similar behaviors in chimpanzees for instance. How far this genetic influence underlies our modern social structures is a fascinating and extremely difficult question, and I'm not going to attempt to answer it here. But it is clear that individuals within *primitive* societies are less willing to sacrifice themselves for the social group than are individuals in modern societies, and this difference is obviously cultural. The New Guinea aboriginal isn't going to jump on the grenade, and he is not going to understand why anyone would.

But -- but -- our *advanced* society would fall without soldiers willing to stand in solidarity with their fellow soldiers, and this necessity is going to produce individuals that are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their comrades, by offering themselves as a shield against the blast of a grenade. And that soldier, by having the attitude of altruistic solidarity with his fellow soldiers, is helping to ensure the survival a society that he and his family depends on for access to resources and an umbrella of protection. In other words, the survival of a modern society can only be assured by the protection of individuals willing to hazard death.

I never said there wouldn't be paradox or irony.

[Fist and Faith]

You raise a good point, but I would submit that most thieves (to continue the example given) do not see themselves so cynically. Consciously they see themselves as not so dissimilar to anyone else -- except that they are cleverer in avoiding or less afraid of the consequences they think keep everyone else in check. They are unable to entertain the idea of generativity as a real phenomena, although they might ascribe (usually in error) something similar to idealized persons they identify themselves with (grandfather, trusted uncle, criminal mentor). Their ethics are atrophied, but they still exist.

And yet, they do not introduce themselves at parties, and, when asked what they do for a living, say, "I'm a mugger." When they meet a woman they're attracted to, they know telling her that they steal for a living is not a wise courtship strategy. They have no moral problem with stealing, but they don't think they should tell most people about it.

Why would an animal that ought to be interested in personal survival and reproduction experience the impulse (and I think we are talking about impulses, not reasoned thought processes) to sacrifice himself for the good of others? Some do not think there is an answer to this question, but I am not among them.

Often enough, we are talking about reasoned thought processes. Ghandi seemed quite willing to starve himself to death, and Bobby Sands did. Plenty of protesters knew there was a real chance the government would kill them.

Parental protection of children is one example of an *altruistic* behavior with a genetic basis.

I agree. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are rare, and most of us are sickened when we hear about them. But it seems that most parents risk any pain or death to keep their kids safe. This does not seem to be hereditary, because it's nearly universal.

OTOH, I often hear stories about Chinese parents killing or abandoning infant girls, because they are only allowed to have one child, and boys are more prestigious/powerful/desired/whatever. Is this an urban myth? If it is not, then perhaps parental protection of children is more cultural, and less genetic, than I have always assumed. Not all of the animal kingdom protects its offspring, after all.

Although, I suppose, the risk of death is not a necessary ingredient of altruism, I think that's what we're usually talking about? Is it not our surest way of judging a person's altruistic tendencies? Do we often call a person who was willing to risk their money altruistic? Aside from the parental type, I don't see reason to suspect altruism is a human instinct. But if death is commonly a part of altruism, then natural selection works against altruism, does it not? Those who die for their society cannot pass on their altruistic genes. Particularly the soldiers, who are often only 18-ish, and haven't had children yet.

[Avatar]

I may have oversimplified in my earlier post when describing the ethical sense as inherent. Perhaps a better paradigm is that the ethical sense is indispensable, and any viable society will automatically provide at least rudimentary cultural elements (including ethics) which, in concert with whatever instinctual drives are present, will ensure the basic functions of society -- if that society is to survive. I continue to assert, however, that these processes are generally automatic and unconscious.

Ah, that is a different point altogether. I certainly agree that an ethical sense is indispensible for any society.

And yes, the processes are automatic and unconscious, once they have been instilled. And they are instilled automatically and unconsciously as well, the fruit of countess generations of social living.

Aah, Kant and his categorical imperative. Long time since I've encountered him. A wonderful idea, if you're willing not to act in ways which you wouldn't want to become a universal law.

Great posts folks. Much as I like to agree with you Fist, here's a suggestion...the altruism gene (if it were genetic at all) might not survive, but perhaps it is more important that the altruism meme survives. ?

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I certainly can't say a meme doesn't get passed on to some people, I'm just saying it won't get passed on to me. Excluding my kids, I think my life is more important than any other lives. But I don't think that in the objective sense. I'd never expect or ask anyone to sacrifice their life for mine, and nobody has any right to demand it of me. And no matter how many times I saw it happen, I don't think I'd be swayed to sacrifice myself for anyone other than my kids. I'll certainly go out of my way, and go to great effort, to save others, but my kids come first. I'm arrogant enough to think they're better off with me than without me, and I want to see them grow up.

I don't think the opposite of altruism is selfishness. I don't think the refusal to lay down my life is selfish. But imo, the needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the one. If I'm at all typical, if most people would not sacrifice their life for others, then maybe those who do are genetically predisposed to do so.

[Avatar]

Since I agree with you about the needs of the many not outweighing the needs of the few, you're not going to find much disagreement from me.

I suppose the genetic predisposition can be present and passed down without being activated, but I don't know if I would say that that sort of altruism is actually genetic.

