I think Loopydude put the only reasonable answer out there, until he/she started rambling. But, the isue just goes back to “why be altruistic?”
And, that’s a whole other debate about the effects of altruism on society, especially a society where EVERYONE practices altruism and no one practices selfishness (no, this isn’t an “objectivism” thread, either). Still, it doesn’t answer what I’m asking.
I’m just trying to think a little about the ethical compulsion to do things that don’t matter practically. Some of you are missing the point.
Murder: I’m not talking about causing misery to others. That’s not a negligible effect. I’m talking about things in which I don’t make a difference in any measurable way.
I’m talking about an action where my participation has no practical effect. I won’t fully restate what I said about an SUV or voting, but try to get what I’m saying there. The purpose of voting, to get my guy elected, is not affected by my actually voting. I do not make a difference. Why actually go to the polls? The purpose of my getting a Prius, not degrading the environment, is not affected (in ANY measurable way) by my actually getting that Prius. So, what is the force that drives people to the polls or to the Prius?
Littering: doesn’t fit. I’m actually placing trash in a place that it doesn’t belong which will decrease others enjoyment of that place.
My carbon footprint: only relevant when addressed with the carbon footprint of the rest of the world. And CERTAINLY negligible.
My “circle”: nebulous. Especially its effect as we get further and further from the source (me) and people affected by me are consequently affected by the millions of other “circles” that are contributing to the them from all of their other influences.
Well, that’s a funny question, a good question, and the heart of the matter. “The Difference” IS from the combined efforts of individuals, but if any ONE of the individuals could drop out and achieve the same result collectively, what’s to stop the individual from dropping out?
There’s some old philosopher who gave some example that sort of went like, “If I take this millet seed and drop it on the ground, you’re not going to hear anything or feel anything. But, if I put together a sackful of them and drop it on the ground. . .”
That relates to what I’m saying. Sure, you could measure the deformation and sound caused by the original millet seed. But, it doesn’t make any difference to its surroundings. A person can’t hear it, can’t feel it. It’s not meaningful to its surroundings.
I don’t know if I’d call it a paradox, but it’s odd to me. It’s sort of meaningless when discussing millet seed’s but it takes on a different flavor (an ethics flavor) when we get into the realm of making decisions in our daily existence. If you stay home from voting because you had a sick kid, no one’s going to criticize you. What if you stay home to watch Oprah, though? That’s “ethically” worse to some, but they both have the same effect.
I don’t think you understood. Circles aren’t intrinsically good or bad. Their definition is just, all that affect me and all that I knowingly affect. How I act in my circle creates how I want my part of my world to be. I can’t come up with any ethical compulsion that doesn’t matter in my small part of the world. This way, I get to make a difference, locally, selfishly in my circle.
Predicting what other’s will do and determining that I am somehow powerless to affect it’s outcome doesn’t matter, outside of that circle. Never crosses my mind.
I never think about whether my microwave is going to affect the developement of life on another planet either. I can’t stand far enough back to see it all. I know that what I’m going to do today won’t matter to almost 6 billion people. Should I change my behavior, feel hopeless or cynical. Naw. Most of the time, I actually gain freedom by knowing I’m not going to tip any big balances. If I had to decide what I’m going to do today, knowing I could possibly single-handedly change the price of oil, cure world hunger, fix the hole in the ozone or even decide who’s president; that would sure ruin my plans for sledding, reading a good book or hanging around on SDMB. Thank goodness I am nearly powerless when it comes to the “big picture.” I’m off the hook.
This is actually off-topic because I’m not discussing specifically voting or driving an SUV here. I’m trying to discuss the individual’s responsibility to behave in the collective.
Still, to address your “civic duty”. . .
Voting is a “privilege” not an obligation. Paying your taxes is an obligation as an American. Registering for the draft is an obligation. Voting isn’t. It’s a privelege to vote that some societies aren’t afforded. If you choose not to partake, you’re not going to get arrested.
A mild, yet effective, and beneficial form of brainwashing (I use that word very loosely) has gotten a lot of people to believe it is their obligation to vote. It is no such thing.
Why do people think it’s their civic duty? For the opposite reason I’m talking about in this thread. They think that if they don’t vote, they’re tearing the fabric of democracy and America. They’re not tearing the fabric. They’re removing one thread in a 10 foot wide sheet with 100 thread count. It has no effect whatsoever on democracy or America.
I think you seem to be defining “a good point” as agreeing with you, and giving you permission to sit on your fat patootie and not vote, drive whatever gas guzzler you so desire, etc. And “rambling” as taking any counter point or defining things beyond your narrow view.
You seem to be asking for permission from the world to do whatever you want with freedom from guilt. We can’t give that to you.
