Thread: You Or 10 Others?

Originally Posted by The

FOX news... eesh. We occaisionally get it here on some of the crap minor channels, and man, it's really scary. Is FOX news actually mainstream in America?
[/b]

Yeah, it's huge.

And Universal, I don't think you could really say that the people of the Revolutionary War "died for strangers." I mean, it's not like they didn't have a vested interest in winning the war, in regard to their own, future, way of life and for that of their families.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Creatures often act on the basis of continuing their species. But special survival really directly translates into altruism.
[/b]

Actually organisms do not care about their species; this is a common mistake about evolution. It is its own genes that it cares about, and acts out of altruism because the beneficiaries are often related, therefore carrying and able to pass on the same genes.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Yeah, it's huge.

And Universal, I don't think you could really say that the people of the Revolutionary War "died for strangers." I mean, it's not like they didn't have a vested interest in winning the war, in regard to their own, future, way of life and for that of their families.
[/b]

The future of freedom itself was enough to make the difference between one level of passion and a much greater one. They were at death's door, so their own futures were not all that was being fought for in many cases. The way they fought on battlefields was insane back then. Running into gun and cannon fire from a huge wall of people often takes passion that rises to the level I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Actually organisms do not care about their species; this is a common mistake about evolution. It is its own genes that it cares about, and acts out of altruism because the beneficiaries are often related, therefore carrying and able to pass on the same genes. [/b]

Then how does one explain how creatures work together to help one of them survive, and the others die? Or when a creatures gives a warning cry to a predator, revealing the caller's position and increases its vulnerability but helps the other members of the species?

Originally Posted by Universal

....so their own futures were not all that was being fought for in many cases.[/b]

This is exactly my point. Their own futures (and that of the future generations of their own families) were not all that was being fought for, but it was a major part of the equation.
Point being: You can't really use that for a fitting analogy to the "You or 10 others" problem. Dying for 10 others is 100% benevolent. You're paying the ultimate price for absolutely nothing but the lives of 10 other people. Those that fought in the war gained a lot more, personally, for that decision.
Get me?

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Then how does one explain how creatures work together to help one of them survive, and the others die? Or when a creatures gives a warning cry to a predator, revealing the caller's position and increases its vulnerability but helps the other members of the species?
[/b]

Because in a group of animals, other members are likely to be related. Even if the altruistic creature dies, if it saves two siblings or offspring, or 4 cousins, etc. it has saved copies of its genes, perhaps even more than are carried in its own body. Therefore the trade-off is worth it. This is looking at things from the point of view of the genes, which are the basic unit of evolution, and which use the animals bodies' as the means of propagation. Good genes (genes which cause copies of themselves to be replicated) persist, while bad genes (genes that can't cause themselves to be replicated) are lost. Altruism genes can survive and be selected for because they save other copies of themselves which may be carried in other animals bodies. Neither the genes nor the individual animals are acting at the level of the species, they are always acting selfishly for their own propagation. Of course this is variable among species, but a parent will more likely die for its own offspring than any other individual, because the offspring is most likely to pass on the parents genes. All altruism is an extension of this gene-selfishness, including the emotions that make it possible in humans, in whom it is, of course; or should I say, we hope, modified by reason to extend to those who don't necessarily carry copies of our genes. It is this emotion that can cause people to die for others to whom they feel allegiance.

Aww well you make it sound as if it is a bad thing Moon. Oh well I do get what you are saying though. Everything a person does is a selfish motive in that case. Even if you give money away, because YOU want them to have it. It is based off of your feelings. You know... he he

