Is Human Compassion Illogical?

[Zero Beat]

IMO, the only answer you'll find is a higher power (GOD). I've thought about this many times before. Also, where did the compassion start?

Why would one caveman sacrifice something to help another caveman? In a natural state, it's take-what-you-can-and-give-nothin'-back (yo-ho!). The first person to try being altruistic will A) have to have enormous amounts of courage, because he would know that he will just be taken advantage of- and B) likely die because he exposed a weakness, which would mean his idea would die out as well (failing the test of natural selection).

What I'm getting at is that no one person can start a compassionate society. It's got to be almost everyone or no one. How does everyone in a society decide to be a compassionate and altruistic person at the same time? It's not gonna happen. There will always be some troll to mess it up.

But because it already exists, and everyone knows that it works to some degree at least, altruism and compassion are common.

This makes me think that humans have a natural propensity toward being altruistic, but that must transcend an evolutionary level. Therefore, a possible answer to the question is that there must be a more profound design that just chaos and natural selection.

I want to say and ask so many things to you, but I'm afraid that I won't contribute towards getting the thread closed.

This is more of a philosophical debate, bringing religious or scientific views will just make things fuzzy.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Man I can't say jack without someone from the DH jumping down my throat. I'm not sure where you draw the line of what is philosophical and what is religious. Religion generally answers/addresses the same topics as philosophy does; that is, metaphysics, ontology, and ethics (with more on the first and last).

I'd like to think that my post was well within the topic we are discussing here.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I'd like to think that my post was well within the topic we are discussing here.

I don't think Zero was saying that what you were talking about was going against what you guys were discussing, he just didn't want to start a religion debate which would've been against what you were discussing.

Anyway, certain emotions can be perfectly logical (love) because they help carry on our species (though in the cases of gays and lesbians, this obviously isn't true). Some, such as anger, don't really help much and just get in the way more often than not.

 

[Firus]

@ Firus:

Who said that the goal here was to change the world? I'm not asking people to stop showing emotions. No need to take offense, I merely thought it was an interesting topic to talk about and offer something a little different on this board. Also, what Redson said.

I didn't say it was, and I'm not saying you're telling anyone to do anything. But by questioning emotions...I don't know, I figured there was logic behind it besides just entertainment.

It actually seems like this would be a good topic for the Debate Hall, but here it sort of seems like there's a reason behind questioning it other than just to discuss. It's the blog status that makes it seem like there's a motive rather than discussing for the sake of discussing.

I didn't take offense to anything, I just find it odd to question it because I can't see any way that compassion and other emotions are LOGICAL, so then it seems like the point has to be to jump to the next level of "Okay, so what are we going to do about it?" The only logic behind most emotions is to fulfill our wants and desires. I get angry at a store for not having what I want in stock. I become happy because my favorite song starts playing. I become sad because someone died. Yes, these are fairly normal emotions, but then you look further to their cause and it's just sort of "Well, I like this song...why?" And there's no logic behind liking something, it's just your brain's design.

It is certainly an entertaining topic to think about, I just don't find much to consider on the side of logic. It doesn't seem like emotions make sense at all.

 

[El Nino]

These thoughts are based on a rather brief conversation my Evolutionary Studies professor and I had last semester. Is human compassion illogical?

Uh, Evolutionary Studies would mean that this professor is a biologist, correct?

Does he/she not know anything about "kin selection" or "biological altruism"? Or the Hymenoptera class of social insects? Social cooperation has a basis in genetics and natural selection because "working together" allows social animals to survive better than they would individually. This gave rise to social codes established as morals.

Also, some studies on moral psychology suggest that many or most people base their moral reasoning on emotions rather than reason. Emotions have a stronger effect on people, and this is likely an adaptation as well. For instance, a mother with strong feelings toward her children would be more willing to take care of them than a mother who does not. A mother with strong feelings would also, likely, take better care of her children than a mother who has no feelings but acknowledges the logical benefits of caring for her children.

Also, people seem to overlook the fact that what is "fit" and "unfit" varies by time and location. Individuals in modern society who have certain mental or physical conditions that would have been unfit thousands of years ago are now no longer unfit. The environment has changed; conditions have changed. Therefore, a person with crippled legs in a developed nation with the means to acquire the equipment necessary for mobility is no longer unfit in terms of natural selection.

EDIT2: For example, humans drown in water, but fish drown on land. Are lungs or gills the better adaptation? Before you label something as "fit" or "unfit," look at the environment.

EDIT:

Anyway, certain emotions can be perfectly logical (love) because they help carry on our species (though in the cases of gays and lesbians, this obviously isn't true). Some, such as anger, don't really help much and just get in the way more often than not.

