Equality

[henry quirk]

To clarify: I don't give a flip about 'freedom' or 'liberty' (another set of fictions).

I care mightily about 'self-possession' (which trumps artsy-fartsy freedom any old time).

Qman, your idealized description (excepting the freedom hooey and a few other things I won't nitpick) is pretty much spot on.

##

"It seems that Hobbes suffers from the idea that he has the right ideas and everyone else should be just like he is, or they are wrong."

Yep. I think said the same in this thread (or in another...can't keep track of it all).

##

"However, I will not hand a blank check to those who propose that all differences are OK giving me this flawed contemporary political correctness nonsense of diversity for diversity's sake."

Careful! Hobb(l)e(d) won't like this!

[Immanuel Can]

All he knows is that,
before he arrived, some characters were sitting around a camp fire and
arbitrarily decided to implement group rules that they (altruistically)
thought would provide the most comfortable life style for everyone.

Does anyone need me to bother to point out that this sort of explanation of the origin of ethics is nothing but modern fantasy?

There's no indication that any such "social contract" was ever drawn up at all. In fact, ancient man seems to have been particularly *unaltruistic,* making tribal warfare, sacking cities, burning, pillaging and looting without much of a conscience, or so it seems. What we currently take for *altruism* seems to have been nothing other than a self-interested desire to maximize personal protection or efforts at aggression.

But I'm pretty sure Qman knows that. He's just parrotting the conventional liberal myth. I don't suppose he believes it. the important point is that if there were spinoff benefits to this self-interested cooperation that arrangement hardly qualifies as any kind of a moral imperative for Henry or anyone else.

In fact, a skeptic could simply say, "Who gives a rat's ear if the tradition up to this point has been of cooperation; it's a new day, chum." What would be the right comeback?

[henry quirk]

"Does anyone need me to bother to point out that this sort of explanation of the origin of ethics is nothing but modern fantasy?"

That was one of the things I chose not to nitpick...HA!

[uwot]

There's no indication that any such "social contract" was ever drawn up at all.

No, but there's the 10 commandments and the American constitution.

In fact, ancient man seems to have been particularly *unaltruistic,* making tribal warfare, sacking cities, burning, pillaging and looting without much of a conscience, or so it seems.

Indeed. Many societies have been run according to the rules of gang warfare, to some extent they still are.

What we currently take for *altruism* seems to have been nothing other than a self-interested desire to maximize personal protection or efforts at aggression.

Terms like altruism and rights are red herrings politically. What matters is that in gang or tribal warfare, the most powerful individuals marshall the support of others for a share of the spoils. In more primitive societies, this includes slavery and serfdom. Today, the most powerful people do what they can to increase their share of resources by the manipulation of money. So successful are they that the national debt of many countries, the US and UK included, will take several generations to pay off. In effect, the grandchildren of todays ordinary people will be working to sustain the lifestyle of the grandchildren of todays rich and powerful. It is this state that 'conservatives' wish to conserve. Faced with the irritation of 'democracy', they trade on the fears and weaknesses, as well as greed, of enough people to maintain their position. Religion is a powerful ally and there are a variety of conservative myths, 'trickle down' economics, the threat of socialism, the power of unions for instance, that provide easy soundbites for the hard of thinking.

But I'm pretty sure Qman knows that. He's just parrotting the conventional liberal myth. I don't suppose he believes it. the important point is that if there were spinoff benefits to this self-interested cooperation that arrangement hardly qualifies as any kind of a moral imperative for Henry or anyone else.

Yeah, moral is another red herring. When it comes to behaviour and sanctions, it is the law that matters. Whether it is 'absolutely' right or wrong is irrelevant. Do the people with the power to decide care?
You know what, Henry? I do believe we are seeing myth making in action. I'm sure you're a top geezer, but it is interesting to watch the cult of Quirk develop as people defer to you and in some instances attribute things to you that I may have missed, but don't remember you saying.

In fact, a skeptic could simply say, "Who gives a rat's ear if the tradition up to this point has been of cooperation; it's a new day, chum." What would be the right comeback?

A 'rat's ear'? You have some standards then.

[Hobbes' Choice]

All he knows is that,
before he arrived, some characters were sitting around a camp fire and
arbitrarily decided to implement group rules that they (altruistically)
thought would provide the most comfortable life style for everyone.

Does anyone need me to bother to point out that this sort of explanation of the origin of ethics is nothing but modern fantasy?

