This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Feminism, Warfare, and Honor: Is chivalry dead?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
War is about winning.
That belief has gotten so many people killed, it's sad.
War is (read,
should be
) about protecting people.
QFT
^
Post by
Squishalot
China not having a 50/50 ratio is due to the Chinese people artificially changing the normal ratio of what is best for the species due to immediate needs from there parents.
Now rip my argument to shreds xD.
You're begging the question by starting off with the assumption that 50/50 is best for the species. Who is to say that they're not moving towards the ideal ratio?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Wouldn't it also then be just as arbitrary to say we aren't already at the most advantageous ratio of 50/50 as me saying we are at the most advantageous ratio?
The correct thing to say would be
we have no evidence concerning the issue, so we're not going to make scientific claims.
The population dropping is not really fault of the organism but mostly the "deanimalizing" through religion and the cultural changing of humans as I would call it that makes people believe that reproducing isn't the single most important thing in life.
Uh what? Are we not the "organism" of which you speak? Are we not the ones doing whatever it is were doing that is causing the drop in fertility rates? How is that not our fault?
Secondly, that's all beside the point. Who's to blame has not baring on whether it's successful or not. If you miss a target because you are a bad shot, you did not shoot successfully. If you didn't hit the target because a freak gust of wind took your bullet, you still did not shoot successfully.
My argument is that for those species the ratio is not at 50/50 because it is not the most desired ratio
Natural selection doesn't have
desires.
It's not some magic force.
China not having a 50/50 ratio is due to the Chinese people artificially changing the normal ratio of what is best for the species due to immediate needs from there parents.
Whether data is collected from naturalistic observation or an artificial experiment, the results will be the same if all the variables are the same.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You can't make scientific claims without evidence.
That the fertility rate is dropping was not presented as proof about whether 50/50 is successful or not, but rather as evidence that what you claim to be successful is arbitrary.
Natural selection doesn't enhance either.
What is causing the ratio to be what it is irrelevant to the causes of that ratio.
My answer is 30 seconds.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
You can't make scientific claims without evidence.
That the fertility rate is dropping was not presented as proof about whether 50/50 is successful or not, but rather as evidence that what you claim to be successful is arbitrary.
Natural selection doesn't enhance either.
What is causing the ratio to be what it is irrelevant to the causes of that ratio.
My answer is 30 seconds.Read
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins. He explains the game theory behind 1:1 male/female ratios in most animals, and, incidentally, also explains the nature of some special case (like the social insects) that have a different ratio. In most animals, a 1:1 male:female ratio is an evolutionary stable strategy.
It's a fascinating book, but that's not really on topic. Basically, I'm asking for debate over whether or not it is ethical to value the lives of women somewhat more than those of men (whether in the event that you must choose someone to leave behind to perish, or whether it just makes you more angry to hear about women being unfairly killed than men). Whether there is a biological reason to value them more is more or less irrelevant. Biologically, animals such as ourselves tend to be driven towards selfishness, but we choose to be altruistic instead.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Read
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins. He explains the game theory behind 1:1 male/female ratios in most animals, and, incidentally, also explains the nature of some special case (like the social insects) that have a different ratio. In most animals, a 1:1 male:female ratio is an evolutionary stable strategy.
An explanation is not a proof. I can
explain
why it's fitting that we be the only intelligent life in the universe, and I can explain why it's fitting that be other intelligent life.
Biologically, animals such as ourselves tend to be driven towards selfishness, but we choose to be altruistic instead.
I think you're equivocating with selfishness. Animals aren't selfish, only humans, because selfishness is related to free will (or apparent free will if you're a hard determinist).
Post by
Squishalot
Read
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins. He explains the game theory behind 1:1 male/female ratios in most animals, and, incidentally, also explains the nature of some special case (like the social insects) that have a different ratio. In most animals, a 1:1 male:female ratio is an evolutionary stable strategy.
An explanation is not a proof. I can
explain
why it's fitting that we be the only intelligent life in the universe, and I can explain why it's fitting that be other intelligent life.
Indeed. This is a book written by a person who elsewhere explains that God does not exist, hard atheism. He cannot prove that God does not exist. The same would inevitably apply in this circumstance.
Biologically, animals such as ourselves tend to be driven towards selfishness, but we choose to be altruistic instead.
I think you're equivocating with selfishness. Animals aren't selfish, only humans, because selfishness is related to free will (or apparent free will if you're a hard determinist).
