Kevin's Watch

ussusimiel wrote:

Avatar wrote:Well, you now raise the question of whether any behaviour or action can be truly altruistic or not.

This is an interesting point and one that I have come to hold the following view: you should never engage in a good act against your will. The logic of this is that the result is always a loss (Zarathustra will love me for this ). Whatever benefit accrues from the good action is outweighed by the inevitable resentment that is felt. We are back again to the idea of authenticity. It is always better to act authentically, and not do something you don't really want to do, than it is to do something good that goes against your true feelings.

Vraith wrote:

ussusimiel wrote:This is an interesting point and one that I have come to hold the following view: you should never engage in a good act against your will. The logic of this is that the result is always a loss (Zarathustra will love me for this ). Whatever benefit accrues from the good action is outweighed by the inevitable resentment that is felt. We are back again to the idea of authenticity. It is always better to act authentically, and not do something you don't really want to do, than it is to do something good that goes against your true feelings.

I can't go with this one, sorry U. Just start with "don't hold the crying baby, cuz you'd rather sleep" and work up from there.

ussusimiel wrote:

Avatar wrote: This is an interesting point and one that I have come to hold the following view: you should never engage in a good act against your will. The logic of this is that the result is always a loss (Zarathustra will love me for this ). Whatever benefit accrues from the good action is outweighed by the inevitable resentment that is felt. We are back again to the idea of authenticity. It is always better to act authentically, and not do something you don't really want to do, than it is to do something good that goes against your true feelings.

I disagree, I've given without feeling like I really wanted to before and the resulting bad feeling wasn't as bad as you make out and I got over it very quickly. I think people should do what they want as far as giving...unless they don't want to

peter wrote:...if the need arises I am probably more likely to help someone than not (as long as I am not too put out by it)...

Thus how much more likely do I myself make this Hobbsian world by my own hand in it's creation.

Humans are the champions of reciprocity. Experiments and everyday experience alike show that what Adam Smith called ‘our instinct to trade, barter and truck’ relies to a considerable extent on the widespread tendency to return helpful and harmful acts in kind. We do so even if these acts have been directed not to us but to others. This has been analysed under the headings of ‘third party altruism’ or ‘indirect reciprocity’, and has led to a considerable amount of experimental and theoretical investigation over the past few years.

Direct reciprocity is captured in the principle: ‘You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours’. But it is harder to make sense of the principle ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch someone else’s’ or ‘I scratch your back and someone else will scratch mine’ (Fig. 1). Why should this work? Presumably, I will not get my back scratched if it becomes known that I never scratch anybody else’s. Indirect reciprocity, in this view, is based on reputation. But why should anyone care about what I did to a third party?

There are two approaches converging on this issue. One is rooted in social science, the other in evolutionary biology.

The main reason why economists and social scientists are interested in indirect reciprocity is that one-shot interactions between anonymous partners in a global market become increasingly frequent and tend to replace the traditional long-lasting associations and exchanges based on repeated give and take between relatives, neighbours, or members of the same village. A substantial part of our life is spent in the company of strangers, and many transactions are no longer face-to-face. The growth of web-based auctions and other forms of e-commerce is built, to a considerable degree, on reputation and trust. The possibility to exploit such trust raises what economists call moral hazards. How effective is reputation, especially if information is only partial?

In contrast, evolutionary biologists are interested in the emergence of human societies, which constitutes the last (up to now) of the major transitions in evolution. Unlike other eusocial species, such as bees, ants or termites, humans display a large amount of cooperation between non-relatives. A considerable part of human cooperation is based on moralistic emotions—for instance, anger directed towards cheats, or the proverbial ‘warm inner glow’ felt after performing an altruistic action. Neuro-economic experiments relate these emotions to physiological processes. Intriguingly, humans not only feel strongly about interactions that involve them directly, they also judge the actions between third parties, as demonstrated by the contents of gossip. Indirect reciprocity is therefore likely to be connected with the origins of moral norms. Such norms are evidently to a large extent culture-specific, but the capacity for moral norms seems to be a human universal for which there is little evidence in other species.

Because the recent rapid advance of experimental investigations of indirect reciprocity was in large part driven by theory, we shall discuss the modelling approaches before reviewing the experiments. But first we note, in a wider context, that indirect reciprocity seems to require a ‘theory of mind’. Whereas altruism directed towards kin works because similar genomes reside in different organisms, reciprocal altruism recognizes that similar minds emerge from different brains. It is easy to conceive that an organism experiences as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ anything that affects the organism’s own reproductive fitness in a positive or negative sense. The step from there to judging, as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, actions between third parties, is not obvious. The same terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that are applied to pleasure and pain are also used for moral judgements: this linguistic quirk reveals an astonishing degree of empathy, and reflects highly developed faculties for cognition and abstraction.

This review of theoretical and empirical studies of indirect reciprocity stresses the importance of monitoring not only partners in continuing interactions but also all individuals within the social network. Indirect reciprocity requires information storage and transfer as well as strategic thinking and has a pivotal role in the evolution of collaboration and communication. The possibilities for games of manipulation, coalition-building and betrayal are limitless. Indirect reciprocity may have provided the selective challenge driving the cerebral expansion in human evolution.