And I certainly agree that nobody may expect or demand it of anybody else. If they want to do it, that's fine. And sure, there are certain circumstances under which most people would do it. For their children, for example.

But the tendancy is certainly not an automatic one in any respect, except maybe for the people who actually do it?

--A

[exnihilo]

I certainly can't say a meme doesn't get passed on to some people, I'm just saying it won't get passed on to me. Excluding my kids, I think my life is more important than any other lives. But I don't think that in the objective sense. I'd never expect or ask anyone to sacrifice their life for mine, and nobody has any right to demand it of me. And no matter how many times I saw it happen, I don't think I'd be swayed to sacrifice myself for anyone other than my kids. I'll certainly go out of my way, and go to great effort, to save others, but my kids come first. I'm arrogant enough to think they're better off with me than without me, and I want to see them grow up.

I don't think the opposite of altruism is selfishness. I don't think the refusal to lay down my life is selfish. But imo, the needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the one. If I'm at all typical, if most people would not sacrifice their life for others, then maybe those who do are genetically predisposed to do so.

Fist,

I hope you will forgive me if I leapfrog your earlier post and reply first to this one.

I think life rarely -- if ever -- provides the kind of lifeboat scenarios your reply contemplates. Suppose masked gunmen were executing a line of people one by one, and you and your children were at the end of it. Would you wait until they arrived at you personally before taking action?

You see, it is never that simple. Inevitably society coheres when actually threatened. The national reaction after 9-11 is an emblematic example. Millions gave substantial sums of money to help total strangers, because we identified them as ours. Tens of thousands found their way to NYC -- some over very great distances -- simply to stand in line for a chance to help. Many other thousands dropped their lives where they stood and volunteered for the military. And everyone -- other than the Chomskys or Muslim apologists among us -- was transfixed with horror and indignation. We all -- with very, very few exceptions -- recognized that in the time of emergency when we were all threatened, it was time to stand shoulder to shoulder like a band of brothers. And we did, at least until the sense of imminent threat dissipated.

I remember the movie Chinatown, where John Huston told Jack Nicholson that "most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of anything." I believe that is as true as any other maxim of the human race, but there is also a positive side to it: we can be villains, but we can also be heroes. History is filled with men who were buoyed by happenstance to either fate. I think the same is true of you and I, Fist, and probably just about anyone else. None of us really knows what we would do until we are in that situation. You might surprise yourself, and I suspect that you would.

[Avatar]

Good post. Although I think you'll find that even what you call Muslim "apologists" were as horrified and indignant. The apologism arises largely from people who dislike the sweeping generalisation that sprang from it.

--A

[exnihilo]

You raise a good point, but I would submit that most thieves (to continue the example given) do not see themselves so cynically. Consciously they see themselves as not so dissimilar to anyone else -- except that they are cleverer in avoiding or less afraid of the consequences they think keep everyone else in check. They are unable to entertain the idea of generativity as a real phenomena, although they might ascribe (usually in error) something similar to idealized persons they identify themselves with (grandfather, trusted uncle, criminal mentor). Their ethics are atrophied, but they still exist.

And yet, they do not introduce themselves at parties, and, when asked what they do for a living, say, "I'm a mugger." When they meet a woman they're attracted to, they know telling her that they steal for a living is not a wise courtship strategy. They have no moral problem with stealing, but they don't think they should tell most people about it.

Why would an animal that ought to be interested in personal survival and reproduction experience the impulse (and I think we are talking about impulses, not reasoned thought processes) to sacrifice himself for the good of others? Some do not think there is an answer to this question, but I am not among them.

Often enough, we are talking about reasoned thought processes. Ghandi seemed quite willing to starve himself to death, and Bobby Sands did. Plenty of protesters knew there was a real chance the government would kill them.

Parental protection of children is one example of an *altruistic* behavior with a genetic basis.

I agree. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are rare, and most of us are sickened when we hear about them. But it seems that most parents risk any pain or death to keep their kids safe. This does not seem to be hereditary, because it's nearly universal.

OTOH, I often hear stories about Chinese parents killing or abandoning infant girls, because they are only allowed to have one child, and boys are more prestigious/powerful/desired/whatever. Is this an urban myth? If it is not, then perhaps parental protection of children is more cultural, and less genetic, than I have always assumed. Not all of the animal kingdom protects its offspring, after all.

Although, I suppose, the risk of death is not a necessary ingredient of altruism, I think that's what we're usually talking about? Is it not our surest way of judging a person's altruistic tendencies? Do we often call a person who was willing to risk their money altruistic? Aside from the parental type, I don't see reason to suspect altruism is a human instinct. But if death is commonly a part of altruism, then natural selection works against altruism, does it not? Those who die for their society cannot pass on their altruistic genes. Particularly the soldiers, who are often only 18-ish, and haven't had children yet.

Fist, I have not responded to this post yet because raises difficult issues that demand a lengthy response. The first thing that ought to be said is that I am not an expert in regards to this issue. I freely admit that the theory I am propounding in my posts could be incomplete or inaccurate in certain respects, although I like to believe that it is not totally wrong.

