Richard Dawkins on the evolutionary origins of altruism

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is an episode of -The Genius of Darwin- series. Dawkins addresses the question of altruism even given the premise of the struggle to survive. It is about 48 minutes long but well worth (I think so anyway) the expenditure of time to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IanbEXMzmBo&feature=player_embedded#!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[studiodekadent]

Evolutionary biologists (and also most economists that study altruism) typically don't use the Objectivist (and Comtean) definition of altruism. Typically, by altruism they mean "benevolence."

Evolutionary studies of "altruism" (really "benevolence" rather than Comtean altruism) really exist as a counteragent to accusations that Natural Selection = Every Man For Himself Social Darwinism Zero Sum Game Hobbesian Bloodbath.

[william.scherk]

Evolutionary biologists (and also most economists that study altruism) typically don't use the Objectivist (and Comtean) definition of altruism. Typically, by altruism they mean "benevolence."

Typical.

Typically, a sweeping claim is accompanied by a retinue of supporting warrants. If I did not know better, I would say the two statements above were drawn from a wishing well.

But, let us check the premises: Evolutionary biologists are a set. In the set is Richard Dawkins. Also in the set are/were WD Hamilton, JBS Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, GG Simpson, and of course, many more lesser-known and less influential lesser lights. Evolutionary biology was ushered into being by Charles Darwin, as at its broadest we might say that Evolutionary Biology is that aspect of biology that works within and attempts to explain the effects of, evolution.

Personally, I think the revolution in biology began by Darwin is worthy of study by anyone. Objectivish folks, tending to be supportive of scientific endeavors, find great worth (if only a start-off point for debate) in studying and trying to understand this vast field.

One annoying part of general science is its urge to 'operationalize.'** In less technical language, this means strict definitions that make part of the thesis and operation of a theory, research question, postulate, hypothesis, and so on. In somewhat allied fields such as history, and in other scholarly or investigatory disciplines (all the way to journalism), operationalizing terms and concepts and behaviour is essential ground.

In this case, "Altruism" is defined and operationalized within the text and documents that comprise a field or subfield.

Thus, when studiodekadent provides supporting warrants for his assertions about altruism, he can easily find backing -- if the assertions are true and relative to evolutionary biology.

So, Schoolmarm said, crack your books, unleash the power of inquiry at your fingertips, and return to the seminar with operational definitions supporting the claims put forward.

-- incidentally, does anyone remember Ring Around The Rosie? The operationalization of 'altruism' has been much debated here at OL. Among the stalwarts weighing in were Barbara Branden, who helped me to understand that cold, heartless and/or disempathetic humans among the Objectivish cannot stand for Objectivism (here alluding to the baby-abandoning abandon of Luke Setzer in a very long and disquieting Rebirth of Reason thread). Also attendant on this debate in more recent times was Ellen Stuttle, who contrasted effectively the differences between Comtean/evolutionary biology/'scientific' definitions of 'altruism,'

Xray also has joined discussion of the nexus between operationalizing 'altruism' and Objectivist verities -- offering a broad assertion that 'altruism' does not exist in humans.

I try to bear in mind that the further one abstracts a term, the greater the danger of reification of the term. Using 'altruism' as the code central to understanding can make of 'altruism' Altruism, an ism, a value-saturated placeholder. In Comtean studies (of which Robert Campbell has done yeoman's work comparing Comtean desiderata to Objectivish/Randian desiderata) of course, we will find that Comte went haywire with his Altruism, in the end constructing Temples to Reason and trying to establish a rational religion.

So, the distance between 'Altruism' and 'Randianism' can be measured. But for careful measurement, the thumb is not a good ruler.

Better, I say, to start not with "Altruism" a la Comte, but to start with what is the focus in biology that is concerned with the pesky oddities of a 'selfish gene' eyed view of the world. This, I would say is altruistic behaviour.

What is altruistic behaviour in the purview of evolutionary biology?

This is where Studio can do yeoman's work of his own. This is a fascinating part of the Objectivish project, although Objectivists such as Rand were not interested in defining altruism as anything but an evil imposed by power/philosophy upon the degraded human societies of her age.

