Fatmanonice
Banned via Warnings
Link to original post: [drupal=1868]Is Human Compassion Illogical? [/drupal]
These thoughts are based on a rather brief conversation my Evolutionary Studies professor and I had last semester. Is human compassion illogical? Before I start, I’d simply define compassion as caring for people who are suffering from some sort of misfortune whether minor or grandiose. To give everyone some background on the topic ahead, here are some things to consider. When life is viewed through an evolutionary lens, its purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce offspring. Basically, as long as you are involved in the creation of one child at some point in time, your life isn’t meaningless. You don’t even have to take care of your kids if you don’t want to because, once they’re past a certain age, it’s supposed to be their responsibility to keep themselves alive. All of this may sound cruel but keep in mind that this is evolutionary theory and, as such, it has about as much emotion attached to it as a phone book.
Compassion is a rarity in nature. Weaker offspring will usually be abandoned, purposely neglected, or killed by their siblings or even their parents. Mutants and cripples are given the same treatment. The discussion between my professor and I had to do with humans raising and caring for other humans with abnormalities and “unfit” characteristics (ie; characteristics that may decrease your chances of reproducing like being ugly or fat). Under evolutionary theory, this could be viewed as extremely illogical because it takes away energy from caring for humans with fit characteristics and possibly taint the gene pool. For example, if an ugly person with “strong genes” reproduces with a normal person, then that greatly increases the chance of them producing ugly “unfit” kids and be, overall, counterproductive to the future of the human species. This becomes even more so with mutants (in the negative sense) and people with physical handicaps. Oddly enough, this could be seen as slightly logical when shown in a different light. Under a different theory, keeping these children alive gives a community more individuals who are capable of reproducing given their abnormalities don’t entirely prevent it. Even if it ends up being bad for the gene pool, it produces more offspring who have the potential to reproduce as well.
Obviously, these are not what are going through people’s minds when they are raising kids now-a-days but did compassion evolve from our own instincts or does it have another source? This has been one of the long standing debates in ethics: where did ethics and rules of social conduct even come from? In basic human ethics, it is generally viewed as wrong to kill someone but, under evolutionary theory, it’s fully excused because you are merely increasing your own chances of survival by eliminating competition and, besides, your victim deserved it for being ill prepared for your onslaught. Stealing is also generally seen as wrong but, again, under evolutionary theory it’s excused to ensure your own survival. Could it be that the purpose of ethics is to create an environment more suited for reproduction? If so, how did humanity come to such a conclusion and, even more puzzling, how was it decided that the well being of a community was more important than the well being of a species when, technically, weaker individuals of are not “punished” for being less “fit”? As I’ve pointed out, if this is by instinct, it is highly illogical in terms of basic evolutionary theory and detrimental to the human race but, if it is by another source, how did humanity reach such a complex conclusion that goes against evolutionary theory and still manages to be successful although not to its full potential like it supposedly ought to be?
What makes humans so much different from other animals? Obviously, there is our intelligence but even then there are definitely varying degrees of it thus suggesting that evolutionary theory should still be in play but, as I’ve sort of outlined, humanity has gone against these boundaries despite being animals ourselves. Has humanity created its own “breed” of evolution that’s entirely different from any other species? Has our evolution evolved itself into more of a sociological or technological based system rather than biological?
It is questions like this that keep me in awe of life itself and how astoundingly complex it really is. Chances are these questions will never be truly answered due to varying opinions but it shows what a thrill that learning and thinking are all onto themselves even when they produce nothing but dead ends. Mahatma Gandhi once said “Live like you were to die tomorrow and learn like you were to live forever.” On this closing note, I’d like to know what this blog has made you think about and I’d love to see other theories as well.
These thoughts are based on a rather brief conversation my Evolutionary Studies professor and I had last semester. Is human compassion illogical? Before I start, I’d simply define compassion as caring for people who are suffering from some sort of misfortune whether minor or grandiose. To give everyone some background on the topic ahead, here are some things to consider. When life is viewed through an evolutionary lens, its purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce offspring. Basically, as long as you are involved in the creation of one child at some point in time, your life isn’t meaningless. You don’t even have to take care of your kids if you don’t want to because, once they’re past a certain age, it’s supposed to be their responsibility to keep themselves alive. All of this may sound cruel but keep in mind that this is evolutionary theory and, as such, it has about as much emotion attached to it as a phone book.
Compassion is a rarity in nature. Weaker offspring will usually be abandoned, purposely neglected, or killed by their siblings or even their parents. Mutants and cripples are given the same treatment. The discussion between my professor and I had to do with humans raising and caring for other humans with abnormalities and “unfit” characteristics (ie; characteristics that may decrease your chances of reproducing like being ugly or fat). Under evolutionary theory, this could be viewed as extremely illogical because it takes away energy from caring for humans with fit characteristics and possibly taint the gene pool. For example, if an ugly person with “strong genes” reproduces with a normal person, then that greatly increases the chance of them producing ugly “unfit” kids and be, overall, counterproductive to the future of the human species. This becomes even more so with mutants (in the negative sense) and people with physical handicaps. Oddly enough, this could be seen as slightly logical when shown in a different light. Under a different theory, keeping these children alive gives a community more individuals who are capable of reproducing given their abnormalities don’t entirely prevent it. Even if it ends up being bad for the gene pool, it produces more offspring who have the potential to reproduce as well.
Obviously, these are not what are going through people’s minds when they are raising kids now-a-days but did compassion evolve from our own instincts or does it have another source? This has been one of the long standing debates in ethics: where did ethics and rules of social conduct even come from? In basic human ethics, it is generally viewed as wrong to kill someone but, under evolutionary theory, it’s fully excused because you are merely increasing your own chances of survival by eliminating competition and, besides, your victim deserved it for being ill prepared for your onslaught. Stealing is also generally seen as wrong but, again, under evolutionary theory it’s excused to ensure your own survival. Could it be that the purpose of ethics is to create an environment more suited for reproduction? If so, how did humanity come to such a conclusion and, even more puzzling, how was it decided that the well being of a community was more important than the well being of a species when, technically, weaker individuals of are not “punished” for being less “fit”? As I’ve pointed out, if this is by instinct, it is highly illogical in terms of basic evolutionary theory and detrimental to the human race but, if it is by another source, how did humanity reach such a complex conclusion that goes against evolutionary theory and still manages to be successful although not to its full potential like it supposedly ought to be?
What makes humans so much different from other animals? Obviously, there is our intelligence but even then there are definitely varying degrees of it thus suggesting that evolutionary theory should still be in play but, as I’ve sort of outlined, humanity has gone against these boundaries despite being animals ourselves. Has humanity created its own “breed” of evolution that’s entirely different from any other species? Has our evolution evolved itself into more of a sociological or technological based system rather than biological?
It is questions like this that keep me in awe of life itself and how astoundingly complex it really is. Chances are these questions will never be truly answered due to varying opinions but it shows what a thrill that learning and thinking are all onto themselves even when they produce nothing but dead ends. Mahatma Gandhi once said “Live like you were to die tomorrow and learn like you were to live forever.” On this closing note, I’d like to know what this blog has made you think about and I’d love to see other theories as well.
