minimum wage

[FBM]

Drew, would you help a dog that had been hit by a car? A human? If so, why?

[Drewish]

Drew, would you help a dog that had been hit by a car? A human? If so, why?

Assuming no immediate risk to myself (the body not being in the middle of a still busy street, and the dog having a tag and clearly not being rabid) then yes. But only if I was on the scene.

[MrJonno]

Regarding a dog, as I'm not a vet I would call the professionals. I wouldn't risk myself being bitten or injuring the dog more.

Even if its a human you are still better of calling an ambulance first unless the person obviously in danger of dying immediately (basic first aid is you do the minimum low risk activities until the professionals get there)

[FBM]

Drew, would you help a dog that had been hit by a car? A human? If so, why?

Assuming no immediate risk to myself (the body not being in the middle of a still busy street, and the dog having a tag and clearly not being rabid) then yes. But only if I was on the scene.

OK, I'm willing to accept that if you weren't present you wouldn't do anything. But why would you go out of your way to help something so distant and unconnected to you as a stray dog, especially when you couldn't expect to reap any sort of benefit?

[Drewish]

Drew, would you help a dog that had been hit by a car? A human? If so, why?

Assuming no immediate risk to myself (the body not being in the middle of a still busy street, and the dog having a tag and clearly not being rabid) then yes. But only if I was on the scene.

OK, I'm willing to accept that if you weren't present you wouldn't do anything. But why would you go out of your way to help something so distant and unconnected to you as a stray dog, especially when you couldn't expect to reap any sort of benefit?

It's cost benefit. Notice that I said that the dog had a tag. There's no benefit to helping a stray (unless I'm looking to get a dog, but picking one up from a traffic accident is hardly ideal). There is a potential benefit to helping a dog with an owner. I often engage in low or no cost acts of kindness with those in my local community or social circles. This has a reputation benefit as well as sometimes leading to reciprocal benefits down the line.

If there are guaranteed benefits (often amounting to an exchange) then that's a factor. If the cost is minimal or nonexistent than that's a factor as well. My own moral code/heuristics (help people close to me whenever convenient, but not distant strangers) is based around maximizing the benefits of cooperating while minimizing the costs.

[MrJonno]

There is an empathy benefit, people do feel other people's pain to some extent, if you reduce someone else pain it reduce your 2nd hand pain. Seeing an animal in pain upsets me, it reduces the quality of my life. If I can help with relatively little risk it makes me happier

[FBM]

Drew, would you help a dog that had been hit by a car? A human? If so, why?

Assuming no immediate risk to myself (the body not being in the middle of a still busy street, and the dog having a tag and clearly not being rabid) then yes. But only if I was on the scene.

OK, I'm willing to accept that if you weren't present you wouldn't do anything. But why would you go out of your way to help something so distant and unconnected to you as a stray dog, especially when you couldn't expect to reap any sort of benefit?

It's cost benefit. Notice that I said that the dog had a tag. There's no benefit to helping a stray (unless I'm looking to get a dog, but picking one up from a traffic accident is hardly ideal). There is a potential benefit to helping a dog with an owner. I often engage in low or no cost acts of kindness with those in my local community or social circles. This has a reputation benefit as well as sometimes leading to reciprocal benefits down the line.

If there are guaranteed benefits (often amounting to an exchange) then that's a factor. If the cost is minimal or nonexistent than that's a factor as well. My own moral code/heuristics (help people close to me whenever convenient, but not distant strangers) is based around maximizing the benefits of cooperating while minimizing the costs.

OK, so you see an animal or a person bleeding in the road only as an opportunity for gain? And if you have no opportunity to gain from helping them, then "fuck 'em"? And you're proud of that? You see that as a virtue? Seriously?

[FBM]

There is an empathy benefit, people do feel other people's pain to some extent, if you reduce someone else pain it reduce your 2nd hand pain. Seeing an animal in pain upsets me, it reduces the quality of my life. If I can help with relatively little risk it makes me happier

OK, why does seeing another being in pain upset you, then? They are no relation to you, so why feel any anxiety? Fuck 'em, eh?

[MrJonno]

OK, why does seeing another being in pain upset you, then? They are no relation to you, so why feel any anxiety? Fuck 'em, eh?

Evolutionary biology (its not a moral choice). To maximise my personal chances of survival I have to try and predict why others in my species and other species are thinking. If I can determine Mr Bad Human or Lion is angry with me its a good hint to run away, if I think Mr Nice Human likes me I can get some of his food and not starve

As a side effect of this is that you can get too much information and actually share their pain. The same neurons light up in your brain when you see suffering as do in the one actually suffering (you don't get a choice in the matter). Empathy is just a survival mechanism its neither morally good or evil but does frame how society works

We are biological machines and you are getting into some serious philosophy about free will in those circumstances

[FBM]

OK, why does seeing another being in pain upset you, then? They are no relation to you, so why feel any anxiety? Fuck 'em, eh?