Nino's got a crazy theory on that one too, but it is unverified by social biologists (as far as I know).

 

[Fatmanonice]

Uh, Evolutionary Studies would mean that this professor is a biologist, correct?

Does he/she not know anything about "kin selection" or "biological altruism"? Or the Hymenoptera class of social insects? Social cooperation has a basis in genetics and natural selection because "working together" allows social animals to survive better than they would individually. This gave rise to social codes established as morals.

A. Also, some studies on moral psychology suggest that many or most people base their moral reasoning on emotions rather than reason. Emotions have a stronger effect on people, and this is likely an adaptation as well. For instance, a mother with strong feelings toward her children would be more willing to take care of them than a mother who does not. A mother with strong feelings would also, likely, take better care of her children than a mother who has no feelings but acknowledges the logical benefits of caring for her children.

B. Also, people seem to overlook the fact that what is "fit" and "unfit" varies by time and location. Individuals in modern society who have certain mental or physical conditions that would have been unfit thousands of years ago are now no longer unfit. The environment has changed; conditions have changed. Therefore, a person with crippled legs in a developed nation with the means to acquire the equipment necessary for mobility is no longer unfit in terms of natural selection.

Well, when I said "brief", I really mean brief. It was like three minutes at most so, granted, there were a lot of things that obviously weren't discussed. I wouldn't doubt that he knew those things but, again, he was on his way to another lecture and I had another class to go to.

A. I'm aware that people don't naturally look for the reason in things. Basically, it's kind of like watching a movie you've already seen several times before, you know the plot and major things that will occur but, obviously, the characters in the movie will always respond the same way. No matter how much you analyze the movie, the characters never don't change nor do they have to. Even if they could, it's not nessecary because they already fufill their purpose of entertainment. Something else would be like donating money to a charity. You'll probably never know what happens with the money but you're convinced that it will benefit someone even if ends up being a scam in the end. You don't look for the logic in it first, you just do it or, if you do, you generally don't go as in depth like a conversation like this.

B. In terms of reproduction though, they could still be seen as "unfit." In the far off past, they'd basically drag themselves along the ground but in modern times they could have a wheelchair but the end result of reproduction is still the same. I think I may need to edit something into the original post because I like how this is now the fourth time the theory of sociological evolution for humanity has been brought up. Basically, humans have evolved beyond the standard terms for natural selection based on our technology, intellegence, and overall social structure but I still see it a different variation of evolution though.

Also, what's the theory you have about homosexuality? I'd love to hear it.

@ Firus:

I don't know, I put this here because I like the idea of blogs being decently thought provoking. In my views, the best blogs could be put on the same level as professional essays when it comes to insight. The best blogs are the ones that pop back into your head when your computer's off. If I presented an idea clear enough and made you think of a topic you may have never thought of the same way before or if it allows me to better connect with other people here, I feel like I've done my job. Have you ever got that feeling after watching a really good movie and thinking to yourself afterwards "Wow, what did I just watch?" For example, I felt like that after seeing One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for the first time because some of the thoughts it provoked about what "normal" and "sane" really are. I feel like the best forms of writing can have the same effect. Am I saying that's what I did here? No but I trying to go for something like that to a lesser degree.

 

[Heartz♥]

Argh. Walls of text. Why isn't this in the Debate Hall?!

 

[Fatmanonice]

Argh. Walls of text. Why isn't this in the Debate Hall?!

1. Hardly anyone goes to the debate hall.
2. The purpose of this thread is discussion, not debate. I'm legitimately asking a question, not making a statement. Debate just came out of it due to nature of the topic.
3. My goal is to my blogs very thought provoking.

 

[Heartz♥]

Debate just came out of it due to nature of the topic.

This is the only point that caught my eye. Sadly.

 

[Zero Beat]

Argh. Walls of text. Why isn't this in the Debate Hall?!

Well, topics on being rational/irrational have been beaten to death in the DH, as well as ethical debates which this topic has also touched.

And we all know how much merit ethical debates have......

 

[Redson]

I think this thread has gotten de-railed, and its time to close it. People are more worried about arguing whether or not its a valid discussion than actually talking about it like intelligent individuals.

 

[Fatmanonice]

I think this thread has gotten de-railed, and its time to close it. People are more worried about arguing whether or not its a valid discussion than actually talking about it like intelligent individuals.

Yeah, I agree. My next blog will try to touch home with more people and I'm currently trying to pick one of two topics.