I disagree (yay, finally!). Selfishness is an inherent trait whereby an animal will act solely for its own benefit. I don't think it requires consciousness or free will (apparent or otherwise) to exist, unless you're defining selfishness as a conscious process, which it doesn't need to be.
Where Skreeran is wrong, however, is that humans are not altruistic. If we give to others, we do so because we feel guilty, because it makes us feel better, because there is a desire from ourselves to do something about it. Alleviating that guilt through giving, in essence, is selfish, because our ultimate goal is to no longer feel guilty.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I disagree (yay, finally!). Selfishness is an inherent trait whereby an animal will act solely for its own benefit. I don't think it requires consciousness or free will (apparent or otherwise) to exist, unless you're defining selfishness as a conscious process, which it doesn't need to be.
Under that definition, a rock is selfish because it tends towards states of least potential energy. I find that silly.
Say I'm falling off a building and I see a large dumpster of cardboard boxes that I can direct myself towards to attempt to break my fall. After I fall, I find out that there was a child in there playing who got killed when I fell on him. Was that therefore selfish? It's obviously selfish if I knew that he was in there and still chose to fall on him, but I don't see any rational way of calling it selfish if I didn't know. The only difference between the two is one of knowledge followed by a free choice to act a certain way based on that knowledge.
Where Skreeran is wrong, however, is that humans are not altruistic. If we give to others, we do so because we feel guilty, because it makes us feel better, because there is a desire from ourselves to do something about it. Alleviating that guilt through giving, in essence, is selfish, because our ultimate goal is to no longer feel guilty.
I think the operative word here is
often.
Altruism can't be ruled out completely.
Post by
Squishalot
Was that therefore selfish? It's obviously selfish if I knew that he was in there and still chose to fall on him, but I don't see any rational way of calling it selfish if I didn't know. The only difference between the two is one of knowledge followed by a free choice to act a certain way based on that knowledge.
Does 'selfishness' have to be at the expense of others? If you direct yourself towards the cardboard boxes (no child), you're still destroying them to break your fall and minimise your injuries. That in itself is still a selfish act, no? The degree of damage that you're willing to cause (key word being 'willing') may determine
how
selfish you are, but doesn't take away from the fact that your action is selfish in the first instance.
I think the operative word here is
often
. Altruism can't be ruled out completely.
I've tried thinking of an example, but perhaps I fail because I'm biased. Can you provide me an example of an altruistic act that cannot be described as selfish?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That in itself is still a selfish act, no?
Not as I understand selfishness, no. It's putting yourself above another. And by "another" is meant another rational being, whom you have no right to put yourself over. My very nature puts me above cardboard boxes, and it wouldn't be selfish to act according to that order.
I've tried thinking of an example, but perhaps I fail because I'm biased. Can you provide me an example of an altruistic act that cannot be described as selfish?
Any act can be altruistic. Altruism doesn't rest on there being a reward (or good consequence) or not, it rest solely in the intention of the one acting. Sure it might be true that treating a certain person nicely will cause X, Y, and Z to happen, but that doesn't have to be why I do it. I can even accept X, Y, and Z with open arms without changing the intention present in the action.
You want an example of perfect example? Jesus Christ. Whether you believe in him or not, if you understand it, it's the perfect example. A God, infinitely happy, perfect, content, who has absolutely no need for us (we add nothing to him), chooses to become a man and die for us so that we might enjoy a piece of that perfection. He gained nothing, we gained everything. That, again whether you believe it to be true or not, is the perfect example.
And just so no one complains that we're going off-topic, I'll try to tie this in to the OP.
If this chivalrous actions are altruistic in nature, then you have no reason to fault them, even if they are only directed to women. A good deed is a good deed. Sure, you would hope that the person might be able to act in the same manner towards men, but don't fault he good actions because of his morally neutral ones.
Post by
Squishalot
Not as I understand selfishness, no. It's putting yourself above another. And by "another" is meant another rational being, whom you have no right to put yourself over. My very nature puts me above cardboard boxes, and it wouldn't be selfish to act according to that order.
Presumably, the cardboard boxes will be owned by somebody. And I don't see that it has to be over another rational being. If I give to the poor to ease my guilt at having money and food and a warm bed at night, am I being altruistic or selfish? Am I giving because I'm guilty, or am I giving because I'm generous?
You want an example of perfect example? Jesus Christ. Whether you believe in him or not, if you understand it, it's the perfect example. A God, infinitely happy, perfect, content, who has absolutely no need for us (we add nothing to him), chooses to become a man and die for us so that we might enjoy a piece of that perfection. He gained nothing, we gained everything. That, again whether you believe it to be true or not, is the perfect example.