Seeing your Navigator causes me misery, so, there you have it; by driving it instead of a prius, you ARE causing someone misery. Same goes with the knowledge that you don’t vote.
To me, those are the same as littering.
If you narrowly define voting as the act of electing an official, then it does sound like a waste of time, but you have to allow for the notion that voting does more than just elect someone.
Winning an election is only ONE purpose of voting. It has others whether you acknowledge them or not.
There are many forces that drives people to the polls, the Prius, the trash can, etc. I personally think the most important of them is a sincere desire to act in congruence with one’s beliefs.
No, Greck, I’m defining a good point as something relevant to the discussion. Raising an example of murdering someone because it’s only a drop in the bucket misses the point completely.
Also, I’m not using anything to assuage my guilt for driving a SUV (which I don’t do — well, I actually do own a rarely-used Jimmy that was given to me which I don’t like) or for not voting (which I’m very comfortable with, and have been forever). I do recycle. I don’t litter. I’m not looking for justification, I’m trying to understand why people do things that don’t make a difference.
I find a major drawback of the SUV its effect on other drivers (sight lines, and danger to smaller cars in accidents, both important to me, a commuter) but I was trying to bring across only the environmental aspect.
I think this is a good point: “sincere desire to act in congruence with one’s beliefs” but that just brings on more questions. Why do we have that sincere desire to act in accordance if acting in accordance does nothing to help those beliefs.
If voting for you means more than just getting your guy elected, then voting is a bad example for you in this discussion. I think the point of voting is so that your opinion make a difference. But the very fact that so many people vote nullifies that point. If you vote because you want to feel like a part of the process, then not voting does affect your attitude.
Find your own example. Do you disagree with war in Iraq? Do you think war protesters in DC are useful? Then why not join them? If you’re me (in this thread) because you know 50000 or 50001 doesn’t make a difference.
I think vegetarianism is a great example. If you’re doing it for health or social reasons, that’s one thing. If you’re doing it for its environmental impact, well, that’s just a massively inflated sense of what one person’s effects on something like that can be.
Sorry about the rambling ;). But here’s how I see it: Altruism is a pretty mysterious thing. It’s sufficiently weird that some have proposed it is the best evidence we have that a benevolent god exists. On the surface, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, and one must use some fairly abstruse (though ultimately sound) logic to justify it at all. Game theorists and evolutionary biologists, I think, have come up with the best theories to explain the existence of altruistic behavior. Models of species designed by game theorists, the conclusions of which are borne out by observation of various real species, indicate clearly that altruistic behavior (to a point) makes a species more successful.
It follows then that we are innately altruistic, in general, and to a point. We have an instinctive herd mentality that makes us do things that involve self-sacrifice for the common good. If that’s true, why ask why? The mere fact that altruism exists demonstrates its benefit, or we would have been extinct long ago.
Hence my rambling: If you’re looking for justification, either trust in nature or become a game theorist. Once you’ve satisfied yourself with the inevitable logic of altruism (gotten past the obvious, in other words), you might well ask if you, personally, can get ahead of the game by working humanity’s altruistic tendancies to your advantage.
That’s what Bill Gates did. What’s almost crazy is that many of us altruistic saps actually admire the guy for his achievement. We don’t look upon his incredible success as a direct competative threat to our own existence (we don’t tend to look at the world as if it were a zero-sums game, where the pie is only so big, and he who has the biggest slice took your portion). Rather, we empathise and say “Boy, I wish I were that rich! Well, he earned it, so good for him! Let’s name him man of the year.” In a non-altruistic world, people would say “He has the money. More than his due. We wants it, precious, and we’ll takes it!!”
What you started rambling about, originally, was starting a following, and a charity and fucking hot chicks and playing golf.
Here, you started rambling about Bill Gates, but whatever.
I think what you said about an innate altruism (and, “why ask why”) is probably close to the matter. There were probably times (and there still are scenarios) where doing what others were doing was more essential to survival, and that “instinct” or “altruism gene” or whatever (I’m no evolutionary biologist) still exists.
So, even if the particular cases don’t matter (voting, SUV-driving, vegetarianism, etc) we probably still reflect that kind of mindset.
Ah, but it will make a big difference to one person–you. And isn’t that the most important person in the world? Once you figure out what’s important to you, everything else will fall into place.
It seems like you are falling into the trap that winning is everything. You can’t see any reason to do something if that won’t result in a quick victory.
Why do people climb mountains or go surfing? It doesn’t seem like it accomplishes anything particularly useful.
Most of the time, most people do most things for their own private reasons. Sometimes it’s for personal enjoyment, other times it’s for ego. And sometimes it’s for their conscience.
Suppose you’re driving down the road and see a fresh auto accident just ahead. Stopping to help won’t get you ahead in the world. You don’t know these people. Whether these people live or die probably won’t affect the future of the world. Why should you bother stopping?
