....we see on the news (as we empathise with almost everything that moves that crosses our path) but that is where the instinct ends. It ios as a result of us rationalising these peoples plight and imagining how we would feel were we in their shoes that the feeling to help them grows: this is very different to stumbling across someone writhing in agony where we dive in to help without empathising with their position first.
I hope that clears it up and thx again for your response :)
I beleiev that empathy arose and flourished because it worked in lines with dozens of pre-existing genetic ally based predispositions and acted as a 'moral amplifier' generally reinforcing what we already did (both for utterly selfish, reciprocal and kin altruistic reasons). This is clearly very different from dawkins suggestion.
2) Dawkins is suggesting some kind of instinctive response is going on and I am not suggesting that as such. Sure, we insdtinctively empathise with the starving...
I'll try and highlight for you the difference between the two positions:
1) Dawkins position is that this 'byproduct' (like the word) is of some gene(s) encouraging 'kin altruism' and selfishly benefitting itself, in small tribes, by the usual mechanism of kin altruism of benefitting other copies of itself. I don't believe empathy is 'kin altruism' or linked especially to it, though we are predisposed to be more sympathetic to those closest to us....contd
You've raised some interesting points, particularly about the warring chimp tribes. Although the answer is probably some balance of the two "not quite distinct" positions. For example you have to account for observations of helping more closely related kin more often. There was a study of vamp bats showing that they shared food more often with those more closely related. But also they shared food more often with other bats who had shared food with them previously. So probably some compromise.
I'm not disputing that reciprocal altruism occurs Penguin nor that kin altruism occurs. I am firmly in favour of dawkins model in 99% of cases but neither seems a workable mechanism for these examples of unreciprocated altruism as far as I see it.
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
....we see on the news (as we empathise with almost everything that moves that crosses our path) but that is where the instinct ends. It ios as a result of us rationalising these peoples plight and imagining how we would feel were we in their shoes that the feeling to help them grows: this is very different to stumbling across someone writhing in agony where we dive in to help without empathising with their position first.
I hope that clears it up and thx again for your response :)
noelplum99 2 years ago
Just to add:
"we dive in to help without empathising with their position first."....which we also do and appears to me to be a very different behaviour.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Yes it does. No probs.
chalkers 2 years ago
I beleiev that empathy arose and flourished because it worked in lines with dozens of pre-existing genetic ally based predispositions and acted as a 'moral amplifier' generally reinforcing what we already did (both for utterly selfish, reciprocal and kin altruistic reasons). This is clearly very different from dawkins suggestion.
2) Dawkins is suggesting some kind of instinctive response is going on and I am not suggesting that as such. Sure, we insdtinctively empathise with the starving...
noelplum99 2 years ago
Thanks for the response Chalkers.
I'll try and highlight for you the difference between the two positions:
1) Dawkins position is that this 'byproduct' (like the word) is of some gene(s) encouraging 'kin altruism' and selfishly benefitting itself, in small tribes, by the usual mechanism of kin altruism of benefitting other copies of itself. I don't believe empathy is 'kin altruism' or linked especially to it, though we are predisposed to be more sympathetic to those closest to us....contd
noelplum99 2 years ago
You've raised some interesting points, particularly about the warring chimp tribes. Although the answer is probably some balance of the two "not quite distinct" positions. For example you have to account for observations of helping more closely related kin more often. There was a study of vamp bats showing that they shared food more often with those more closely related. But also they shared food more often with other bats who had shared food with them previously. So probably some compromise.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
I'm not disputing that reciprocal altruism occurs Penguin nor that kin altruism occurs. I am firmly in favour of dawkins model in 99% of cases but neither seems a workable mechanism for these examples of unreciprocated altruism as far as I see it.
noelplum99 2 years ago