At my first introduction to this nexus between What BIology Proposes/What Rand Decreed, I thought there could be no possible fruitful discussion here (at RoR, etc). I thought dogmatic enunciators would simply enunciate the doctrine and blink myopically at questions, findings, research squabbles, controversies and reigning hypotheses in evolutionary biology.

I was wrong, quite wrong. Six and half years later, I have been part of and facilitator and intrigued observer of many intense and challenging debates/discussions.

So, although I might be harsh in mocking the wishing-well argument begun by StudioD, I cannot fault him for taking the easy polemical road. It is road well-trodden, and many have trudged its length.

Operationalize or be damned. Define or be damned. Find support for assertions or be damned. This is my reigning heuristic for dealing with any claim.

Evolutionary studies of "altruism" (really "benevolence" rather than Comtean altruism) really exist as a counteragent to accusations that Natural Selection = Every Man For Himself Social Darwinism Zero Sum Game Hobbesian Bloodbath.

This is a good note -- as in quick sketch of an argument TBA. If Studio has the time or inclination, I will offer him a trade. I will spend as many hours as it takes to find all previous discussion of this issue at OL (resurrecting Setzer, Pinker, Stuttle and Branden) and post them for reference -- if our Ozborn will find support for his assertions. No cherry-picking, no special lenses, no getting faint when facts do not line up with claims ...

That is about as benevolent as I can get, since my own altruistic behaviour (having been influenced by Xray) is for the most part a strictly self-interested pursuit. Having escaped the usual net of child-rearing, I have no 'instinct' or applied social diktat to care for my own children, and no experience of whatever raging emotion, impulse or catechism drives crazed mothers to sacrifice for their stupid buzzing little bundles of blankness.

_____________

** 'My references to Operationalization are brief and somewhat crimped. For a survey of the meanings and genesis of this term, see the Wikipedia article.

Edited May 12, 2012 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

WSS,

As you noted, a lot rides on definitions of "egoism" and "altruism."

I don't see these as operational definitions, however. They are theoretical definitions. And they are theoretical definitions of normative concepts, just to make matters stickier.

At the risk of getting picky about conceptual history once again, I don't see any role for operational definitions in good science. The operational definition was the brainchild of Percy Bridgman, whose colleagues in physics rejected his suggested repairs to their manner of doing things (while, for reasons Bridgman couldn't have anticipated, many social scientists snapped them up). An operational definition is a definition of a scientific concept in terms of measurement operations.

As in: length is what you measure with a meter stick, intelligence is a score on the Stanford-Binet IQ test, narcissism is a score on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. And so drearily on...

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

Thanks, Robert, for engulfing me in definitional molasses. I am going to call in a friend to help me, Daniel Barnes.

If your point is taken, the genesis, the point of operationalizing was to agree on a measurement. StudioD has already measured, and I am only asking to see his data points (at least an example/quote/reference) -- the definitions as supplied by actual evolutionary biologists. The claim was that EB uses altruism as 'benevolence.'

I can't let that kind of fog stand around too long, is all. So I let off a flare. Thanks for watching the skies, brother.

[studiodekadent]

WSS,

My characterization of studies of altruism comes from my many years studying economics at Undergrad and Postgrad levels. We did a lot about economic studies of (what was called) Altruism. In all these cases, "altruism" was modelled as gaining utility from others' consumption.

Since economics has often learned from biology, there were frequent looks at evolutionary biology which included the evolutionary analysis of altruism. In these cases, altruism was implicitly defined as things like helping out your friends and family (kin selection) etc.

I never encountered a single instance where any economic or evol-biol study of "altruism" defined or understood "altruism" in the way that Comte defined the term. Comte's altruism is "live for others," i.e. an action is good if the ULTIMATE intended end is the good of others. Rand accepted Comte's definition, and therefore I made the point that "altruism" in economics or evol-biol =/= "altruism" as Objectivists tend to use the term.

[william.scherk]

My characterization of studies of altruism comes from my many years studying economics at Undergrad and Postgrad levels. We did a lot about economic studies of (what was called) Altruism. In all these cases, "altruism" was modelled as gaining utility from others' consumption.

Since economics has often learned from biology, there were frequent looks at evolutionary biology which included the evolutionary analysis of altruism. In these cases, altruism was implicitly defined as things like helping out your friends and family (kin selection) etc.