 

[Dabuz]

one thing to say, i have not read the discussion but all primeapes show compassion, so it is not illogical, it is just one of our many differentiating features, sorta like how some animals have no compassion to a point where the males often eat their young, we are just the opposite on that spectrum

 

[Insetick]

I believe that compassion is a feeling that naturally arises from the need to survive. When you see a person in a burning building, your mind weighs many consequences. (He may die! I may die! Is there a better way?) In some situations, your mind may conclude that your own life has more value than someone else's, and you feel no compassion. This may happen if you saw a single hobo in the street. Other times, the opposite is true. This was my response to seeing a video of the many invisible children of Uganda.

Compassion is totally biological. Your mind will weigh a person's value and determine whether his/her life is worth the risk of helping (the risk can differ- sometimes it is just time, other times a life may be at stake). Most of the animals you see in nature live alone. One merely fends for itself and thus is fine with stealing/killing, as long as it helps it survive. Many animals, however, also live in packs/herds. In a wolf pack, the alpha male takes the most food b/c he obviously has the most value in the pack. Otherwise, they mainly share the spoils of a hunt. Sharing is an altruistic behavior in that some of the wolves will sacrifice parts of their meal so that another (maybe a young baby or a sick member) will survive. Overall, it improves the entire pack's chance of survival.

Belding squirrels are a good example of altruistic behavior. When they feed, some may stand watch for predators. Upon seeing one, the guard will begin yelping loudly. It thus gives away its location and will be very likely to be eaten, but in doing so has probably saved the lives of everyone else in the pack.

Tldr: Edited: logic requires thinking. While compassion makes a LOT of sense, it isn't logical simply because it doesn't involve reasoning. I'll just say that compassion is natural.

Edit: This part pertains to things like stealing+killing in human society.
Humans are social creatures. We naturally like to live in groups (this is probably biological in origin. It probably improved chances of survival). Thus, humans want to form functional societies. In every society today, you'll see that laws always state that killing+stealing are wrong. Why is this?

As I said, we humans want to live in groups b/c it helps us survive. If a group condoned killing+stealing, those people would naturally avoid each other. They would either disappear due to killing (unlikely) or natural causes (like predators) because they couldn't work together. What would most likely happen, however, is that some of those people would band together and say "killing is bad," and thus form a new society.

"Killing and stealing are bad" is a fact of society. No society can exist in which people are free to kill as they wish. The same goes for mothers caring for babies (this is a fact of human life). A simple reason is b/c of the mother's natural compassion for the baby. This compassion, however, arose from the simple fact that the baby must survive for humanity to continue. Human babies are helpless and can't survive alone. Thus, someone MUST care for the baby. Since the mother gives birth (the father could easily leave in ancient times) , she has the responsibility of caring for the baby. I'm not sure how to explain this, but I believe that compassion evolved out of the need to care for the baby.

 

[highfive]

The question is asking something similar to "does love exist?" Compassion is a human sentiment, that is harbored throughout our life span, after seeing tragedy or sorrow. It's illogical if you look at it from a scientific angle, since almost, or all, animals compete for food, shelter, ect. and sometimes kill weaker animals. And since humans are technically animals, compassion would be a disadvantage if humans were not above the food pyramid. From the sentimental side, compassion is logical since religion has made us believe we are brethren and we should be kind to our brethren.

 

[OutlawStar]

one thing to say, i have not read the discussion but all primeapes show compassion, so it is not illogical, it is just one of our many differentiating features, sorta like how some animals have no compassion to a point where the males often eat their young, we are just the opposite on that spectrum

Couldn't that be because the parents can't survive, so they eat their young and try again, because if the parents didn't get food and died, the kids would also, inevitably die after?

 

[Falconv1.0]

I find it hilarious that topics like this are grounds for getting into the debate hall. Asking a question that has been asked over 9,000 times=/=Original and interesting.

(Not insulting the topic maker's intelligence, just the people responding to it stupidly. >_>)

 

[Insetick]

I don't remember seeing this question over 9000 times. Typing "compassion illogical" into google yields this thread as the primary result.
While I find this to be a simple question, I'm glad to have at least heard it and give a good answer.
I personally find some (not all) of the answers interesting. I hope someone appreciates my input; I put a lot of time in it. -_-

 

[Falconv1.0]

I don't remember seeing this question over 9000 times. Typing "compassion illogical" into google yields this thread as the primary result.
While I find this to be a simple question, I'm glad to have at least heard it and give a good answer.
I personally find some (not all) of the answers interesting. I hope someone appreciates my input; I put a lot of time in it. -_-

Questions about the point of ethics and morals are asked all the time, how is this news?

 

[Insetick]

Questions about the point of ethics and morals are asked all the time, how is this news?