You do remember that we're talking about altruism in humans here, right...? Even discounting the fact that I don't believe in the Biblical 'story' (in inverted commas to note that I'm not trying to disrespect it), you're not demonstrating your point that humans can be altruistic by saying that a metaphysical being can be.
And back on topic:
If this chivalrous actions are altruistic in nature, then you have no reason to fault them, even if they are only directed to women. A good deed is a good deed. Sure, you would hope that the person might be able to act in the same manner towards men, but don't fault he good actions because of his morally neutral ones.
Look back in history and fiction, and you'll find that most 'chivalrous' actions are inherently selfish - man is chivalrous for the purposes of increasing the likelihood that the woman will enter into a (sexual or otherwise) relationship with him. Or, alternatively, for things like holding doors open, he does so in the hope that he can encourage others to also do so in future.
There is a self-serving motive in each action we do, even if it's not necessarily at the expense of others and so 'selfish' as defined by you. I'd rather broaden the definition of 'selfish' to include all self-serving actions, chivalrous or otherwise, but that's purely a definitional debate.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Presumably, the cardboard boxes will be owned by somebody.
Then you would say the possession of life is by nature higher than the possession of goods. To put life over goods, is natural. To put goods over life is selfish.
And I don't see that it has to be over another rational being. If I give to the poor to ease my guilt at having money and food and a warm bed at night, am I being altruistic or selfish? Am I giving because I'm guilty, or am I giving because I'm generous?
That's neither altruistic nor selfish.
The altruistic version would be giving money to a poor person because that person's dignity requires it.
The selfish version would be to not give the person money (assuming it is that he will die without it, and you won't).
You do remember that we're talking about altruism in humans here, right...? Even discounting the fact that I don't believe in the Biblical 'story' (in inverted commas to note that I'm not trying to disrespect it), you're not demonstrating your point that humans can be altruistic by saying that a metaphysical being can be.
He was fully man. That's the point.
Look back in history and fiction, and you'll find that most 'chivalrous' actions are inherently selfish - man is chivalrous for the purposes of increasing the likelihood that the woman will enter into a (sexual or otherwise) relationship with him.
I think that's pretty presumptuous to assume you know the intentions of people who you never knew. Fiction is different (and irrelevant) because the author can write whatever he wants, true or otherwise.
There is a self-serving motive in each action we do, even if it's not necessarily at the expense of others and so 'selfish' as defined by you. I'd rather broaden the definition of 'selfish' to include all self-serving actions, chivalrous or otherwise, but that's purely a definitional debate.
You claim a self-serving motive in every action. You can't do that unless you either a) objectively analyze every action ever made along with every other possible action, or b) provide/prove some general law/principle from which is necessarily follows that human actions be self-serving. You haven't done either. So not, I don't think it's a definitional debate.
I was on my way to bed when I saw you posted. Going for real now.
Post by
Thror
I've tried thinking of an example, but perhaps I fail because I'm biased. Can you provide me an example of an altruistic act that cannot be described as selfish?
I once saw this totally random kid carrying some big bags somewhere. It looked like he was kinda struggling with them, and it looked like he was heading to a nearby school. I helped him carry the bags to the school. Sorry if it is not epic enough :P
I have also once been in a bus, where there was a young woman with a baby. The baby was crying... rather furiously. It was kinda uncomfortable. The woman was rather nervous and tried to calm the baby, the nice way (some women can have a weird approach to kids when they get nervous from their crying, this woman wasnt one of those). Then there was this man who yelled at the woman to finally make the baby stop crying. I hit him about three seconds after. It actually calmed him down.
Well there is this whole element of legacy and history and just all kinds of "stuff" that gets involved. War in general really is about the victors... it's sad but much of Western culture is about the "winners". I mean just pick up a history book... Rome, Greece, Britain and finally Germany... all nations bent on being "winners" I don't want to get too much into modern stuff.. I don't want a big debate on modern culture.. but you get my point. Legacy is a big deal... I think some leaders really do want a legacy like that of Rome.
Geez, all this talking about war and victory. There is no victory in war. Only lots of wasted lives. Go read some Remarque, or at least watch MASH.
Post by
Squishalot
Then you would say the possession of life is by nature higher than the possession of goods. To put life over goods, is natural. To put goods over life is selfish.
That requires you to have some sort of measure of value between lives and between goods. You will always be putting some value over some other value. Whether that is selfish, in your definition, is therefore subjective based on what value each person (universe?) places on it.