Yeahbut. You said, "Typically, by altruism they [evolutionary biologists] mean 'benevolence.'" I was hoping for more. Tap tap. Cough. Tap. Checks watch. Whistles for taxi.

I never encountered a single instance where any economic or evol-biol study of "altruism" defined or understood "altruism" in the way that Comte defined the term. Comte's altruism is "live for others," i.e. an action is good if the ULTIMATE intended end is the good of others. Rand accepted Comte's definition, and therefore I made the point that "altruism" in economics or evol-biol =/= "altruism" as Objectivists tend to use the term.

We agree on so many things, and here again. When you talk like that you seem so nice and earnest that I just want to see you get married and spawn a giant O-ish family empire.

If you came to Vancouver you could marry your partner in the morning -- on the beach, contemplate your fates on the mountaintop for lunch, and still have time to catch the 4:11 flight to Reno, quickie airport divorce, gambling buffet, beverages, showgoils, and an after-the-divorce Nevada Nights Night Out with Brant ... who will have driven up with Laure and James H-N.

We will put on heavy make-up and/or Party Hats, and Blend Right In. Quiet, O-ish, reasoning rampages. With ice-cold beverages and plentiful snacks. A boombox ... a vision.

But I suppose the Obama recession means we triumphant winners will be counting our twenties till the November Election Nite Whoop-up here at OL. For my smoking-booth live video broadcast, I have decided on some Nevada sparkle, and a Party Hat. I am hoping to live interview some drunken partisan. Now that Stocker Dimencha Paranoy is off the guest list, I will be able to show my real face (see Bill's Morning Make-up Tips #2).

Thank you (and Robert) for being so nice and reasonable during my fits of snark.

Edited May 13, 2012 by william.scherk

[jts]

Humans descended, but they didn't descend from us apes.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Quick comment sort of addressing William:

The original definition of "altruism" in biology was "behavior which confers benefit on another organism while occasioning risk to the behaving organism." The problem -- which Dawkins's "selfish gene" hypothesis addresses -- was to explain how such behavior could evolve in a Darwnian paradigm.

Lionel Trivers came along and added "mutual altruism," which I think mucks up conceptual clarity: basically it means "tit for tat," i.e., "trade," behavior which confers benefit on both organisms engaging in it with risk to neither.

I agree with Robert Campbell's post #4 about "operational definitions." Like Robert, I "don't see any role for operational definitions in good science." I think the adoption of operationalism by psychology (it wasn't in fact used in physics) was a disaster, the consequences of which continue.

Sorry, William, I haven't time now for chapter-and-versing by documenting with sources. Nor have I listened to the Dawkins presentation. I'm surmising that what he says is in keeping with what he's said in the several books of his I've read.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks, Robert, for engulfing me in definitional molasses. I am going to call in a friend to help me, Daniel Barnes.

WSS,

It can't be helped.

Dan Barnes is overly taken, IMHO, with Popper's anti-definitional kick. And even if we accept Popper's arguments on the subject, he was not an advocate of operational definitions.

The reason theoretical definitions are needed in the social sciences is to guide or motivate the measurements we adopt, aspects of behavior we decide to observe, problems that we ask participants to solve, procedures we use in our experiments, and so on.

For instance, if you think that narcissists have phony or internally conflicted self-esteem, you're not going to be satisfied with self-esteem questionnaires whose scores correlate +.40 with scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.

If you think, on the other hand, that narcissism is just (a variety of) high self-esteem, you'll be perfectly happy with a +.40 correlation (unless your theory leads you to expect that it should be more like +.60).

Robert Campbell

[Paul Mawdsley]

Hmmmm...dialogue stalled...apparently over battle lines between ghosts of battles past. So is anyone interested in talking about the content of the video? Or is a discussion of the definition of "altruism" all that is of value here?

[BaalChatzaf]

Hmmmm...dialogue stalled...apparently over battle lines between ghosts of battles past. So is anyone interested in talking about the content of the video? Or is a discussion of the definition of "altruism" all that is of value here?

If you carry Dawkin's idea out just a bit further you find that morality has its origins in our biological evolution. There is an underlying impulse toward rectitude even if the definition of rectitude differs somewhat from culture to culture. Even the chimpanzees, nasty creatures that they are have a notion of right and wrong and they act upon it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Hmmmm...dialogue stalled...apparently over battle lines between ghosts of battles past. So is anyone interested in talking about the content of the video? Or is a discussion of the definition of "altruism" all that is of value here?