Selection for altruistic behaviors that risk a loss of reproduction is usually explained by the similarity of genetic lines within kin groups -- if one line gave itself for the betterment of the others, the benefit to those other lines could potentially propogate more genes than were lost by the altruistic act. An example would be an uncle that protects a tribe of 25 family members from a wild animal -- losing his life in exchange for the survival of his kin, who also carry his genes via the conduit of his progenitors. Therefore genetic lines (viewed in the aggregate since humans have always existed within a population) that encourage a net gain in reproduction although they risk the loss of individual members of that line, will be selected for over those lines that do not, provided this advantage is significant. This is just a scientific way of reiterating Benjamin Franklin's folk wisdom: either we all hang together, or we all hang seperately.

The other issues you raise are not as easily addressed. Inevitably I am going to enter into the realm of my own personal theoretical conjectures; you will have to decide if they are plausible, as I will not be able to establish them on any other basis.

The genetic basis for child protection has been addressed scientifically elsewhere; I will provide a brief account then add my own thoughts on the subject. Beware as this discussion is likely to raise some cultural hackles. The genetic imperative to protect children is not absolute, even among females who have devoted significantly more resources to the offspring than have males. One way of looking at it is that the child is propogating only half of the parent's genome. Therefore in terms of genetic analysis, the parent is more valuable to itself than is the individual offspring in terms of propogation, provided there is the prospect of future opportunities to reproduce. History records numerous examples of just this kind of calculus: individual offspring are sacrificed to the good of the parent and the other offspring.

No doubt this behavior contains an element of culture. In the West, our conceits about the sanctity of children make the contrary practices of other cultures abhorrent -- but we should not mistake our discomfort for evidence of absolute truth. China has been coping with population pressures -- and the attendant starving children -- for millenia, and their cultural practices must be evaluated in this context. If a child is likely to push the family resources to the point of slow starvation for all, the only recourse is to do what is necessary. And necessity is seldom pretty.

Which is also to say that our impulses are oftentimes at loggerheads. The impulse to protect a child is competing with the impulse to preserve the family. It is also true that our perceptions and expectations which shape our decisions are also influenced by culture -- infanticide might be accepted almost without comment in China, but it might be resisted to the point of absolute desperation in the West. If this is so, then we might hypothesize that the Chinese are more desensitized to the issue of infanticide than Westerners. Who is right? I don't know, and not sure that question can even be answered.

On the question of impulses, I think Ghandi's actions were rational developments of spiritual choices, but were not in themselves "rational" (as "reason" cannot serve as the basis of our values -- it can only serve as a guide for achieving them). Not to say that they weren't commendable, because a thing doesn't have to be rational to be commendable. I think we all have our own inner mythologies that drive us to do what we do, even when we are being "rational" -- but I guess there are other ways of looking at it too.

[Avatar]

Good post. I think I pretty much agree with it.

--A

[exnihilo]

Good post. Although I think you'll find that even what you call Muslim "apologists" were as horrified and indignant. The apologism arises largely from people who dislike the sweeping generalisation that sprang from it.

--A

Avatar,

I fully intend to reply to your posts but this late hour prevents it. Let me just observe for the time being that certain Muslims welcomed the attacks -- and others (perhaps the same people) tried to justify them.

[Avatar]

No worries. I'm not in any rush.

Sure, I have absolutely no doubt that some people welcomed them, and probably not just muslims either.

Perhaps it was merely the choice of words that led me to the conclusion that by "apologists" you meant that people opposed to that type of stereotyping were excusing the attacks.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, I have not responded to this post yet because raises difficult issues that demand a lengthy response. The first thing that ought to be said is that I am not an expert in regards to this issue. I freely admit that the theory I am propounding in my posts could be incomplete or inaccurate in certain respects, although I like to believe that it is not totally wrong.

Before I respond to anything else, which I don't have time for at the moment, let me make clear that I don't think I have any handle on anything I'm saying! I'm making this all up as I go. Just playing devil's advocate. While I'm sure some of what I'm saying is accurate, parts are doubtless in-, and it's certainly never complete.

[exnihilo]

No worries. I'm not in any rush.

Sure, I have absolutely no doubt that some people welcomed them, and probably not just muslims either.

Perhaps it was merely the choice of words that led me to the conclusion that by "apologists" you meant that people opposed to that type of stereotyping were excusing the attacks.

--A

Is it in dispute that the 9-11 terrorists were Muslim? People who believed the 9-11 attacks were justified -- including a wide variety of nutballs and two main groups that are taken seriously: Chomskyites and Muslim apologists, both of whom identify political grievances as the cause and justification for terrorism (disingenuously in my opinion) -- did not cohere the way virtually everyone else did after the attacks. One might say with justification that they identified more with the terrorists than with the victims of terror. This was not intended to be an editorial point but a mere statement of fact, in a wider statement about the way societies cohere under duress.

[Lord Mhoram]

exnihilio,

whom identify political grievances as the cause and justification for terrorism (disingenuously in my opinion)

If political grievances, socioeconomic disparity, and cultural discontentment and disillusionment - all of which are closely related - are not responsible for terrorism, what is?