Evolutionary biology (its not a moral choice). To maximise my personal chances of survival I have to try and predict why others in my species and other species are thinking. If I can determine Mr Bad Human or Lion is angry with me its a good hint to run away, if I think Mr Nice Human likes me I can get some of his food and not starve

As a side effect of this is that you can get too much information and actually share their pain. The same neurons light up in your brain when you see suffering as do in the one actually suffering (you don't get a choice in the matter). Empathy is just a survival mechanism its neither morally good or evil but does frame how society works

We are biological machines and you are getting into some serious philosophy about free will in those circumstances

Right. So actual neuroscience tells you why you feel sympathy, but the bullshit, uninformed and pathetic appeal to Darwinism
allegedly tells you why you shouldn't feel sympathy. See the problem? Self-contradiction. Blatant.

[MrJonno]

Not everything in an organism maximises its survival chances, to make overall gains you may have to make compromises in others. The environment has also been changed faster than we can adapt biologically. There is also certainly a survival benefit to help people in your family or local clan. The more distant the relationship the less the survival benefit hence there isn't a lot of benefit in helping a starving African if you don't live anywhere near there. But we are programmed to see everyone as the same clan as a few 10'000 of years ago everyone we saw would be related, no TV so basically we are 'tricked' into thinking there is a starving relative in a refugee camp.

Basically morality is a combination of our biological instincts and trial and error in adapting our environment to our needs as we no longer have to worry about mammoths trying to eat us

[FBM]

Not everything in an organism maximises its survival chances, to make overall gains you may have to make compromises in others. The environment has also been changed faster than we can adapt biologically. There is also certainly a survival benefit to help people in your family or local clan. The more distant the relationship the less the survival benefit hence there isn't a lot of benefit in helping a starving African if you don't live anywhere near there. But we are programmed to see everyone as the same clan as a few 10'000 of years ago everyone we saw would be related, no TV so basically we are 'tricked' into thinking there is a starving relative in a refugee camp.

Basically morality is a combination of our biological instincts and trial and error in adapting our environment to our needs as we no longer have to worry about mammoths trying to eat us

A'ite. How about we go back to the acutal empirical, scientific data from Stanford that I posted earlier about biological altruism. How do you refute that? How do you translate that into your (even indirect) selfish scheme? It doesn't work. Doesn't matter if the suffering individual is in your clan or not. That dog or person lying on the side of the road isn't in your clan, but you still stop and try to help it/him/her, even though you have not even a remote profit motive.

[MrJonno]

A'ite. How about we go back to the acutal empirical, scientific data from Stanford that I posted earlier about biological altruism. How do you refute that? How do you translate that into your (even indirect) selfish scheme? It doesn't work. Doesn't matter if the suffering individual is in your clan or not. That dog or person lying on the side of the road isn't in your clan, but you still stop and try to help it/him/her, even though you have not even a remote profit motive.

I think the point is do you really have a choice?, obviously you can carry on and for most people suffer. I would argue if one choice is pain and the other is less pain you don't really have a choice at all, you're programmed that way

[FBM]

A'ite. How about we go back to the acutal empirical, scientific data from Stanford that I posted earlier about biological altruism. How do you refute that? How do you translate that into your (even indirect) selfish scheme? It doesn't work. Doesn't matter if the suffering individual is in your clan or not. That dog or person lying on the side of the road isn't in your clan, but you still stop and try to help it/him/her, even though you have not even a remote profit motive.

I think the point is do you really have a choice?, obviously you can carry on and for most people suffer. I would argue if one choice is pain and the other is less pain you don't really have a choice at all, you're programmed that way

But how does that address the observed drive to decrease another's pain when the other has absolutely no relevant relationship to you? Throwing a bum a dime, helping a dog hit by a car, feeding a hungry cat, etc? No, I am not convinced that anyone has a choice because I am not convinced that anyone had free will as it is defined in popular culture. It may or may not be real.

[Drewish]

Drew, would you help a dog that had been hit by a car? A human? If so, why?

Assuming no immediate risk to myself (the body not being in the middle of a still busy street, and the dog having a tag and clearly not being rabid) then yes. But only if I was on the scene.

OK, I'm willing to accept that if you weren't present you wouldn't do anything. But why would you go out of your way to help something so distant and unconnected to you as a stray dog, especially when you couldn't expect to reap any sort of benefit?

It's cost benefit. Notice that I said that the dog had a tag. There's no benefit to helping a stray (unless I'm looking to get a dog, but picking one up from a traffic accident is hardly ideal). There is a potential benefit to helping a dog with an owner. I often engage in low or no cost acts of kindness with those in my local community or social circles. This has a reputation benefit as well as sometimes leading to reciprocal benefits down the line.

If there are guaranteed benefits (often amounting to an exchange) then that's a factor. If the cost is minimal or nonexistent than that's a factor as well. My own moral code/heuristics (help people close to me whenever convenient, but not distant strangers) is based around maximizing the benefits of cooperating while minimizing the costs.

OK, so you see an animal or a person bleeding in the road only as an opportunity for gain? And if you have no opportunity to gain from helping them, then "fuck 'em"? And you're proud of that? You see that as a virtue? Seriously?

Yes. Only helping those in your local community or whom you know personally conveys a sense of loyalty that others respect. Being straight forward about the fact that I'm ultimately concerned with my own well being first is often found to be refreshingly honest, and people respect me for it. I make no attempts to force others to accept the same standards that I have chosen for when and how they will help others. I'm an honest, hard working, helpful neighbor and friend who doesn't belittle others for choosing their own values and priorities. In fact, my lack of condescending "holier than thou" judgement gives me a distinct social advantage over my liberal and religious friends, who both exert this tendency.