If you carry Dawkin's idea out just a bit further you find that morality has its origins in our biological evolution. There is an underlying impulse toward rectitude even if the definition of rectitude differs somewhat from culture to culture. Even the chimpanzees, nasty creatures that they are have a notion of right and wrong and they act upon it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think that's an fair summary of Dawkins' position. To quote him from "The God Delusion":

"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other.First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth... there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising."

A pity, since Dawkins is so great in other spheres of God, religion, evolution. His reason for human altruism is biologically derived from organisms or instinctive animals in groups; also, some Trader Principle thrown in; and then there is 'second-hand' virtue to be gained from others; but, ultimately... we should be altruistic because it is self-interested to be so. Huh? Say again? It is necessary to be unselfish, to be selfish.

Why didn't he add also?: altruism just feels good.

A hodge-podge of neo- Darwinism and pragmatism is his morality far as I can see..

[Paul Mawdsley]

Bob, I agree. Evolution has given us the capacity to view the world from both a self-centric perspective with ourselves at the centre of things-- separate to those around us, and from an empathic perspective with ourselves as one amongst many perspectives-- connected to those around us. The intuitive visions each perspective creates stands at the foundation of morality, and at the foundation of moral conflict and debate. My own view is that conflicts between the two need to be resolved through more of a dialectical process than just taking sides. A not so random mutation can shape a new integrated morality.

Btw- holding onto our empathic perspective and all the information it provides is in our self-interest. It is an important lens necessary for healthy social dynamics. It seems to be largely missing in Objectivist culture and in Rand's work.

[anthony]

Btw- holding onto our empathic perspective and all the information it provides is in our self-interest. It is an important lens necessary for healthy social dynamics. It seems to be largely missing in Objectivist culture and in Rand's work.

Hello Paul!

Simply, for me, I don't really care what Rand wrote or didn't, and said and did., in this area.

Or, that some Objectivists, possibly, I don't know - lack empathy.

All I bother about is this:- is empathy/compassion, compatible with one as rational being, or not?

My only bench-mark is reality. Does empathy exist? Do I feel it? Are there other people who exist and feel it? Yes, and yes - absolutely. So, if it's real, it's rational.

Obviously, the next questions are what to do with 'empathy', how to utilize it for best effect - but mainly, is it an involuntary, unconscious response to others pain and hardship? If so, it is immeasurable, unpredictable and essentially, non-objective.

If it can be 'switched on' consciously, then is it compassion?

Objectivism has a virtue that is certainly conscious - observable, and 'learnable' too - which is 'benevolence'.

Is this any more, or any less a virtue for being deliberately and thoughtfully chosen and applied?

Much more, I believe. And the objective virtue is solid and reliable.

But there is no contradiction between them, that I can see; in fact, they work together well.

Also, I think there is a great fallacy (not that you indicated it)in a common misperception that egoism holds that being an end in oneself, automatically negates that anyone else is an end in their own selves. A form of solipsism, I suppose.

Earning and keeping value in oneself, conversely, is the fundamental precursor to value in others, I think.

Exactly as having known pain oneself, one empathizes with it in others.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, I agree. Evolution has given us the capacity to view the world from both a self-centric perspective with ourselves at the centre of things-- separate to those around us, and from an empathic perspective with ourselves as one amongst many perspectives-- connected to those around us. The intuitive visions each perspective creates stands at the foundation of morality, and at the foundation of moral conflict and debate. My own view is that conflicts between the two need to be resolved through more of a dialectical process than just taking sides. A not so random mutation can shape a new integrated morality.

Btw- holding onto our empathic perspective and all the information it provides is in our self-interest. It is an important lens necessary for healthy social dynamics. It seems to be largely missing in Objectivist culture and in Rand's work.

Ach wad some power the giftie gee us to see ourselves as ithers see us -- Robert Burns.

Bob Kolker

[william.scherk]

Thanks, Cousin Paul for pointing out my misdirected post. Here it is back where it belongs, along with a Radio Show version as lede.

[media=]

Hmmmm...dialogue stalled...apparently over battle lines between ghosts of battles past. So is anyone interested in talking about the content of the video? Or is a discussion of the definition of "altruism" all that is of value here?

