3 ms·

>in a natural environment, the weak and the disabled are left aside and die quickly This simply isn't true[1]. Humans evolved feelings like compassion because

>in a natural environment, the weak and the disabled are left aside and die quickly This simply isn't true[1]. Humans evolved feelings like compassion because such cooperation and caring was beneficial to our survival. These emotions exist outside of any deliberate human decision making or social planning. Even monkeys have evolved forms of altruistic behaviour[2]. 'Ethics' in the sense of empathy and compassionate behaviour is hence just as much a part of the 'law of nature' as the more violent behaviours associated with it. 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864937/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864937/ 2. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/6-amazing-ways-animals-show-compassion http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/6-amazing-way...

humanrebar 13y ago
> Humans evolved feelings like compassion because such cooperation and caring was beneficial to our survival. That's a plausible hypothesis, but considering that it cannot be proven or disproven, it is an ultimately uninteresting one. gbog was talking about social evolution, which is a topic of social sciences. On second thought, perhaps reclassifying evolutionary psychology as a social science would be in order.
- logicchains 13y ago
  Gbog spoke of the 'state of nature' as something characterised by a lack of altruistic behaviour towards weaker members of the species. Assuming altruistic behaviour can be quantified, that's a claim that could be verified or disproved empirically.
gbog 13y ago
> Even monkeys have evolved forms of altruistic behaviour I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this kind of point. Ok, maybe by looking very closely, one could find traces of altruistic behaviors in monkey societies, but this cannot count as an argument against the amorality of Nature. Because it would mean to take the exception for the normality. Any unskewed view on natural behavior in animals is just saying the plain obvious: animals do not care at all if they inflict pain to other animals or kill them, except for their offspring. This is the norm, the natural way. You can count the exceptions, it will not change the norm. On the opposite, in human societies, it happens that some people do not care (do not feel anything) when they inflict pain on other beings, but this is the exception, not the norm. And this has been built very slowly against nature, by the process of civilization (in the good old "natural" times, most human did not care if people of other race or slaves were suffering). So let's not forget that. Nature is beautiful, but it feels nothing, we feel for her.
- logicchains 13y ago
  Empathy has a biological basis [1]. The span of human civilization has been far too short so far for any significant evolutionary changes to have taken place, so these biological elements must have existed before humans 'civilized'. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: a species in which the members help each other more has certain advantages to its survival compared to one completely lacking in cooperation. The time when slavery and contact between races existed is generally not considered the 'state of nature'. In pre-civilised (pre-agricultural) society, populations were so small and transportation technology so limited that it would have been quite rare for people of different races to come in contact. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Neurological_basis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Neurological_basis

humanrebar 13y ago

> Humans evolved feelings like compassion because such cooperation and caring was beneficial to our survival. That's a plausible hypothesis, but considering that it cannot be proven or disproven, it is an ultimately uninteresting one. gbog was talking about social evolution, which is a topic of social sciences. On second thought, perhaps reclassifying evolutionary psychology as a social science would be in order.

logicchains 13y ago
Gbog spoke of the 'state of nature' as something characterised by a lack of altruistic behaviour towards weaker members of the species. Assuming altruistic behaviour can be quantified, that's a claim that could be verified or disproved empirically.

gbog 13y ago

> Even monkeys have evolved forms of altruistic behaviour I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this kind of point. Ok, maybe by looking very closely, one could find traces of altruistic behaviors in monkey societies, but this cannot count as an argument against the amorality of Nature. Because it would mean to take the exception for the normality. Any unskewed view on natural behavior in animals is just saying the plain obvious: animals do not care at all if they inflict pain to other animals or kill them, except for their offspring. This is the norm, the natural way. You can count the exceptions, it will not change the norm. On the opposite, in human societies, it happens that some people do not care (do not feel anything) when they inflict pain on other beings, but this is the exception, not the norm. And this has been built very slowly against nature, by the process of civilization (in the good old "natural" times, most human did not care if people of other race or slaves were suffering). So let's not forget that. Nature is beautiful, but it feels nothing, we feel for her.

logicchains 13y ago
Empathy has a biological basis [1]. The span of human civilization has been far too short so far for any significant evolutionary changes to have taken place, so these biological elements must have existed before humans 'civilized'. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: a species in which the members help each other more has certain advantages to its survival compared to one completely lacking in cooperation. The time when slavery and contact between races existed is generally not considered the 'state of nature'. In pre-civilised (pre-agricultural) society, populations were so small and transportation technology so limited that it would have been quite rare for people of different races to come in contact. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Neurological_basis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Neurological_basis