[article continues]

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:We could always phrase the original question in purely secular terms.

Suppose you and a small group of people are shipwrecked and wind up on an uninhabited island. The exact number of people and their backgrounds are irrelevant.

Are you and your fellow shipwreck victims subject to any code of ethics or laws? Clearly you are not, other than any code to which you all willingly choose to impose on yourself. What kind of code do you choose to follow? What if some of you don't want to follow any code at all?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

A sufficiently significant planet-altering event will precipitate this even faster. The next time you are out in public, sit down and take a good look at the people around you. All it would take to push any of them to murder would be to starve them for 4 or 5 days. If you think a week of less-than-sustainable food won't make them bash you in the head for a can of kidney beans then you have a naive faith in human nature.

A sufficiently significant planet-altering event will precipitate this even faster. The next time you are out in public, sit down and take a good look at the people around you. All it would take to push any of them to murder would be to starve them for 4 or 5 days. If you think a week of less-than-sustainable food won't make them bash you in the head for a can of kidney beans then you have a naive faith in human nature.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: In the long run, excluding some planet-altering event, what will eventually happen is that enough people are going to live by a purely self-centered code of ethics/morals; at this point, it will become "every man for himself" for real.

A sufficiently significant planet-altering event will precipitate this even faster. The next time you are out in public, sit down and take a good look at the people around you. All it would take to push any of them to murder would be to starve them for 4 or 5 days. If you think a week of less-than-sustainable food won't make them bash you in the head for a can of kidney beans then you have a naive faith in human nature.[/color]

Small Wonders: Morality just a matter of chemistry?
February 03, 2012|By Patrick Caneday


Good and Evil.

Nurture versus Nature.

Survival of the nicest or survival of the fittest.

Morality: our conformity to the rules of right conduct and virtue. It’s long been territory only for philosophers, theologians and newspaper columnists looking for a story. Its vagaries, its subjective and speculative nature make it a moving target; impossible to measure for those who require practical evidence.

Does morality — a trait present only in humans — come from a spiritual creator? Or from learned and developed behavior naturally selected over the millennia? Either way, isolating hard evidence of its source has proven to be a rabbit hole.

Advertisement

Ads by Google
Who is CREW?
Find out the shocking facts behind CREW's hidden agenda.
CREWExposed.com
Dr. Marina Johnson ®
Most Trained, Experienced Doctor in Hormone Replacement Therapy
DrMarinaJohnson.com/Endocrinologist
Historically, humans have shown themselves to be horrifically cruel and overwhelmingly benevolent; staunchly trustworthy and insidiously corrupt. So what is it that causes a person to respond with generosity over selfishness, empathy over apathy?

According to one researcher, the answer is “The Moral Molecule.”

Paul Zak, professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University and director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies, has researched the “chemistry of morality” over the last 10 years. He believes that oxytocin, a hormone found only in humans, is at the root of our moral judgment.

In his studies, he found that test participants who performed selfless acts experienced a surge of oxytocin in their bloodstream. Those who received the act of kindness likewise produced increased oxytocin levels and were even more likely to respond generously.

“Pay it forward” proven in the laboratory.

In control groups where half were given a placebo and half oxytocin, the oxytocin groups showed more than double the positive behavior. Changes in a person’s oxytocin level actually predicted their feelings of empathy. And it is empathy that connects us to others, causing us to help and care about them. In other words, oxytocin makes us moral.

The studies also showed that subjects who were abused or improperly nurtured in their early years often had extremely low levels of oxytocin production, while those with stable upbringings had much higher levels, and more readily produced the hormone.

The inability to secrete oxytocin was linked to those who exhibit narcissistic and even sociopathic behavior. High-stress environments have been shown to inhibit the release of oxytocin, as has the presence of large amounts of testosterone.

Why Some People Are Evil
Evil happens when people don't feel empathy
Published on September 8, 2011 by Paul J. Zak in The Moral Molecule

Just after the sun rose on July 7, 2008, Hans Reiser led police and prosecutors to Nina's shallow grave. Reiser was about to be convicted of strangling his estranged wife to death when he agreed to plead guilty to second-degree murder and reveal where he dumped Nina's body. In exchange, he would dodge the death penalty. Reiser was a moderately wealthy Internet entrepreneur who started college at age 15. Why wasn't he smart enough to just divorce his wife?

I became familiar with Reiser's case because he hand-wrote a four-page appeal from his cell at San Quentin requesting a new trial. He cited my research as one rationale for why his conviction should be tossed out. In experiments run over the last decade, I have shown that an ancient molecule in the human brain, oxytocin, makes us feel empathy for others and causes us to behave morally. I call oxytocin the "moral molecule."

