Why should I care?

[water]

Actually, the longer the game runs the more sense the strategy makes. In a single game it always makes sense to be selfish. The longer the series of games the more a selfish strategy becomes self-defeating.

While this is true, there is one crucial problem the longer the series of games runs: agents learn. And playing the same game with the same rules does not make sense anymore.
If agents wouldn't learn as they play, they would eventually settle for cooperation. But as they are rational agents, they learn, and figure out new ways to play on their selfish strategy.

It depends upon how you measure profit, we're not speaking a strictly monetary return. Poverty breeds any number of problems affecting everything from national stability to global economics and world health.

True. But not that the biggies really care. The biggies can afford to play selfishly.

I'm not sure how you figure. Billions are spent annually in assistance programs. Many thousands offer their services towards assisting others. To dismiss the issue as you do is to be powerless... action makes the difference.

Those who assist tend to think that the standards of comfortable life as they have them in their country is what should be reached in the assisted country. This is wrong.

 

[Raithere]

We're diverting a bit from the initial subject but I think it's a worthy topic. Although this thread probably belongs in General Philosophy rather than Religion.

While this is true, there is one crucial problem the longer the series of games runs: agents learn. And playing the same game with the same rules does not make sense anymore.

Learning / adaptation is taken into account in the theory... in fact it is a requirement. This is why the "Brazen Rule 3" or tit-for-tat strategy works. Someone screws you, you screw 'em back.

Here's a link where you can select the computer opponent's strategy and play against it:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html

True. But not that the biggies really care. The biggies can afford to play selfishly.

This is true to an extent but it cannot be carried out indefinitely. IMO, what seems to happen on a global scale is that mega-corporations and nations will change up their strategy depending on the situation. Most of the time a cooperative strategy is used but this will occasionally be switched to a competitive depending upon the specific situation. This seems like an intelligent course.

Those who assist tend to think that the standards of comfortable life as they have them in their country is what should be reached in the assisted country. This is wrong.

I don't know if it's wrong, it may be presumptuous. I agree that it doesn't make sense to measure such things as if all else were equal. A base-line 'standard of living' is relative to the local economy.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Barbarian Tribes used to do away with all female infants, keeping only the boys. After all, female children aren't as useful as much as they simply get in the way of things. Of course, women are eventually required, and so this has been one of the primary reasons why there have always been barbarian raids upon Civilized Settlements, for the capturing of young women.

Leo, I don't know where you studied history but it wasn't on this planet.

The term "Barbarian" is Greek and applied to anyone who was not Greek (more specifically, to those who did not speak Greek).

So just what culture do you think you're describing here? I'd love to know.

Today, the Chinese and the Hindus have informally adopted the same measures, through the use of ultrasound identification of the sex of fetuses, the females are selected for abortion.

China's 'one child' policy is a government decree, not an "informal measure" where only females are killed/aborted. While there have been issues where females have been selected for abortion in favor of male children China is seeking to end this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316174/posts

But I genuinely believe the poor men will be happier alone than to be with partners who will ever nag them and blame them for all their capricious instances of unhappiness. And the Rich Men being married will be something of the poor man's revenge, for it has been noticed that rich women do not complain any less than the poor ones.

Ah... and you're a misogynist to boot. Excellent.

~Raithere

 

[cole grey]

Athelwulf,

Imagine being one of those starving children. Wouldn't you want food? Wouldn't you want someone that cared enough to give you food? I think it's a safe bet you would.
Well, these children want someone that cares enough to give them food and shelter. Wouldn't you want to be one of those people that cared? You could make their lives better. Wouldn't you like the feeling of knowing you've done that?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. But I have other concerns in my life.
Please explain why I should be unselfishly caring. Your last statement says I should care for the purpose of gratifying myself. What if I have a self-promoting reason to ignore the suffering? Suppose it makes me feel better to ignore the problem than only be able to help a little. Hopefully you are an atheist, because I want to know why an atheist should care.

Duendy,
“Deeper.” “Higher.” You say tomato.
Please refer to this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=11481&page=1&pp=20 about “what is natural”. Nature itself is not pro-human. The world is a tough place to live. Nature doesn’t have any problem with letting people starve, or it would fight back. Maybe nature WILL shock us into deeper love by scaring the shit out of us. I hope so. But what is deeper than what nature has to offer me in the end, which is natural selection? I think I will follow the lead of the wilderness and just survive. Sometimes I get depressed, maybe those 5000$ rims will make me feel better, or give me more status with the ladies.