Dialogue stalled just needs oil or gas or water, or to be pushed to the side of the freeway and examined. Starting right on a journey, or starting informed, that is okay, and wrestling over details of an expedition (after knowledge) before setting out seems pragmatic and/or practical.

If you carry Dawkin's idea out just a bit further you find that morality has its origins in our biological evolution. There is an underlying impulse toward rectitude even if the definition of rectitude differs somewhat from culture to culture. Even the chimpanzees, nasty creatures that they are have a notion of right and wrong and they act upon it.

Good spot. Rectitude is a good word to capture the felt emotion of justice or what passes for it in the minds of the primates. It is a sum and intuition game played in our brains, subject to all the tides of humanity, including our new inventions language, literacy and electrical communication.

I think [bob's note above]'s an fair summary of Dawkins' position. To quote him from "The God Delusion":

"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other.First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth... there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising."

A pity, since Dawkins is so great in other areas of God, religion, evolution. His reason for human altruism is biologically derived from organisms or instinctive animals in groups; also, some Trader Principle thrown in; and then there is 'second-hand' virtue to be gained from others; but, ultimately... we should be altruistic because it is self-interested to be so. Huh? Say again? Let's be unselfish, to be selfish.

Why didn't he add also?: it just feels good.

A hodge-podge of neo- Darwinism and pragmatism is his moralism.

Tony, you allow poetry in your own grasp of the verities, in your 'simple man' guise, so I think you might ought allow poetry in Dawkins.

In a pithy statement he sketched what might be the evolutionary advantage to this thing we call variously altruistic behaviour. Behaviour that some feel needs explaining within the framework of evolutionary biology.

Paul notes in passing an apparent stall. If we do gathering up of the knowledge that returned with our expedition, then what we know better than at the start of this thread informs the next opinion.

Ellen and Robert (and StudioD) indicate that we have trod over definitional ground before, but that this need not impede expedition now: Robert notes the importance of (I/ego) and a shared denotation of 'altruism'. StudioD points out something that we four probably agree upon. An Objectivist definition does not line up with contemporary (and dated Darwinian) engagements with altruism in the biological disciplines.

So, rather than a stall, that is the good part of the expeditions engine: we know that in Biology, altruism is a costly endeavour, or at least carries an implied cost without reciprocation (if Vampire Bats did not share with you, you would starve and fall from your perch, as do a few). This in human terms is the Free Rider issue.

Robert further cautions that we need not (and most often should not) try to fully operationalize our definitions once agreed. I see the wisdom in this.

My final moment before re-joining the next expedition is to correct StudioD's second observation: the biological (evolutionary) definition that is actually used. He has given us reference to Econ-ers, but yet no quotes from EvoBiol-ers.

We use these moments to tune our instruments, Paul, examine previous expedition data, consider the implications, air-conduct new operettas.

Sometimes we grow bitter in our waiting. But like Phil, this soon dissipates. Courage, cousin Mawdsley!

Evolutionary biologists (and also most economists that study altruism) typically don't use the Objectivist (and Comtean) definition of altruism. Typically, by altruism they mean "benevolence."

Evolutionary studies of "altruism" (really "benevolence" rather than Comtean altruism) really exist as a counteragent to accusations that Natural Selection = Every Man For Himself Social Darwinism Zero Sum Game Hobbesian Bloodbath.

Yeabut. You are holding up the stagecoach, Studio. We still need the EB definition to get this party started old school, as Paul so marvelously intuits.

We can wither old Dawkins to a shrunken head size with our scorn for his fatuous poetry on 'altruism/altruistic behaviour' ... he could be down to the size of a walnut and on his way to pea-hood before we figure out exactly what behaviour he and the other evolutionary biologists are talking about.

Me I never see stalls, only pauses, breath-gathering, vista-appreciating, and a moment of quiet glory before Reason (and never ever stupefaction, now that Phil is but a ghost).

Edited May 17, 2012 by william.scherk

[Paul Mawdsley]

Thanks Bob. After reading Robbie Burns, reading William flows a lot better...a little out of practice, eh?

