Internet persona and ethics...
- Thread starter Donovan
- Start date
Caitriona
Something Wicked
The Question said:
Agreed. This is the dynamic. People are seldom actually self-sacrificing unless self-sacrifice serves some purpose for the individual. But, as you say, that's not a bad thing--it's just the dynamic.
But again, I think that the answers are found in the formation of groups. Those who find individual fulfillment in 'doing unto other's' reap a particular reward from the group itself. Things such as praise, adulation, acceptance, or even just the desire to 'get along'-- ALL are at play here. This again is not a bad thing, just the dynamic. Human beings form groups for a reason, some of those reasons smacks squarely in opposition to the rugged individualist persona that is so widely coveted here in the US especially. The overt asshole is fighting the group he belongs to..
The fact that some people can gain personal satisfaction and serve a community is somewhat remarkable. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't change the fact that there is a personal fulfillment [even if it is just the warm fuzzies] in the deed, NOR does it change the fact that certain acts are either helpful to groups or disruptive. That's a dynamic as well.
Regardless of the dynamic, the 'good deeds' aren't, and shouldn't be, dismissed. If we accept that we all have a selfish asshole hidden cleverly [or not so cleverly] inside, then good deeds represent the best expression of that selfishness. Is it still selfishness? Yes, it is, but in this regard it isn't intent that matters, it's results.
The Question
Eternal
Exactly. Just like there's good cholesterol, there's good selfishness, too. 
Donovan
beer, I want beer
keekeen said:
Neither is important to the discussion here, they are simply events I perceived which got me thinking about the bigger idea. The only reason I mentioned them at all, among the many other causes for this train of thought, was that Laker Girl seemed to personalize my comments and I had deliberately refrained from using examples from this board.
My comment re: TW and/or Jack was not meant as a condemnation or tacit approval of any acts committed or endured by those entities.
Donovan
beer, I want beer
Caitriona said:
While I am not a pollyanna by any means, I tend to lean more toward the idea that people are instinctively altruistic, that is to say at the most primitive, non-thought levels they will help one another in a crisis. This is evidenced by massive efforts after Katrina, 9-11 and other major disasters. Most of those rescuers asked for no reward and expected none, and I do not accept the argument that "positive endorphins" from doing good constitutes a selfish reason for such an act. I also cite examples of persons who dive into frozen lakes or whatnot to save a stranger without thinking, or who die attempting to save others from danger.
It's when a person is given half a chance to think that egotism takes control, and self preservation becomes paramount. Further, I think that groups are by nature egotistic entities and much more selfish in nature than individuals. A person left to himself will usually make the altruistic move when no conscious forethought is available; persons in a group will make the opposite choice nearly every time.
My reasoning for this is simple: if man's default state, by which I mean purely instinctive, is self-centered and egotistic, then the species would not have survived its infancy. In order to thrive the earliest humans would have to have been strongly altruistic and cooperative by nature and by choice.
It would have to have been a basic instinct, much like procreation or food gathering.
Altruism is an emotional attachment we have made to the basic instinct of "protect the tribe" because we perceive such acts as heroic. However, that does not make it less a primary trait because of that emotional definition.
The Question
Eternal
Donovan said:
By that description, then, altruism still isn't a manifestation of psychology but of neurology -- it's simply an instinct, which places it outside the question of persona. Persona is what determines how and why we either indulge or deny the expression of the primal motivator. It's also worth noting that selfless acts are generally taught, not innate. Before the age of 5 or 6, humans are almost universally selfish in their actions and outlook.
Donovan
beer, I want beer
True, but that's because of developmental stages, not inherent instinct. The infant mind is selfish because it needs to be to survive; the infant also shits itself regularly but that doesn't mean humanity's default state is to be covered in shit. The questions is, are humans at theri basest level selfless (help others) or selfish (do nothing). I agree that learned habits play a huge part in turning people one way or the other, and that by far the majority of people have learned selfishness as a way of life, hence your bleak worldview has some merit. However, I think that if conscious thought is stripped away, leaving only the base thought of impulse and instinct, humanity will help others without thought of reward, accolades or personal danger. It is neurological and psychological at the same time; the two are not mutually exclusive in a human being.