Raven,
Sorry, I didn’t understand your question very well. I do want to assume that we are not going to feel sorry for the monkeys we experiment on, and the cows we eat. I am not pushing for utopia here, I just want to know why I should care about the starving child. I am assuming that most of humanity will never accept caring about the cows unless there is something in it for them, OR a change of thought pattern. Please explain if you disagree, but I personally am more morally obligated to the starving child.

Marv,
I hope you were the one person who voted no. This shows honesty. This idea you seem to have about my obligations to other humans is what scares me about being nothing more than an animal. Is there no such thing as good or evil? At least you have social responsibilities. This prevents me from running off with the idea and saying atheism will result in psychopathic anarchy, although I don’t rule out the possibility, I would predict that it is more likely that we are turned into robots.

Leo,
Unless you are going to tell me a reason to care about others that comes from the vatican, please refrain from trying to “catholicize” this discussion. Your wider ranging observations are much appreciated, however. I will not make assumptions about what the final purposes are for what you are saying, but unless catholicism has some occult mystery that will create caring for me, do not offer it as a solution to my search for caring. You yourself have presented it as almost unconcerned with suffering. You are tied with raithere for results, if not for rationality.
If you want to say I need the vatican to NOT care, tell me why because they had a bunch of "help the victims", stuff going on from what I saw. Raithere has some pretty convincing arguments for Raithere’s complacency. Actually, I already will not accept the leader that pushes me further from caring, I get enough of that just being an animal.

Godless,
Unless you want to tell me I should or not not care, my comment to Leo applies to you too. I don’t care who gives me a reason to care. I just want one.
The people who you say need to stop having babies, have every reason to keep pumping them out. In an environment where the mortality rate is high, more babies means more chance to continue the genetic line, right?
They also have little other relief from their suffering besides the pleasure of sexual intercourse.
They are also uneducated.

Water,
“It may be too late” is a sad possibility. I would like to hope it is not the case.
As you say, sharing equally doesn’t even seem remotely possible, and I am not an advocate, even if I do think a 20,000$ golden bathroom sink is morally questionable.
Should we just continue to let people suffer while we keep our eyes on the rich, i.e. television, for hope, and just hold on to the ideal that someday science will save us all? Is that ok?

Raithere,
You have obviously thought much about two important questions I have about atheism. Your insightfulness should be used as an example to the blind-faith atheist everywhere, in how to mature.
However, the limited amount of help you say I should offer seems to be doing little to alleviate suffering. It may be this type of thinking that eventually results in the suffering.
Highly limited caring.
I don’t suggest that either everyone gets to have the same lifestyle or we will all be guilty of uncaring. I agree that we must do the most good possible, as opposed to just idealizing the good that is the most unnatural. I think that it is possible to make certain types of intense suffering a rarity. Is that a fantasy?
I suppose if they can’t help me, are far away, will not suffer much because they will die soon enough, and didn’t suffer from me personally, I shouldn’t bother with them. Is that all there is?

 

[Raithere]

You have obviously thought much about two important questions I have about atheism. Your insightfulness should be used as an example to the blind-faith atheist everywhere, in how to mature.

I'm not sure how to take this in light of your comments to Leo about me... you don't know me well enough to call me complacent and if you did, you'd know that I am quite active. Some of your other comments also suggest that you have a typically negative opinion about atheists. That somehow because we don't believe in god we lack compassion or love, in which case you really need to rethink your opinion.

However, the limited amount of help you say I should offer seems to be doing little to alleviate suffering.

Where did I say you should limit the amount of help you should offer? The consideration is simply pragmatic; there's a lot of suffering to eliminate and one person can only do so much. Again, cooperation is the answer. Can you think of a viable alternative that would produce better results?

It may be this type of thinking that eventually results in the suffering.
Highly limited caring.

I don't know why caring would be limited. Limitation is a practical consideration not an emotional one.