The selfish version would be to not give the person money (assuming it is that he will die without it, and you won't).
That would be the 'wrong' thing to do. As you say, how can you speak about my motives? The guilt I absolve by giving him money hurts more than the loss I will suffer from not having that money.
He was fully man. That's the point.
At risk of turning it into a biblical debate, you can't use that argument, because it's a false example unless you assume that interpretation of the Bible is fact. So for the purposes of attempting to come up with a non-secular understanding of what selfishness is, I would ask again that you choose a different example.
I think that's pretty presumptuous to assume you know the intentions of people who you never knew. Fiction is different (and irrelevant) because the author can write whatever he wants, true or otherwise.
It was an example (and one from anecdotal experience), not a catch-all statement.
You claim a self-serving motive in every action. You can't do that unless you either a) objectively analyze every action ever made along with every other possible action, or b) provide/prove some general law/principle from which is necessarily follows that human actions be self-serving. You haven't done either. So not, I don't think it's a definitional debate.
My own personal experience suggests that. The evidence that I'm looking at (being my personal experience and attempting to analyse the actions of people around me) leads me to that conclusion. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, if you think it exists.
In any event, whether I have enough evidence to convince you or not is irrelevant to whether we have different views on the definition of selfishness :P
I was on my way to bed when I saw you posted. Going for real now.
You're not going to read this til the morning, but have a good night (early morning) then.
I once saw this totally random kid carrying some big bags somewhere. It looked like he was kinda struggling with them, and it looked like he was heading to a nearby school. I helped him carry the bags to the school. Sorry if it is not epic enough :P
Did it make you feel good to do so?
Post by
Thror
Did it make you feel good to do so?
Well, being nice to people does give you a good feeling, but i did not do it for the sake of the good feeling. All i really wanted was to make the task somewhat easier for the kid, it looked like he was already pushing his limits. (he had three of those bags, and they were full of paper. And he was rather short... his head was like... at my elbows level, dunno how young could that be)
Post by
Skreeran
You guys are getting off topic.
Before we get back, though, I'd like a chance to defend myself:
An explanation is not a proof. I can explain why it's fitting that we be the only intelligent life in the universe, and I can explain why it's fitting that be other intelligent life.But we can observe that the gender ratio typically
is
1:1, and Dawkins makes an excellent explanation as to why that probably is using selfish gene theory as well as game theory to illustrate why it might be an evolutionarily stable strategy.
I think you're equivocating with selfishness. Animals aren't selfish, only humans, because selfishness is related to free will (or apparent free will if you're a hard determinist).Animals (or more correctly, their
genes
) are certainly selfish, even when they appear altruistic.
A baby bird does whatever it can to get more food than its brothers and sisters. It tries to scream louder and get more attention than its siblings, even when that can attract the attention of predators. A better strategy for everyone involved would be to stay quiet and wait their turn and have everything be fair, but genes are selfish and wish to improve their own odds of survival as much as possible.
Now, there's a catch there as well. A baby bird shares, on average, ½ of its genes with it siblings, parents, and children, and since natural selection favors genes riding in bodies that look out for other bodies that carry the same genes, any given animal would show roughly ½ as much concern for their siblings than they would for themselves. So there's a balance there, between an animal's selfishness increasing its own chances for survival and decreasing those of its siblings. There's a line where a certain degree of selfishness becomes more detrimental to the survival of its genes than beneficial, and natural selections will push animals as close to this line as possible.
Humans are naturally selfish (we see this in children and in certain grown individuals), but we learn to take turns, share, and distribute things fairly.
Indeed. This is a book written by a person who elsewhere explains that God does not exist, hard atheism. He cannot prove that God does not exist. The same would inevitably apply in this circumstance.Incorrect, I'm afraid. I have read a great deal of Richard Dawkins work, and he never claims to be able to be able to disprove god. He's a soft atheist, like most educated atheists in the world today.
I would really recommend that you folks read some of his books. If you're not interested in his religious arguments, then at least please read his biological works. They really are fascinating.
Alright, back on topic.
Basically, reading about women that are dismembered or tortured (real or fictional) affects me much more than an equally brutal incident occurring to a man. It's not that I look at it happen to a man and say "Well, that's okay" or "There's nothing wrong with that," it's just that while I may see it as regrettable or wrong to happen to a man, when I read about it happening to a woman, it hits me much harder, and I feel a real emotional reaction.