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
I think I'll change my title to The Good Cholesterol
Caitriona
Something Wicked
Well, back when the earliest humans walked earth, cooperation with others was part of the instinct to survive. As I said, a lot of this directly related to why humans form groups in the first place. Originally it was definitely for pro-survival reasons. Just the cooperation between men and women in hunting and gathering speaks to this phenomena.
I tend to agree with you on the 'instinct' of the individual to help because I've seen it and experienced it. You see a small child fall and you stop and help them up without thinking. You see someone drowning, you race to help. All of these might be residuals from more dangerous times. Times when if you didn't help your own survival might be in jeopardy due to reduced numbers in the group itself.
I don't mean to label this instinct as selfish, but it does have an element of personal gain in it. Which is I think what we're talking about here, the personal gain in altruistic situations. Cooperation implies a tit for tat doesn't it? I mean, it is the beauty of cooperation; you help me when I need it and I help you in return when you need it. There is a symmetry in cooperation that is both altruistic and self centered--you give and receive. [and I'm not speaking politically here [communism] only socially.]
Optimally this give and take is the foundation of a well functioning group, be it one on one or larger. The asshole in a group does not cooperate. That's his/her whole point. They rebel at the groups demand for cooperation and conformity. The asshole places him/herself outside the group.
It's tough to balance for all of us. How do we weigh our group needs against our need to be an individual. That's a drama that's been going on for ages.
Oh and I agree that more damage and harm has been done to individuals by groups. You don't have to look very far to see how groups still wage genocide in the name of something or another group.
I tend to agree with you on the 'instinct' of the individual to help because I've seen it and experienced it. You see a small child fall and you stop and help them up without thinking. You see someone drowning, you race to help. All of these might be residuals from more dangerous times. Times when if you didn't help your own survival might be in jeopardy due to reduced numbers in the group itself.
I don't mean to label this instinct as selfish, but it does have an element of personal gain in it. Which is I think what we're talking about here, the personal gain in altruistic situations. Cooperation implies a tit for tat doesn't it? I mean, it is the beauty of cooperation; you help me when I need it and I help you in return when you need it. There is a symmetry in cooperation that is both altruistic and self centered--you give and receive. [and I'm not speaking politically here [communism] only socially.]
Optimally this give and take is the foundation of a well functioning group, be it one on one or larger. The asshole in a group does not cooperate. That's his/her whole point. They rebel at the groups demand for cooperation and conformity. The asshole places him/herself outside the group.
It's tough to balance for all of us. How do we weigh our group needs against our need to be an individual. That's a drama that's been going on for ages.
Oh and I agree that more damage and harm has been done to individuals by groups. You don't have to look very far to see how groups still wage genocide in the name of something or another group.
Friday
Bazinga!
Yes. The sense of belonging to a group, especially a group of people you genuinely like, is a strong motivator. I was willing to swallow my sense of right and wrong for that sense of belonging.Donovan said:
But, as a very wise person has said to me, a person's core never changes. I went with the flow, but the fact that the flow was against my core eventually caught up with me, and I found myself ostracised from the very group I wished to belong to (self inflicted, of course).
Inherent "goodness" won out over being a troll. Now, I'm not saying I'm a paragon of virtue. We all know that's not true. However, willingly setting out to make someone uncomfortable, or trying to make someone feel less about themselves, is not something I wish to do any longer. Fucking with another person should not be an accepted thing to do simply because it's online. IMO, whether on or offline, it's anti social behavior, and shows a defect in character.
About your undiagnosed schizophrenic. Yes, bottling up emotions to that extent can be extremely dangerous. I do think a certain amount of negative agression is natural to being human. It's how we deal with that agression that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Feeling pissed off? Play a video game, exercise, write about it. Your hostility, tho, should never be considered Carte Blanche to hurt another person. Again, that action smacks of anti-social tendencies.
And the desire to be "part of a group" is a piss poor excuse for giving someone else grief. It's immmature, and short-sighted.
Laker_Girl, at times, conducts herself far differently than I would. Yes, there are times when I want to smack the girl over the head and ask, "What the hell are you thinking?"
But I've also been privy to the caring, altruistic Laker_Girl, and for me, that part of her far overshadows any negative aspects I might witness at TK.
Donovan
beer, I want beer
As I said before, this is really only about Laker_Girl in her own innermost self-image. That's unfortunate for her but not the reason I started this talk.