[caroljane]

elp ma Boab! Yon Baal is a birkie called a lord.. wi a panic in yon breastie...valiant wi a cyber sword..but yet a fairly sleekit beastie,,,

[BaalChatzaf]

elp ma Boab! Yon Baal is a birkie called a lord.. wi a panic in yon breastie...valiant wi a cyber sword..but yet a fairly sleekit beastie,,,

May all your haggises taste wonderful.

ba'al chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan Barnes is overly taken, IMHO, with Popper's anti-definitional kick.

Robert,

I like Daniel, but he has an anti-Rand bias that makes my ornery side itch.

Here is a true story. Several years ago, he got in touch with me off line to discuss what he called unclear writing by Rand (in all his snarky mocking glory ). The passage he quoted was taken from ITOE, Chapter 2:

I shall identify as 'length' that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifying the quantity.

He wanted us to go to an English grammar forum and list the statement as a philosophical statement, saying it was from a modern philosopher (without identifying Rand) and see what they thought of the grammar and syntax. Then expose Rand, of course.

I looked it up just to make sure he didn't leave anything out, and sure enough he did. The passage was an attempt by Rand to verbalize what she imagined a preconceptual child's mind to be. Here are the words by Rand he left out (my bold):

Or, more precisely, if the process were identified in words, it would consist of the following: "Length must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify as 'length' that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifying the quantity."

I told him I accepted his challenge on the condition we introduce the passage by saying that the philosopher was attempting to put into words the mind of a preconceptual child. He flat out refused. He said it had to be presented as a statement of philosophy. After going back and forth a while, he suggested we abandon the idea.

Boy, did my ornery side itch!

I thought of going through with this just as he said. But I would continue by taking the covers off at the opportune moment and asking the forum members how they would verbalize the mind of a child who doesn't know words--which is what the phrase was about. And letting them know they had been had by a person who wanted to bash a philosopher he didn't like by cheating, using them as his tool.

But I let it go. Like I said, I like him. Get him away from Rand and Popper and he's a good dude.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Hello whYNOT,

Your welcoming tone is appreciated.

Obviously, the next questions are what to do with 'empathy', how to utilize it for best effect - but mainly, is it an involuntary, unconscious response to others pain and hardship? If so, it is immeasurable, unpredictable and essentially, non-objective.

Empathy is as involuntary and unconscious a process as seeing or hearing or perceiving through any of the senses. We are not conscious of any of these processes. We are conscious of the content of our perceptions. Do we say visual perception is immeasurable, unpredictable and non-objective because we are not conscious of the processes? No. Empathy is better understood as a holistic mode of perception rather than an unconscious response. We respond to the perception created through empathic processes and, when we learn to undo the programming from our childhood and our culture, we can generate multiple possibilities from which to choose our responses. This makes our responses to empathy very conscious and very voluntary. Or we can just choose to flow with it.

An example: two young boys in rough and tumble play while I stand with their grandparents talking. One of the boys yells out in pain as the other looks on with panic in his face. Grandpa reacts and runs over to tend to the wound and the tears. Grandma looks on trying to decide if what she is seeing and what her empathic triggers are telling her is real. She's not convinced but she's not certain. She is conflicted and stuck.

I'm watching. I turn to Grandma and say, "It's not real." Just like Grandma has learned, I've learned that words and empathic cues cannot be taken on face value. I've learned to watch the eyes, the facial expressions, the body language, the behaviour across time and to refer to the historical reputation of a person. I connect all these dots, not linearly and consciously, but holistically in the moment and respond in real time to what is happening with all this information feeding my perception of what is going on.

I sense the boy's eyes are looking around to see who is watching and how they are reacting. When he is really in pain he focuses on the pain, not on those around him. I can feel the cries and grimaces are exaggerated. They are intended to get a response. He gets up and walks with a profound limp that does not feel like an attempt to walk against the pull of pain but more like an attempt to exaggerate the signs of pain. I know the boy to be capable of exaggerating injury and illness to escape what he doesn't want or to get what he does want. All this information feeds through my empathic lens, giving me my sense of what is taking place in his inner world, in a split second, so I perceive a boy who is playing a game to get his brother in trouble and get attention for himself. I had a very different response to Grandpa and Grandma.

I tested the objectivity of my view. I confronted the boy in question, pointing to the long term value of trust, which he has learned increases freedom and choices. He has come to trust my fairness and to believe I can see right through him by reading his body language (a powerful tool as a parent) and he admitted to what he was doing and said sorry.