Hopefully, you’d stop because you couldn’t live with yourself if you didn’t at least try to help.
And so it is for recycling and protesting and voting. You know what’s the right thing to do. Hopefully, your conscience is strong enough to get your body to follow through.
Douglas Hofstadter covers this topic in great length in his book Metamagical Themas.
His line of reasoning goes like this: a rational person realises that since he (forgive me for sticking to the male pronoun) is no different from the rest of the world, whatever decision he reaches will be the same one everybody else will reach. For example, if you and 1000 other people are asked to calculate 6*9, you expect that those other people will all come up with the answer 54, not because you can read their minds or because your own calculation influences theirs, but because you know that it is the correct answer and you expect them to come up with it in the same way that you did.
Likewise, when thinking about ethical issues such as these, you should assume that whatever you decide is what everybody decides, not because you telepathically control them but because all of you make the same cost/benefit analysis based on the same assumptions. If you decide to drive a gas-guzzling SUV, everybody will and the world will go to hell. If you decide to do your bit for the environment, everybody will do their bit and the earth will be saved.
So the question boils down to: which of those two worlds would you rather live in? Then make the choice that will lead to that world.
I’m probably not summarizing his point very well, and obviously this way of reasoning is philosophical rather than practical. One obvious counter-argument is that he assumes that everybody is a perfectly rational and intelligent superbeing, which may be true for certain kinds of logic puzzles but doesn’t really work in real life.
Either way, I strongly recommend this book if you’re interested in this kind of thing.
You’re kind of taken for granted the issue that I’m asking “why” about.
What’s telling your conscience that its “right” to vote when you know it doesn’t affect who is elected? Years of people telling you it’s your “civic duty”? Is that all it is?
Why does your conscience nag you about things like that when your logic circuits aren’t bothered by the contradiction.
Why should I feel guilty about not voting when my not voting has just as much effect on the outcome as your voting does?
I’ve nosed through that book but it was about 10 years ago.
Of course its more of a philosophical question than a practical one. I’m not saying that my question was original, just tossing it out there.
Of course the difference in what you posed (understanding you may not be giving him perfect representation) is that there is a right answer to one of those questions, and not the other one.
The other one is frought (fraught?) with all sorts of subjective considerations (an obvious one: how much will I enjoy driving an SUV?).
you feel guilty for not voting, then? You’re the only one that can truly answer that question.
I don’t know about most people, but I personally don’t care how you feel about not voting, nor am I willing to tell you how you “should” feel about anything.
We’re animals. Our primary purpose is survivial. Everything else is tied to that. Altruism can always be traced back to self interest, on some level, altruistic behavior is about survival.
More specifically, it’s about assuaging anxiety/disharmony or MAYBE about the creation of feelings of accomplishment, but I doubt it in most cases. Mother Theresa did what she did in order to bring more people into the catholic faith.
Your conscience and your logic circuits (and your liver, heart, lungs etc.) are closely connected to one another, they work in symphony, it is foolish to think that one can truly think freely from the influence of emotion.
Apathy is the enemy of freedom and the result of feelings of helplessness. Your ennui is not unusual, but shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with your right to participate.
Do something and your action may have no effect. Do nothing and be assured of it.
I don’t know how to go any farther than that. Most people know that it’s wrong to steal from other people, while others think it’s the right thing to do (Survival of the fittest, you know).
I can use other nebulous phrases, such as “moral compass”, “virtue”, “altruism”, and “civic duty”, but they all kind of mean the same thing as “your conscience”.
I guess that’s what separates us from the animals. An animal will steal food from another animal without guilt or even the realization that there is a problem. The animal will follow its logic circuits every time.
Humans recognize that there are big and little consequences to their actions. If I steal food off your tray at Burger King, I should expect that you’ll object and try to stop me. But, I’ll also realize the global consequences in that everyone will view it as “OK” to be stealing food off my tray.
In other words, humans have the ability to view situations from the other person’s position.
Hopefully because you have the intelligence and education to recognize what it would be like if you didn’t have the right to vote at all.
There is now a Honda Civic with a hybrid gasoline-electric engine. Unlike earlier hybrid cars, this one has the appearance of a regular run-of-the-mill Honda Civic.
Couldn’t we extend this logic to cover other situations:
Why should I be obliged to purchase a ticket for my train journey? - the train is going that way anyway, my bodyweight makes negligible difference to the fuel consumption and the railway is more than adequately reimbursed by the fares that everyone else pays - my refusal to pay for a ticket isn’t going to tip the train company into bankruptcy, so why should I have to pay?
Forgive me if this isn’t an very exact analogue to your scenario, Trunk, but if that is the case, we may learn something by examining the differences.