An example that I've encountered recently is in my new Warcraft book. I hope you'll forgive me spoiling it a little (and referring to Warcraft lore here, I don't imagine that you folks are big lore nerds), but there is one incident where a group night elf Sentinels are found killed, skinned, and dismembered, hopefully in that order. And imagining a night elf woman skinned alive affects me a great deal more than reading about Ner'zhul's being slowly torn apart while still alive.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That requires you to have some sort of measure of value between lives and between goods. You will always be putting some value over some other value. Whether that is selfish, in your definition, is therefore subjective based on what value each person (universe?) places on it.
Subjective worth =/= "natural worth" (for lack of a better term).
Whether you're a Christian who sees the natural hierarchy as perfection, or a Nietzschean who only sees a hierarchy in power, the hierarchy is indicative of one thing: higher things take natural precedent over lower things.
If you don't think there is a natural hierarchy, that's a different debate, but I'll just say that common experience contradicts that.
That would be the 'wrong' thing to do.
Of course it would be. Selfishness is wrong.
As you say, how can you speak about my motives?
I'm not judging your motives. I'm judging the motives of three hypothetical guys in three hypothetical situations, all of which I created. I have no idea why you give money to a beggar, and I never claimed to know. I'm analyzing the whole spectrum of human intent.
At risk of turning it into a biblical debate, you can't use that argument, because it's a false example unless you assume that interpretation of the Bible is fact. So for the purposes of attempting to come up with a non-secular understanding of what selfishness is, I would ask again that you choose a different example.
You asked for an example, not an "real life" example. Which is why I clearly stated that it doesn't matter whether you believe it really happened or not.
I think that's pretty presumptuous to assume you know the intentions of people who you never knew. Fiction is different (and irrelevant) because the author can write whatever he wants, true or otherwise.
It was an example (and one from anecdotal experience), not a catch-all statement.
My own personal experience suggests that. The evidence that I'm looking at (being my personal experience and attempting to analyse the actions of people around me) leads me to that conclusion. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, if you think it exists.
If you're going to take an existentialist approach you can't expect other people to provide evidence. Existentialism only works when both people in the discussion have had similar experiences. Your experience leads you to understand the world in one way, and mine in another; we can't say much beyond that.
In any event, whether I have enough evidence to convince you or not is irrelevant to whether we have different views on the definition of selfishness :P
Did it make you feel good to do so?
This is directly related to what I was saying a couple posts back. Just because some positive outcome exists, that doesn't mean that those outcomes are therefore necessarily your aim.
I love my girlfriend. Sure there are many positive consequences to that, but that's not why I do it. I'll continue to love her for who she is even if those things went away.
But we can observe that the gender ratio typically
is
1:1, and Dawkins makes an excellent explanation as to why that probably is using selfish gene theory as well as game theory to illustrate why it might be an evolutionarily stable strategy.
Again, still an explanation, not a proof.
A proof takes evidence X and Y and demonstrates that Z must necessarily follow.
An explanation sees Z and tried to figure out what the causes are.
Where a proof is necessarily true, an explanation is only probable.
Animals (or more correctly, their
genes
) are certainly selfish, even when they appear altruistic.
A baby bird does whatever it can to get more food than its brothers and sisters. It tries to scream louder and get more attention than its siblings, even when that can attract the attention of predators. A better strategy for everyone involved would be to stay quiet and wait their turn and have everything be fair, but genes are selfish and wish to improve their own odds of survival as much as possible.
Now, there's a catch there as well. A baby bird shares, on average, ½ of its genes with it siblings, parents, and children, and since natural selection favors genes riding in bodies that look out for other bodies that carry the same genes, any given animal would show roughly ½ as much concern for their siblings than they would for themselves. So there's a balance there, between an animal's selfishness increasing its own chances for survival and decreasing those of its siblings. There's a line where a certain degree of selfishness becomes more detrimental to the survival of its genes than beneficial, and natural selections will push animals as close to this line as possible.
Humans are naturally selfish (we see this in children and in certain grown individuals), but we learn to take turns, share, and distribute things fairly.
If you stop and look you'll see that you didn't address my argument, but merely contradicted the conclusion, which gets us nowhere.
Incorrect, I'm afraid. I have read a great deal of Richard Dawkins work, and he never claims to be able to be able to disprove god. He's a soft atheist, like most educated atheists in the world today.
I would really recommend that you folks read some of his books. If you're not interested in his religious arguments, then at least please read his biological works. They really are fascinating.
I find that really funny that you say that, because Dawkins quite explicitly throws out the strong vs weak distinction. He classifies atheism based on the probability associated with God's existence.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.