There's no indication that any such "social contract" was ever drawn up at all. In fact, ancient man seems to have been particularly *unaltruistic,* making tribal warfare, sacking cities, burning, pillaging and looting without much of a conscience, or so it seems. What we currently take for *altruism* seems to have been nothing other than a self-interested desire to maximize personal protection or efforts at aggression.

But I'm pretty sure Qman knows that. He's just parrotting the conventional liberal myth. I don't suppose he believes it. the important point is that if there were spinoff benefits to this self-interested cooperation that arrangement hardly qualifies as any kind of a moral imperative for Henry or anyone else.

In fact, a skeptic could simply say, "Who gives a rat's ear if the tradition up to this point has been of cooperation; it's a new day, chum." What would be the right comeback?

"Ancient Man", whatever that is was not especially altruistic , nor non-altruistic.
The myth of the social contract stems from two myths; Rouseau's one, and Hobbes' one. Both come from opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of the supposed "original state" of humanity.
Neither were correct, but both knew that the contract was putative, a priori and based on very little evidence as such, not to be taken literally.

But in exactly the same way that Wolf packs and Benobo troops co-operate and show altruism within the group, humans from the earliest times have also co-operated.

I ought to point out that you are contradicting yourself. Warfare is an act of co-operation, which relies on a natural sense of tribalism, and this includes altruistic behaviours of the "selfish gene" type.
I don't think its much different today.

[henry quirk]

"You know what, Henry? I do believe we are seeing myth making in action. I'm sure you're a top geezer, but it is interesting to watch the cult of Quirk develop as people defer to you and in some instances attribute things to you that I may have missed, but don't remember you saying."


Jeez, I hope that's not what's happening.

Not followin' and (sure as shit) not leadin'.

As the expression goes: "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."

##

"humans from the earliest times have also co-operated."

Sure, but you must acknowledge there's a significant difference between cooperation (voluntary alliance) and conscription (in essence, slavery).

To ask for my assistance is one thing...you might even get it if your argument is compelling.

To demand (or take [steal]) from me that which I choose not to give is another matter completely.

[QMan]

Hmm, I'll have to pat myself on the back now that I discovered the origin of modern ethics?

But you are right, what I mean to point out is that all of us are born into this situation where we had zero input into the surroundings and upon arrival have no choice but to toe the line. I think there is always a form of limited, local, altruism to the established rules even if I were to be born into a group of Chicago mobsters. Altruism of that sort is, as you point out, based on self-interest. Thus, there may not be a moral imperative but certainly an imperative based on self-preservation to toe the line. This, I assume, would be uncomfortable for Henry or anyone else.

I don't believe at all that altruism has only, or mainly, negative connotations since there clearly are examples throughout man's existence that demonstrate true unselfishness and concern for the well being of others. I try to stay away from throwing out the baby with the bath water because the baby is too valuable.

It is useless to interpret everything, including ethics and altruism, consistently in a negative manner. This is exactly were the Christian is challenged to make a difference by being the salt of the earth and the light on the hilltop. Too often we Christians fail by being merely passive and not actively altruistic. Of course, the secular person is under no such obligation (I am looking forward to the debate on this last point .)

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hmm, I'll have to pat myself on the back now that I discovered the origin of modern ethics?

But you are right, what I mean to point out is that all of us are born into this situation where we had zero input into the surroundings and upon arrival have no choice but to toe the line. I think there is always a form of limited, local, altruism to the established rules even if I were to be born into a group of Chicago mobsters. Altruism of that sort is, as you point out, based on self-interest. Thus, there may not be a moral imperative but certainly an imperative based on self-preservation to toe the line. This, I assume, would be uncomfortable for Henry or anyone else.

I don't believe at all that altruism has only, or mainly, negative connotations since there clearly are examples throughout man's existence that demonstrate true unselfishness and concern for the well being of others. I try to stay away from throwing out the baby with the bath water because the baby is too valuable.

It is useless to interpret everything, including ethics and altruism, consistently in a negative manner. This is exactly were the Christian is challenged to make a difference by being the salt of the earth and the light on the hilltop. Too often we Christians fail by being merely passive and not actively altruistic. Of course, the secular person is under no such obligation (I am looking forward to the debate on this last point .)