Having said that, to your point that a person's core behavior wins out in the end: do you follow the precept, then, that a person who is basically good but who has committed a terrible crime at the urging of others should be exonerated or rehabilitated faster? Suppose we use the aforementioned hazing rituals, wherein a bunch of otherwise upstanding young men get carried away, and one of the plebes dies in a prank gone horribly wrong. Do those essentially good boys still pay for their crime?
Having said that, to your point that a person's core behavior wins out in the end: do you follow the precept, then, that a person who is basically good but who has committed a terrible crime at the urging of others should be exonerated or rehabilitated faster? Suppose we use the aforementioned hazing rituals, wherein a bunch of otherwise upstanding young men get carried away, and one of the plebes dies in a prank gone horribly wrong. Do those essentially good boys still pay for their crime?
Donovan
beer, I want beer
Caitriona said:
I don't think we can correctly assume an egocentric (need for reward) instinct in the act of saving another instictively. Perhaps at the dawn of man this was the case, but the need for total tribe survival has long since passed, and studies show the instinct to protect others actually GROWS with the helplessness of the rescuee, i.e. unconscious, frail, elderly, or very young. In other words, persons who would not likely be in a position to either return the rescue, further the tribe though reproduction, or provide for the group in any way. For example, there are stories of the 9-11 rescues where people actually risked their own escape and safety to literally carry handicapped persons down the stairs. People who by all accounts had never met, might have been complete assholes in their lives, and had no reason to stop, did so and saved lives. For reward? No. In that instant I think we can assume very few of them were thinking of anything but escape, yet some of them stopped to assist their fellow strangers.
The Question
Eternal
I think you might be overlooking internal consequences in this, on the assumption that the analysis of those internal consquences is always a conscious, methodical affair. It isn't, not necessarily. If you would feel bad about leaving a helpless person to die in the face of oncoming disaster, that's a negative internal consequence -- but it's one that's already fixed in your mind, which means that you needn't necessarily stop to ponder it before acting on it.
Donovan
beer, I want beer
That may figure into it in some lesser dgree, the notion that the "lack of feeling bad" is a form of internal reward. But in cases like the towers, where slowing down or assisting the handicapped meant almost certain death, certainly the wish to not feel bad is nowhere near as powerful a motivator as the desire to stay breathing. It's not on the same level, and therefore must indicate a far more powerful and primal, ergo altruistic or selfless, motivation for such acts. The people who helped when helping meant destruction must have been compelled by some deeper force. If you disallow the exisitence of a God figure guiding things from above, then that motivation must come from within and therefore be altruistic in nature.
The Question
Eternal
Sorry, I'm just too much of a fan of the relationship between cause and effect to subscribe to the idea of a self-contained cause, which is what the common perception of altruism seems to represent, IMO. Like yourself, I just can't get behind the idea that people do anything -- especially anything which jeopardizes their very survival -- without having a more powerful motivator. I think we're just disagreeing on whether altruism is the cause or the effect.
Donovan
beer, I want beer
Yeah, I think you're right. I'm arguing that the altruism itself is the only cause powerful enough to override such a strong instinct as self-preservation in those cases, where you're saying the ingrained notion of helping others to gain personal satisfaction is the underlying cause, and altruism is a side effect whose meaning is attached after the fact.
Both I think are points with valid arguments , not without merit and certainly as plausible as those who'd argue that "angels" guided their hands. I guess we'll have to say that, given the proper sets of circumstances and personalities involved, altruism and egotism both exist as base instincts in the human psyche. However, neither state can be proven as the default position...nor can it be said which events and circumstances will trigger which set of instincts to any degree of certainty.
Both I think are points with valid arguments , not without merit and certainly as plausible as those who'd argue that "angels" guided their hands. I guess we'll have to say that, given the proper sets of circumstances and personalities involved, altruism and egotism both exist as base instincts in the human psyche. However, neither state can be proven as the default position...nor can it be said which events and circumstances will trigger which set of instincts to any degree of certainty.
Anna
missmanners' favorite toy
Yeppers.Eggs Mayonnaise said:
When I heard of TK and WF, some of the things I read at both boards were appalling. And even with all the laxness I've come to accept from being around these boards, some things( such as mocking someone who just died *cogh* Face *cough* or throwing around racial slurs *cough* Tasvir *cough*) that aren't kosher to me.