But here's the rub: Reiser didn't request an appeal because he believed he was oxytocin-deficit and wasn't responsible for his actions. He claimed that his lawyer lacked oxytocin and was empathy-deficient and consequently did not appropriately represent him in court. Reiser's complete lack of insight is astounding. And diagnostic of his pathology.

So how do human beings go from good, to bad, to evil? My experiments have shown that 95 percent of the thousands of people I have studied release oxytocin when they receive a positive social signal. Oxytocin-releasers include having someone trust you with their money, being touched, and even watching an emotional movie. Five percent of those I have tested do not release oxytocin after such stimuli. These individuals have many of the traits of psychopaths: they are charming, deceptive, and even self-deceptive. And, when there is money that can be shared with others, they unabashedly keep it all for themselves. Greed, you will remember, is one of the seven deadly sins.

Knowing the chemistry of morality gives us keen insights into why most of us are good most of the time, and why some people like Hans Reiser are evil. Let's start with evil. Rodents that genetically lack receptors for oxytocin behave like psychopaths--they do whatever they want without regard for others' safety or welfare. They are loners in permanent survival mode. These behaviors also occur for many victims of childhood abuse; the oxytocin circuit in the brain needs nurturing to develop properly. The abuse victims I have studied are also in survival mode and have impaired social behaviors.

And then there is petty evil. High stress inhibits oxytocin release and makes us temporary psychopaths. We know that we are not our best selves when we are stressed out. Stress narrows one's focus to oneself and we cease being socially competent. Actions we call "virtuous" or "moral" are those that put another's needs on par, or above, one's own: honesty, trustworthiness, compassion, fairness. Oxytocin does this by subtly changing the self-other balance towards caring about another's well-being. My experiments have shown this both by measuring oxytocin release in blood after an act of kindness and by manipulating oxytocin levels in human brains to show that oxytocin directly causes virtuous behaviors. Yes, there is a moral molecule.

But, I have worried lately that the carefully controlled laboratory experiments I have done may not apply to people's daily experiences, so I've taken my lab on the road. We have studied the many ways humans connect and willingly cooperate with each other. Experiments with soldiers marching, a rugby team warming up before a match, and people praying in church showed that these activities cause the brain to release oxytocin. A spike in oxytocin produces a feeling of closeness and a willingness to help others.

My field experiments have even taken me to some of the farthest reaches of the earth. I recently travelled to the highlands of Papua New Guinea to study isolated subsistence farmers in the rain forest. Highland people live much like our ancestors did millennia ago. I took blood before and after a ritual dance and found that it caused the release of oxytocin in the majority of the men I tested. The moral molecule appears to be a human universal.

The human desire to connect not only with friends and family, but complete strangers is, I have found, what makes us moral. It is our social nature, our need to be around others, that makes us good most of the time. Oxytocin makes us feel what others feel and this not only motivates us to avoid doing things that hurt others, but actually makes us feel pleasure when we bring others joy. Sneaky evolution! Gregariously social creatures like us need to have an internal moral governor that sustains our place in the social group. Being ostracized from one's group is as maladaptive for humans as it is for wolves. Behaving morally--roughly, being nice to others who are nice to us--keeps us ensconced the warmth and protection of our pack.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Yes, they did use a conch shell in a vain attempt to have some sort of order. It didn't work out terribly well, if you recall.

Clearly we must operate under some sort of codified system of ethics and morals, especially in large groups, or things will quickly degenerate into a chaotic free-for-all. Whether you think this system is created by man alone or suggested/imposed by some greater authority is irrelevant; the fact remains that we must have them.

The problem arises because of codes created by people (who are not perfect) because the systems we create are not perfect. Every system, no matter how well-designed, has flaws and (sometimes) inconsistencies in it because no system can deal with our highly complex reality. The first question to ask when someone is designing a system of ethics/morals is "why should I follow your system?". Although some systems are clearly better than others--"I'll trade you this for that" is always better than "I want that so I'll just take it"--you still have to face the reality that you choose to live by that code.

In the long run, excluding some planet-altering event, what will eventually happen is that enough people are going to live by a purely self-centered code of ethics/morals; at this point, it will become "every man for himself" for real.

A sufficiently significant planet-altering event will precipitate this even faster. The next time you are out in public, sit down and take a good look at the people around you. All it would take to push any of them to murder would be to starve them for 4 or 5 days. If you think a week of less-than-sustainable food won't make them bash you in the head for a can of kidney beans then you have a naive faith in human nature.

Orlion wrote:And you, my good sir, are merely cynical.

I know. That is also why everyone loves me.

peter wrote:To try to bring this back into line with the original idea - can I posit a situation where the degradation of ethical behaviour (that in generations past was founded on a bedrock of religious belief) is so slow, so barely noticeable, that the move toward the selfish survival model of existence incrementally increases to the point where a 'tipping point' is reached - and there is no return from it.

peter wrote:can I posit a situation where the degradation of ethical behaviour (that in generations past was founded on a bedrock of religious belief) is so slow, so barely noticeable, that the move toward the selfish survival model of existence incrementally increases to the point where a 'tipping point' is reached - and there is no return from it.