I don’t suggest that either everyone gets to have the same lifestyle or we will all be guilty of uncaring. I agree that we must do the most good possible, as opposed to just idealizing the good that is the most unnatural. I think that it is possible to make certain types of intense suffering a rarity. Is that a fantasy?

No, I think it is possible. Technology has been able to reduce suffering drastically, particularly over the last hundred years or so. Hopefully that trend will continue. But we need to advance our philosophy as well as our science.

I'm not sure what you mean about idealizing unnatural good... perhaps you can explain.

I suppose if they can’t help me, are far away, will not suffer much because they will die soon enough, and didn’t suffer from me personally, I shouldn’t bother with them. Is that all there is?

You're putting too much weight on what I said about proximity, that's not the only factor but it does affect one's ability to help. There is suffering everywhere; down the block, across town, on the other side of the country, and on the opposite side of the globe.

If you're committing effort and resources to alleviate suffering, offer them where they will have the most effect and do the most good. Or direct your effort towards the types of suffering you find particularly awful or intense. As I said previously, the decision is dependent upon your ethical values... my consideration will not be identical to yours. I'm not trying to sell a set of ethics; I'm pointing out some facts and giving my opinion.

~Raithere

 

[Lori_7]

fact is that most people don't care...if everyone did...put their money where their mouths are...there would be much less suffering. there is more than enough evidence in the world that humans are inherently sinful...hence the suffering. its not rocket science after all.

things could be worse...

love,

lori

 

[cole grey]

raithere,

I want to know what makes people care, especially from the atheist perspective.
You may think I just want a debate, but that is not my goal here. I want to understand. Please don't be offended. I am working from a limited understanding of what you think. I already know that the religious dogma which says that an atheist will exhibit no compassion because they do not have God is not true.
Some of the same people that say this say that science and God cannot co-exist.

I feel that if I know more about how some of the same good qualities encouraged by religions are also present in an atheist's life I may start to understand God more. Or understand humanity more. Is it just biological? I mean, we see the monkey's mother hold it, and feed it, but we still do torturous experimentations upon them. I can say to myself, "it is necessary", but I don't really know. What I feel like I know is that the amount of suffering we see is NOT necessary, but humanity is too stuck in selfishness to seem to care. I think there are atheists who would give up their own lives, spending them to help people, and I would sit at their feet to hear about it, but I am asking about how we as a species can do better.

I believe there is a higher responsibility in being human than in being an animal ruled purely by natural selection. I believe that a machine also does not have responsibility. Where does your feeling of responsibility come from? Honestly, when your first answer was about the zero sum game I don't see much compassion in that. That strategy isn't working. And I don't think tit-for-tat is working either. Is this where you get your ideal for cooperation from? It just doesn't make sense to me how to go from that to activity. Someone has to go first. And get nothing back but a few warm fuzzies. Or get nothing back at all. And still do it again. Governments will not become compassionate towards each other. They don't really have the resources the population has, they have too much to lose. People have so much to gain, and so much to give. Theists have offered answers and then polluted the answers with their actions. The answers are still possibilities though. I just don't understand what the answers would be other than these.

If someone came to me and said, "The whole God thing. It doesn't make any sense". I think I would be able to guess by their expression whether it was an attack or a question, and even try to guess a little about what purpose they had in asking the question. Here on the internet I am limited in making my expression clear. The only thing that seems to really translate easily in the forum environment is negativity. I haven't gotten used to it enough yet to figure out how to not let that tone get into my posts.

 

[okinrus]

No, I think it is possible. Technology has been able to reduce suffering drastically, particularly over the last hundred years or so. Hopefully that trend will continue. But we need to advance our philosophy as well as our science.

Do you believe technology really done this? when many are killed by war and car accidents.

 

[Raithere]

I want to know what makes people care, especially from the atheist perspective. You may think I just want a debate, but that is not my goal here. I want to understand. Please don't be offended. I am working from a limited understanding of what you think.

Thank you for the clarification, I was interpreting your question differently. None to worry, I wasn't offended... just a little agitated. I can't speak for all atheists but I can tell you what I think about the subject.

The first thing to know is that atheism doesn't come with an ethical philosophy attached. I think this is often confusing to theists and why the dogmatists you describe conclude that atheists must therefore be amoral. In truth, most of us share many ethical values with theists. We just need to find a different justification for those values.