Neither Christians not Secularists are under any altruistic obligation, nor is such an urge related in any way to morality directly.
There is a fundamental emotion seen in most gregarious mammals to protect one's kin, pack, toupe, or other associated member of the same species.
Even this can be extended beyond species; Dog-bitches have been know to suckle and protect kittens; dogs protect their owners.
Religion, or a small part of it, is a rationalisation of this fundamental urge.

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.
When a Christian does it he doesn't do not it for nothing - he does it in the hope of pleasing God and winning redemption and a place in heaven - this is not altruism at all.

[John K]

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.

Huh?

[HexHammer]

Equality is but an illusion, but equal rights is what you areally are talking about.

[Hobbes' Choice]

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.

Huh?

Is the the most articulate response you have to offer.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Equality is but an illusion, but equal rights is what you areally are talking about.

That's already been covered and, I think, understood by all contributors.

[HexHammer]

Equality is but an illusion, but equal rights is what you areally are talking about.

That's already been covered and, I think, understood by all contributors.

Uhmm, that's good, but from those few posts I've read, they didn't understand that, but havn't read all the pages tho. Mayhaps I've missed it, but non the less ..good!

[QMan]

Hmm, I'll have to pat myself on the back now that I discovered the origin of modern ethics?

But you are right, what I mean to point out is that all of us are born into this situation where we had zero input into the surroundings and upon arrival have no choice but to toe the line. I think there is always a form of limited, local, altruism to the established rules even if I were to be born into a group of Chicago mobsters. Altruism of that sort is, as you point out, based on self-interest. Thus, there may not be a moral imperative but certainly an imperative based on self-preservation to toe the line. This, I assume, would be uncomfortable for Henry or anyone else.

I don't believe at all that altruism has only, or mainly, negative connotations since there clearly are examples throughout man's existence that demonstrate true unselfishness and concern for the well being of others. I try to stay away from throwing out the baby with the bath water because the baby is too valuable.

It is useless to interpret everything, including ethics and altruism, consistently in a negative manner. This is exactly were the Christian is challenged to make a difference by being the salt of the earth and the light on the hilltop. Too often we Christians fail by being merely passive and not actively altruistic. Of course, the secular person is under no such obligation (I am looking forward to the debate on this last point .)

Neither Christians not Secularists are under any altruistic obligation, nor is such an urge related in any way to morality directly.
There is a fundamental emotion seen in most gregarious mammals to protect one's kin, pack, toupe, or other associated member of the same species.
Even this can be extended beyond species; Dog-bitches have been know to suckle and protect kittens; dogs protect their owners.
Religion, or a small part of it, is a rationalisation of this fundamental urge.

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.
When a Christian does it he doesn't do not it for nothing - he does it in the hope of pleasing God and winning redemption and a place in heaven - this is not altruism at all.

For the sake of the debate, I am defining altruism also as the deliberate and intelligent intention to do good.

1. The Christian is definitely under a moral obligation to do good. (It would speed things up considerably if you studied the subject you want to debate. Please read the bible and about Christian tradition).

2. Wanting to do good is not an animalistic urge but an intelligent decision based on a taught subject that one agrees with and complies with under free will. There is no obligation but an intellectual agreement that it is the correct and beneficial course of action.

3. It's clearly fallacious to imply that Christians do not have pure spiritual motives but atheists do.

4. Expecting a reward should be read as "hoping" for a reward. And why not? These are promised benefits that come with being an altruistic Christian. No reason to turn them down. Would you turn down earned money? Does earning the money make you less valuable? Clearly not, since people will attribute greater wisdom to you for acting in an intelligent manner.

From a Christian's perspective the atheist is really laboring under an enormous illusion. If you do not believe in any accountability in an hereafter, then you are kidding yourself if you think you need to have ANY moral qualities. You can get away with anything you want, be as deceptive as you want, commit any crime you want, as long as your personal comfort level is not impacted by getting caught. I am sure you have heard that argument before and it is absolutely true. That's why we have all the problems we do have in the world because criminals definitely think along those lines.

And, yes, there are some Christians (by name only) who commit crime, but they are not really Christians then. And yes, there are atheists who are altruistic by choice, but their reward is their temporary increase in spiritual and emotional personal comfort. The difference is that the Christian is called to demonstrate altruism even under extreme and externally imposed personal discomfort, such as Christ on the cross and his teaching that we must immitate him by bearing our own cross.

[John K]

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.

Huh?

Is the the most articulate response you have to offer.

It's a more polite way of saying you're full of shit.