Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Congregation of the Masses' started by verbatim, Oct 16, 2011.
sorry I meant "a forum" as in this forum, not a generic forum
thank you captain obvious
Can't have one without the other.
All forms of Altruism in nature can be actually interpreted as inherently selfish. For example:
A bee who stings an attacker: It may seem as though that when a bee does this he is putting his life on the line to protect the hive. However, the bee himself does not know that he will die when he attacks. His attacks are instinctual. They are essentially a reflex. He attacks a predator believing that he will emerge unscathed with his genes protected. However the fact that he doesn't know doesn't prevent the act from being altruistic. It's just the fact that it was unintentional altruism that prevents it from being a "well-intentioned act".
A bird that sounds an alarm to warn other birds of predators: This seems like a perfectly sound argument to inherent altruism. However, usually, birds that sound the alarm to other birds are actually the mothers. They are warning their children. Their gene spawns. Warning other birds is a byproduct of this.
A penguin that jumps into the water first to check for predatory seals: He is pushed in. Enough said.
Walruses that take orphans. Whenever a walrus might be in trouble, I'll bet my hat that he would sacrifice the walrus he adopted if it meant that his children and he would be saved.
Now let's observe some cannibalistic behavior in animals that are anti-altruistic:
Seagulls tend to trick other seagulls to look away so they can eat the chicks of said seagull in order to avoid looking for fish in the ocean and putting themselves in danger.
Female Praying Mantises eat the heads of their partner during mating because there are nerves in the head of the male that act as neural inhibitors that keep the male from performing better in sex. Once those inhibitors are gone (i.e. eaten) the female would experience a MUCH better sexual experience. The nutritional value that could be derived from this is unknown to the mantis. She's just hungry. Sex is a lot of work - I would be hungry during it too. All she knows is that it feels good to eat his head.
There are also cases of blatant homocide towards children in animal species. A lion, for instance, would kill and eat the kin of another lion in order to enhance the probability that his child will reproduce with a lioness in the future. This is done so the individual lion's genes are passed on. The genes that are in the lion, which copied themselves to the child will copy themselves again and continue their immortal lives.
Also donating to charity is not an act of altruism because it is done in order to make you feel better about yourself and to help fix the world in order to make it the way you want it.
Volcans tend to disagree.
emotion and logic are not mutually exclusive - there are various situations where one is demanded and the other is useless, and others where both may be demanded, but to live entirely by one is absolutely foolish and doesn't work, as i've found out by various attempts to disregard emotion and resolve clearly emotional problems with logic
the human brain is not a computer, you are capable of understanding things that are not absolute. put that understanding to use.
Also if you received a box with a button that would earn you $1,000,000,000,000 if you pressed it and kill someone you don't know as a result, what would you do with it?
courtesy of The Box
Don't get too emotional over it.
Lol its paradoxical, really. People are told to treat serious threads the way they deserve to be treated and chastise those who treat them "wrongly" when they are not the ones at fault, but if a seemingly serious thread does come up and nobody has derailed it yet, those same people are usually the first ones to post the same comments and all of a sudden it becomes ok.
This reminded me of a harvard lecture on youtube.
In the simplest way I can describe the video, it gives varying scenarios of the same situation:
There are a number of people that can be saved and a smaller number of people who can be sacrificed to save the groups of people in danger of dying.
Funny you'd bring that up, we watched the whole thing for critical thinking class, it's hilarious and thought provoking.
Godwin's Law reminds me a bit of Murphy's Laws...
Basically, the longer the thread the more likely something really stupid is going to happen.
I would turn away the box. I knew ahead of time of what would happen to someone and I would never kill someone for personal gain. It's just the way I am.
Now some people might think otherwise. But I'm pretty sure that most of us would turn down the box right?
Now there is a bit of logic AND emotion put into that question there. The logic part is that we knew ahead of time that we could kill someone by opening the box so we don't do it. Killing is wrong. That is logic. Now, there could be emotion in there as well. You REALLY want 1,000,000 dollars, but you are conflicted with actually KILLING someone for personal gain.
Also, iDunno, your name is quite ironic. You seem like quite the intelligible person with what I've read from your posts.
I don't really have much of an opinion for decision-making value of them besides "Logic is superior to emotion for making decisions, and it is a good method of making decisions, but logic is not the only decision-making method and should not be the only considered decision making method."
I do, however, note that in debates, emotion is a powerful tool-and it's sometimes better than logic or establishing credibility.
I dunno if you guys didnt notice or what, but the religious argument is in the OP.
So this thread was derailed from the start, lol.
I must say That i am a rather logical person. But if i could only have one then I would cjose to habe emotion. My reason to this that without emotion there is no point to life and this I would kill myself thus being a ilogical action. Does anyone understand what i mean.
But to have logic is to have freedom of thought. If you only had emotion, you would be no better than a beast that acts solely on instinct.
@the first example: It would be unlogical to let 1000 people die. Next time you debate about this, bring this up. Ask him that if he had to chose between letting a person he cared for with all his heart died or if he'd let 1000 common people die.
This is a value, not logic. The choice of whether or not to kill someone because of the possible consequences may be a logical decision, but as a whole, it's more a question of your personal morals.
Knowing the outcome of the choice to kill:
spoilers (Move your mouse to reveal the content)
You're the next stranger to die when someone pushes the button.
cheapens the decision and imo ruined the dilemma proposed by that Twilight Zone episode.
Emotional manipulation >>> actual arguments
You're the next stranger to die when someone pushes the button.
If you are that rich, don't you have the resources to make sure that no one presses the button after you?
It's posed as a supernatural force or other faction unable to be persuaded offers this decision, so no.
supernatural forces don't exist...
I don't really see much happening, so I'll just say this:
Logic is good, but it must have its base somewhere, and that's where emotion/desire comes in. On the other hand, sometimes emotions and desires conflict, and logic helps us to recognize the conflict for what it is and eventually choose one over the others.
The very idea of logically debating logic vs. emotion is ridiculous.
To both sides, their support for their arguments are completely sound. The entire debate rests on whose axioms with which to start with are correct, and these are complete assumptions.
No one can ever win this debate as it is grounded in emotion in the first place, and emotion always favors the person feeling it.