This all suggests the effects of empathy are objective and measurable, and the responses can be conscious and voluntary. This is no different to other types of perception. Their are different levels of development in empathic processing which produce different outcomes. They produce different behaviours, different kids over time and, in the end, different adults. Think what a difference it makes in development if a girl thinks she can consistently get away with manipulating to get what she wants because adults can't trust their sense of her insides versus a girl who feels like she can't get away with manipulating because her parents see inside her.

Objectivism has a virtue that is certainly conscious - observable, and 'learnable' too - which is 'benevolence'.

Is this any more, or any less a virtue for being deliberately and thoughtfully chosen and applied?

Much more, I believe. And the objective virtue is solid and reliable.

But there is no contradiction between them, that I can see; in fact, they work together well.

I fully agree with the value of more linear processes that give us what we typically consider our objective perspective. It is the difference between seeing the world as made up of veneers (to borrow from the Dawkins' video), and seeing the world made up of things from within their dynamic insides. The first sees the universe as a vast model from the outside of everything. The second sees the universe as a hologram made up of all the images from all the different inside perspectives it contains. In my mind these are two perspectives of one universe so each can inform and be integrated with the other.

Also, I think there is a great fallacy (not that you indicated it)in a common misperception that egoism holds that being an end in oneself, automatically negates that anyone else is an end in their own selves. A form of solipsism, I suppose.

Earning and keeping value in oneself, conversely, is the fundamental precursor to value in others, I think.

Exactly as having known pain oneself, one empathizes with it in others.

No argument here. I am a strong proponent of egoism. My life is about integrating and balancing my separateness and my connectedness. It is part of my self-interest to embrace my capacity for empathy, with all the information it offers and the sense of connectedness and benevolence to those I care about that it makes possible. A strong ego is possibly more important in a world perceived through a lens of empathy than it is in a world perceived through a lens of objectivity. In an objective space we might forget others have value in themselves. In empathic space we might forget we do. This is why healthy boundaries defining where self ends and others begin are needed. Without healthy boundaries, a person can fear losing themselves in others and a rigid embracing of objectivity and a suppressing of empathy can be the result.

[Ellen Stuttle]

If you carry Dawkin's idea out just a bit further you find that morality has its origins in our biological evolution.  There is an underlying impulse toward rectitude even if the definition of rectitude differs somewhat from culture to culture.  Even the chimpanzees,  nasty creatures that they are have a notion of right and wrong and they act upon it.

I like "impulse toward rectitude" as a generic description.

Tony replied:

I think that's an fair summary of Dawkins' position. To quote him from "The God Delusion":

"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other.First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth... there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising."

A pity, since Dawkins is so great in other spheres of God, religion, evolution. His reason for human altruism is biologically derived from organisms or instinctive animals in groups; also, some Trader Principle thrown in; and then there is 'second-hand' virtue to be gained from others; but, ultimately... we should be altruistic because it is self-interested to be so. Huh? Say again? It is necessary to be unselfish, to be selfish.

Why didn't he add also?:  altruism just feels good.

A hodge-podge of neo- Darwinism and pragmatism is his morality far as I can see..

Furthermore, in patching together his "hodge-podge of neo-Darwinism and pragmatism," Dawkins commits what Rand called "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction" in that he equates the subject of ethics as such with the issue of how one treats other people. The possibility of an ethics of rational self-interest or more widely the possibility of a eudaimonic ethics doesn't seem to occur to him. At least I'm unaware of his having discussed the idea of an ethics the goal of which is the well-being of the moral agent. Plus he's a determinist. Not, as he's sometimes said to be, a genetic determinist. A determinist nonetheless.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

Furthermore, in patching together his "hodge-podge of neo-Darwinism and pragmatism," Dawkins commits what Rand called "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction" in that he equates the subject of ethics as such with the issue of how one treats other people.

If not that, then what is ethics?

There are no ethics on a desert island inhabited by one sentient being. There is only survival and non-survival.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dear Bob K.,

I'm not desirous of spinning my wheels debating with you the question you ask and assertion you make in the above post. Many others have gone over both with you many times in the history of this board, to no avail. I don't think the outcome would be different if I tried.

Ellen