Originally Posted by ataraxis

That is quite the simplification. For one, of course anyone can somehow link people's actions as a beneficial thing toward the one doing the actions. You can say mother teresa and ghandi are fooling themselves and just in it for the "ego rush." Now the main thing is -- what the hell is wrong with that? I know you aren't saying it is "wrong" but you seem to be saying it is impractical and not a good decision as the people aren't in touch with reality and they are fooling themselves. I don't understand that logic: because you cannot be completely selfless, you should be completely selfish? I can give 10 dollars toward a dying African child. Sure, the "humans act based on the percieved benefits" theory would say that I am feeding my guilty concious and trying to feel like I am a better person inside. Because I am not actually doing this for selfless reasons, I should not do it at all because it is equally meaningless. With this theory, everything that isn't a material or more "obvious" benefit is a benefit which is one such as "delusions of grandeur" and making a person feeling better about themselves through an "ego rush" if you will. Is this a bad thing, or even an uncommon thing? By running in front of a car to save a child.. no doubt one might say the percieved benefit is the "ego rush" that the man would feel. But do you not feel good after doing good? This is as much of a "percieved benefit" that any man or woman would get when doing some sort of seemingly altruistic act. However humans as rational creatures do not act unless there is a percieved reason for acting, and the initial impetus for action often can not just be that the person sees a "percieved benefit" but as an act of teamwork. Your theory, I assume, is based in an evolutionary sort of way. Humans, and all creatures, act in ways to best assist their survival. But this denies the existence of a creature's efforts to keep their species surviving (I'm speaking on the same level as what I assume your theory is). Have you heard of insects that work together to keep one out of many of themselves alive, while the rest die (I don't want to attempt to dig up the video on this, so just take my word for it). Creatures often act on the basis of continuing their species. This might be the "percieved benefit," that the creature, or person, knows that their actions helped another, thus continuing the survival of the species. But this is still technically altruism. See the dictionary.com definition of altruism. One example was a warning cry, which reveals the callers location to a predator but helps others. When a human exposes themselves to harm this way, what is the percieved benefit? And even if a percieved benefit exists, would it really outweigh the percieved consequences? Would you say a bunch of guys patting you on the back and getting on the news is worth risking your life? Is that the benefit that a man sees when jumping in front of a train to save a child? I kind of doubt it. Perhaps the theory that humans act based on the percieved benefits is true in some situations, but it is a simplification. As said, special survival can be one reason why one does something. But special survival really directly translates into altruism.
[/b]

Omg why would you bother to write all this when only 3 people get all the way through

besides we all know that given the circumstances we would choose ourselves...

its instinct to protect your own life over everyone elses

Originally Posted by HereWeGo

Aww well you make it sound as if it is a bad thing Moon. Oh well I do get what you are saying though. Everything a person does is a selfish motive in that case. Even if you give money away, because YOU want them to have it. It is based off of your feelings. You know... he he
[/b]

I don't mean to make it sound like a bad thing; it is a good thing that we can partially thank evolution for. I am not making a "you do it because it makes you feel good, therefore it isn't altruistic" argument. I was trying to explain how animals could do seemingly altruistic things. People do help others and it makes them feel good, but despite that gain to themselves it is still a good thing that they did. Otherwise it's just semantics and the definition of altruism, I guess.

Originally Posted by HereWeGo

its instinct to protect your own life over everyone elses
[/b]

Didn't you read my post? That is not always the instinct!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is exactly my point. Their own futures (and that of the future generations of their own families) were not all that was being fought for, but it was a major part of the equation.
Point being: You can't really use that for a fitting analogy to the "You or 10 others" problem. Dying for 10 others is 100% benevolent. You're paying the ultimate price for absolutely nothing but the lives of 10 other people. Those that fought in the war gained a lot more, personally, for that decision.
Get me?
[/b]

In the crazy style battles people had back then, they went to the battle field without much hope of suriving the war. The mentality was not, "I want my life to be better, so here I am in front of a wall of people shooting guns and cannons at me." They went there for the future of humanity, their families included of course. But yes, on top of that, many of them could also say, "But if we win, and I survive this with my body intact and working, my life too will be better." However, lots and lots of them ran straight into the face of death and died, knowing they would die, for the future of humanity. Pretty much anybody willing to show up for one of those battles, even if they had some thought of themselves, put others over themselves. You generally can't be selfish and show up for that situation. I do admit that plenty of people have died for others while fighting for an evil cause, but they were still fighting for others, no matter how perverted the reason for the mission.

Omg why would you bother to write all this when only 3 people get all the way through[/b]

Why do you bother posting.

besides we all know that given the circumstances we would choose ourselves...[/b]

Obviously not, as that is the debate in this thread.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Because in a group of animals, other members are likely to be related. Even if the altruistic creature dies, if it saves two siblings or offspring, or 4 cousins, etc. it has saved copies of its genes, perhaps even more than are carried in its own body. Therefore the trade-off is worth it. This is looking at things from the point of view of the genes, which are the basic unit of evolution, and which use the animals bodies' as the means of propagation. Good genes (genes which cause copies of themselves to be replicated) persist, while bad genes (genes that can't cause themselves to be replicated) are lost. Altruism genes can survive and be selected for because they save other copies of themselves which may be carried in other animals bodies. Neither the genes nor the individual animals are acting at the level of the species, they are always acting selfishly for their own propagation. Of course this is variable among species, but a parent will more likely die for its own offspring than any other individual, because the offspring is most likely to pass on the parents genes. All altruism is an extension of this gene-selfishness, including the emotions that make it possible in humans, in whom it is, of course; or should I say, we hope, modified by reason to extend to those who don't necessarily carry copies of our genes. It is this emotion that can cause people to die for others to whom they feel allegiance. [/b]

I am talking about when the animals are not in fact related (or the relation is unknown, making it just as irrelevant).