True, but I personally haven't seen this question before. A lot of others probably haven't, either, so this question was worth asking.

 

[El Nino]

A. I'm aware that people don't naturally look for the reason in things. Basically, it's kind of like watching a movie you've already seen several times before, you know the plot and major things that will occur but, obviously, the characters in the movie will always respond the same way. No matter how much you analyze the movie, the characters never don't change nor do they have to. Even if they could, it's not nessecary because they already fufill their purpose of entertainment. Something else would be like donating money to a charity. You'll probably never know what happens with the money but you're convinced that it will benefit someone even if ends up being a scam in the end. You don't look for the logic in it first, you just do it or, if you do, you generally don't go as in depth like a conversation like this.

What I meant is that the emotionally driven response that a lot of people have towards any given survival scenario is an evolutionary adaptation because in those high intensity situations where survival depends on quick thinking and fast response times, there isn't time enough to think things out logically, and therefore it's the first "instinctive" and often highly emotional response that takes over. Also, emotions drive people more strongly and more often than reason. This is because emotional responses are, in many instances, the most effective responses in terms of survival.

In short, in certain survival situations, emotions>>logic.

B. In terms of reproduction though, they could still be seen as "unfit."

No. If their genes are still capable of combining with another set of genes to form a viable offspring, they are not "unfit." Darwinian fitness applies to reproduction anyway, so there should be no "in terms of reproduction" regarding this topic as it is ALL about reproduction.

In the far off past, they'd basically drag themselves along the ground but in modern times they could have a wheelchair but the end result of reproduction is still the same.

And if they have wheelchairs, then their offspring will also have wheelchairs, which is comparable to people driving cars to get around, so what is it about this scenario that makes either them or their offspring "unfit"? You could say they are "less fit" than people born with mobility because they need to expend that extra amount of resources to acquire mobility, but there's a certain point where it all blends in with other factors in the same way that other people have lower intellect, or are born into the lower tiers of the socio-economic structure, or simply don't socialize well and may have trouble finding mates.

EDIT: You could be the most athletic and the most intelligent person on the planet, but if you, for whatever reason, don't mate or don't have any offspring, your Darwinian fitness is 0.

Basically, humans have evolved beyond the standard terms for natural selection based on our technology, intellegence, and overall social structure but I still see it a different variation of evolution though.

That's the error in your reasoning, I think. Social evolution isn't any more different than any other aspect of evolution. It is all evolution. It's just social biology. It's game theory. It's genetic warfare. Survival strategy breaks down to numbers and specific scenarios in the end. If the "standard terms" for a scientific theory don't match up with what is observed in nature, it is the theory that is flawed. However, social biology explains how social structure fits right in with evolution and how it is itself a result of natural selection.

Humans haven't "evolved beyond" anything. Humans have simply evolved in a trend that is comparable to social insects. No one is "beyond" evolution. Everyone is a "product" of evolution.

The only end point to evolution that I can see is when a species takes control of the underlying mechanism that allows evolution to occur: genetic mutation. See also, "genetic engineering."

But that's another topic all together.

Also, what's the theory you have about homosexuality? I'd love to hear it.

I thought this thread was destined to be locked by now?

I don't know if social biologists have conducted much investigations into homosexuality in humans and the biological significance of it. I'm sure they have more interesting things to investigate than political non-issues. My speculation goes back to the social insects. Worker ants are sterile; only the queen procreates (most of the time). This set-up is an adaptation that has worked for the success of the species.

Homosexuals are not sterile, but they are less likely to have offspring.

The family unit in human societies is based on cooperation. One aspect of cooperation is providing care for a relative's child when that child's parents are deceased. So, if you and your spouse died, and you have siblings, one of your siblings can provide care for your child. This is more beneficial than not having a family unit, in which case your child would likely die without any parental care. However, if your sibling already has children, the parental care that your sibling and his/her spouse is able to provide for your child has to be divided between all their other children.

But if your sibling is homosexual, has a mate, but no other children, your child would get 100% of the parental care of both foster parents. This would increase the likelihood of your child's survival. Since your child and your sibling share common genes, it would be in the best interest of your sibling to ensure the survival of your child.

This brings to light one of the factors that can place a limit on the benefits of social cooperation, that being intra-societal competition, or competition within the family unit. Most parents favor their own children above all others, and "all others" would even mean the children of deceased relatives whom they must now care for. There is very little such competition within an ant colony (most of the time) because all the workers and soldiers are sterile (again, most of the time), but as they share genetic similarity with the queen and the queen's offspring, it is within their best interest to work for the queen and for the overall good of the collective.