Happily, the core values shared between the various religions make a good bit of sense when interpreted liberally. Those that we find do not make sense get discarded. The most interesting thing about this is that there is a very broad agreement between very disparate religions and cultures. Personally, I find this a strong argument about the qualities of human nature. It seems to me that, from either a theistic or atheistic perspective, religion is about man rather than about god. To quote Jesus, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."

Your question, "Is it just biological?" Is an interesting one because to an atheist there is no "just" about it, biological encompasses what we are. The simple answer would be, "yes" but that includes all that is human from this perspective. The theist necessarily feels that something is missing from this POV.

The experience is the same though. We all, unless emotionally damaged, experience a varying degree of opposition between our 'base' drives and our 'higher' ethics. Theists define this as the battle between the body and the soul or sin and god.

I certainly cannot speak for all atheists in this regard but I personally perceive this as a conflict between two aspects of our nature; personal survival and group survival. Basic drives are generally adapted towards the welfare of the individual, possibly to the detriment of others. But we also have the facility to identify with others, perceiving them as "us" and I believe this is where our "higher" values are derived from.

"How we, as a species, can do better" is yet another good question. To your accusation of selfishness I add tribalism. We need to critically examine our ethical philosophies, particularly our political ones. We need to take a hard look at the values we are actually imparting to our children while we happily pretend to value something else. I find religion highly culpable in this; the values preached are often quite different than the values actually practiced.

I'll try to address some of your other statements specifically:

I believe there is a higher responsibility in being human than in being an animal ruled purely by natural selection. I believe that a machine also does not have responsibility. Where does your feeling of responsibility come from? Honestly, when your first answer was about the zero sum game I don't see much compassion in that.

We're not machines, we're human. Evolution does not mandate that we are merely deterministic machinations of nature. Consciousness and even reality appear to be less discrete than that. Game theory is merely supportive logic, the experience itself it emotive. I help because I feel compassion for others, I identify them with myself. I am able to imagine myself in their position and feel empathy. The how and why of it is less important than the simple reality of it. But it is interesting none-the-less.

That strategy isn't working. And I don't think tit-for-tat is working either.

The strategy works, the problem seems to be that people get caught up in their ideologies and ignore the reality of the situation. They get so wrapped up in a single POV that they are unable to even tolerate another, much less get to a point of cooperation. If I had to pick a single cause for most of the suffering we see it is that. "My country", "my politics", "my religion", "my race". How much of this behavior appears, quite literally, insane to you? An answer? John Lennon's "Imagine" comes to mind...

I let it go there for now... long post... whoosh



~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Do you believe technology really done this? when many are killed by war and car accidents.

Even assuming an increase of death in the area of transportation and warfare, contrast this with the number of lives saved and suffering prevented by improved agriculture, shelter, and medicine. Yes, most definitely. More people are living happier, longer, and healthier lives today than in our entire past history combined.

~Raithere

 

[Repo Man]

If nothing else Okinrus, the advances in dentistry alone should be enough to make you glad of the age in which we live, flawed though it is.

 

[Prester John]

The suffering on this planet is caused by humanity turning away from love.
Or, if we are all animals and "higher love" does not exist, it is fine that children are starving. They are just the animals that weren't surviving natural selection anyway. Why should I care? It is my job to provide comfort for my family. That is our present phase of understanding as evidenced by cultures worldwide.
We are acting like animals.

Is this selfishness just natural, and proper?

Complex question, strawman, false dilemma, i'm sure there are a couple more fallacies in this short text, free peanut for pointing them out....

 

[cole grey]

Prester John,
Thank you for your comments on my sloppy entrance, that is only fair, but I have moved into trying to gather information. If anyone cares more about the wording of these posts than the situation at hand, however sloppily described, I would suggest that you look up the definition of the word, "useless."

Can you tell me where you draw your sense of compassion for humanity from, if you have one? This is what i want to know.
Why do you feel the way you do? Free peanut for an answer...


Raithere,
you have too many good ideas and questions to deal with in the five minutes I have on the computer tonight. Thank you. Be back soon...

 

[Prester John]

Can you tell me where you draw your sense of compassion for humanity from, if you have one? This is what i want to know.

An evolved survival mechanism.