Atraxis, what I was saying earlier was that, giving meaning and worth through action is something imposed by the mind and isn't an inherent truth. Good and bad are merely concepts we give to ourselves to make us pursue in a certain direction with purpose. When, inherently, there isn't any purpose or point. Both good and bad, are two sides of the same coin, so which side you stand on doesn't really matter in the case of; 'You or 10 others', or any situation for that matter... every decision or action comes back to; self-driven, self-imposed, self-aggrandized motivations...all of which are equally selfish and worthless at the same time.


In regards to your claim of altruistic acts, I can't speak for speculation when I don't see examples of what you're refering to atraxis... You're making a pretty big claim as fact here; You're saying that some animals choose to protect unrelated animals, without thought of 'self', for whatever reason. In essence, the ever-evasive 'self'-less act.

Naturally, I tend to agree with Moonbeam that ultimately, the animal is looking out for it's own vested interests (that being, it's DNA continuing forward, or whatever other countless meaningless excuses it may justify to itself). Because, unrelated or not, How can we truely test what is going through another beings head when it decides to do what it does, anyway? How can we TRUELY come to the conclusion, "Now THAT was selfless...". We can't, because it doesn't exist.

And If, by some off-chance, you are right about an animal sacrificing itself for someone or something completely unrelated, I would still suspect the animal's intentions were selfish because it would only be doing what it thinks, or is programmed to think, to be the 'right' choice...Again, self-driven, and aggrandized noise. Nothing more.

There simply is NO selfless act. Just wishful thinking. Period.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

And If, by some off-chance, you are right about an animal sacrificing itself for someone or something completely unrelated, I would still suspect the animal's intentions were selfish because it would only be doing what it thinks, or is programmed to think, to be the 'right' choice...Again, self-driven, and aggrandized noise. Nothing more.

There simply is NO selfless act. Just wishful thinking. Period. [/b]

Well firstly, humans are animals, right? Don't humans yell "WATCH OUT!" to others? Yes... they do... I don't understand how doing something that you think is right is selfish? How is a "self-driven" action selfish? You are doing what you think is right, sure, but that doesn't make it any less selfless.

Also, altruism still "exists." Altruism simply means that it does something to help another with obvious disadvantages to the the person helping another.

Do you still believe your theory "humans don't do anything if they think the percieved benefit outweighs the possible cost." Because this can't be true, as you seem to ponit out. Someone sacrificing themselves for another... does the percieved benefit of having people pat you on the back outweigh the ultimate evolutionary cost: death? No... no it doesn't.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

I am talking about when the animals are not in fact related (or the relation is unknown, making it just as irrelevant).
[/b]

"Altruistic" behavior amongst non-related animals doesn't happen in nature. (Never say never, but it is rare.) Any animal that had genetically-driven tendencies towards acting against its own best interests to save non-related members of it species would die and would not pass those genes on. Of course an animal doesn't always know which animals are related, but depending on the structure of the group it probably can make assumptions about which animals are more closely related and therefore "deserving" of help; maybe this extends to its litter-mates, maybe to the whole group, or somewhere in between. No solitary living animals are going to practice altruism towards other members of their species.

Humans are different because we are not now living in the same way that we evolved, i.e. tribes that are extended familes. In tribal groups it would be beneficial (genetically speaking) on some occasions to sacrifice yourself to save a few relatives. Since we can't tell who is related to us by smell or anything, the altruism is the result of the genes driving behaviors that may have started as "Save those that you live with" or "Save children in danger" or whatever. Therefore feeling altruistic may be extended towards those who are not related to us as we are fooled (our genes are fooled) by our current environment of living in large numbers in artificial conditions. (I am not saying altruism is a bad thing, I am just talking about how it may have evolved. Many things that go against what our genes want, for example birth control, are good things.)

Originally Posted by Universal

They went there for the future of humanity, their families included of course.
[/b]

Again, I agree with (pretty much) everything you've said, but it's the point above that makes the whole war aspect an unfitting analogy.
True, these people were (are) brave. They were fighting for an unselfish cause, no doubt. However the cause was so much bigger than "giving your life for the lives of ten other people." Their own families included, as said, they were fighting for humanity (or their portions of it) en masse. I don't think, given that factor, that you can draw the conclusion that all those people who sacrificed themselves for such a large cause would, automatically, be the type to give up their lives for ten, random, people off the street.

If I knew the US was going to be attacked by aliens on the fourth of July and, should they succeed, we'd all be wiped off the map, I'd be more than willing to die fighting, to defend us. That doesn't mean that, should someone walk up to me and stick a gun in my face and say "I'm either going to kill you, right here, right now, or I'm just going to pop the first 10 people I see. Your choice," I'd be noble enough to chose death. There is a difference.