Do you know why most parents are eager to train and educate their children?
Out of parental love, I assume. So that they could have a good life as grown-ups.
What is parental love?
It is about loving your children as much as, or sometimes more than, yourself.
Your children are separate entities that come biologically the closest to you. You can get crazy about your kids because they are your immediate biological extensions. Equally close are your parents, by the way. They are up, instead of down, the genealogy tree.
But, we usually pay much more attention to our children than to our parents, although our experience as parents should teach us how our own parents feel toward us.
Let's say it's all about being attracted to the prettier.
Now, now, isn't it more about investing in the future versus the past?
You can say that, too. If you wish your bloodline to continue, your efforts should be directed to your offspring, not ancestors. And, it's not only our family members that we treat as if we were one. In a group, all people of your race would be "us" versus one person in the group of a different race.
That's still biological.
It can be something as artificial as nationality. If there is difference in behavior along the lines of nationality, it can be used as a dividing wall between us and them.
We want the ones with behavior similar to ours to survive and thrive. To the extent that the basis of any behavior is biochemical, nationality differentiation also has a biological element.
Similarly, we can explain parental love for adopted children, because they would be behaviorally closer to the parents than children of other parents. Extending this logic means that we care less about people who are not in our community, much less about those who live outside the border, and even less about people on the other continent.
What if someone of a different race is your next door neighbor and people of your race live across the sea?
That is a complicated case. I'd say there is no fixed formula as to which would be considered "us." The basic principle is that the more you can relate to, the more you care about that person and the stronger the feeling of "us."
Sounds pretty obvious.
The part that is not emphasized enough is the importance of the mix. Whoever has the least in common is one of "them."
Obvious, again!
Many of us watch the news on starvation in the other corner of the world, with a can of diet-soda in hand. It's the low-cal version, because habitual overeating has made us overweight.
I bet the diet-soda drinkers feel sorry for the starving people.
But that does not stop us from eating an extra serving of ice cream the following day.
That scoop of ice cream cannot possibly be shipped to the place where people are starving.
Practical limitations aside, what if you see your sibling on television looking like a skeleton because of lack of food?
Which sibling of mine are you thinking about?
What if it is your best friend? Your best friend's mother? Your best friend's mother's cousin? Your best friend's mother's cousin's father-in-law?
It's getting less and less interesting.
That's the point. The less related the person is, the less compassion you feel.
You're really stating too much of the obvious today.
One person starving is as bad as another person starving. Yet, we do not act on the situation with the same urgency. To me, this is ethically inacceptable. What may be natural is not necessarily moral. Suppose your brother lost a leg in an accident and you would like to get him an artificial leg. What if you could save three starving babies on the other side of the equator for a year with the money that you would be spending on the leg?
The vast majority of us think the money should be spent for the brother.
Choosing one non-life-threatening case over three life-threatening cases?
At least, that is what is accepted as common sense.
The choice happens to be the biologically correct one, and our instinct says that is also the morally correct one.
Isn't that instinct also part of our biology?
Definitely. The way out of this dilemma is to tell yourself that the starving babies also have siblings who could and would help them, just as you would help your brother.
To think that there is another helping hand, when you are almost certain that there is none.
It is easier to live with dead babies in foreign lands than with outraged relatives in the same country... Tellingly, your relatives would say, "For God's sake, it's your brother. You don't even know these babies!"
Self-protection, again!
I'm afraid that is all there is to life by definition. If we were all self-damaging or suicidal, we as a species would be wiped out.
You know, I'm getting a bit tired of this. Everything is about survival of myself, my lineage, my race, my kind of people, and ultimately, homo sapiens.
Given the fact that we are biological beings, the most important imperatives are the ones you just mentioned.
It's all by definition...
Think about a variation of the brother-or-babies situation. Suppose there are only four of you left on the planet, you and the three starving babies.
No way I can take care of three at the same time!
Your resource that could have gone to your brother would necessarily go to the babies. If not, it would be considered immoral.
Except that there wouldn't be anyone who could pass judgment on my action.
Isn't it obscene that by turning off the television we can forget about others' life-or-death problems, even though we are responsible for world politics as electorate?
We should be talking to Jean-Paul...
Are you talking about Jean-Paul with glasses, not the one with a skullcap? I don't think the bespectacled one was into diet-soda, but I can't be sure about the other...
Out of parental love, I assume. So that they could have a good life as grown-ups.
What is parental love?
It is about loving your children as much as, or sometimes more than, yourself.
Your children are separate entities that come biologically the closest to you. You can get crazy about your kids because they are your immediate biological extensions. Equally close are your parents, by the way. They are up, instead of down, the genealogy tree.
But, we usually pay much more attention to our children than to our parents, although our experience as parents should teach us how our own parents feel toward us.
Let's say it's all about being attracted to the prettier.
Now, now, isn't it more about investing in the future versus the past?
You can say that, too. If you wish your bloodline to continue, your efforts should be directed to your offspring, not ancestors. And, it's not only our family members that we treat as if we were one. In a group, all people of your race would be "us" versus one person in the group of a different race.
That's still biological.
It can be something as artificial as nationality. If there is difference in behavior along the lines of nationality, it can be used as a dividing wall between us and them.
We want the ones with behavior similar to ours to survive and thrive. To the extent that the basis of any behavior is biochemical, nationality differentiation also has a biological element.
Similarly, we can explain parental love for adopted children, because they would be behaviorally closer to the parents than children of other parents. Extending this logic means that we care less about people who are not in our community, much less about those who live outside the border, and even less about people on the other continent.
What if someone of a different race is your next door neighbor and people of your race live across the sea?
That is a complicated case. I'd say there is no fixed formula as to which would be considered "us." The basic principle is that the more you can relate to, the more you care about that person and the stronger the feeling of "us."
Sounds pretty obvious.
The part that is not emphasized enough is the importance of the mix. Whoever has the least in common is one of "them."
Obvious, again!
Many of us watch the news on starvation in the other corner of the world, with a can of diet-soda in hand. It's the low-cal version, because habitual overeating has made us overweight.
I bet the diet-soda drinkers feel sorry for the starving people.
But that does not stop us from eating an extra serving of ice cream the following day.
That scoop of ice cream cannot possibly be shipped to the place where people are starving.
Practical limitations aside, what if you see your sibling on television looking like a skeleton because of lack of food?
Which sibling of mine are you thinking about?
What if it is your best friend? Your best friend's mother? Your best friend's mother's cousin? Your best friend's mother's cousin's father-in-law?
It's getting less and less interesting.
That's the point. The less related the person is, the less compassion you feel.
You're really stating too much of the obvious today.
One person starving is as bad as another person starving. Yet, we do not act on the situation with the same urgency. To me, this is ethically inacceptable. What may be natural is not necessarily moral. Suppose your brother lost a leg in an accident and you would like to get him an artificial leg. What if you could save three starving babies on the other side of the equator for a year with the money that you would be spending on the leg?
The vast majority of us think the money should be spent for the brother.
Choosing one non-life-threatening case over three life-threatening cases?
At least, that is what is accepted as common sense.
The choice happens to be the biologically correct one, and our instinct says that is also the morally correct one.
Isn't that instinct also part of our biology?
Definitely. The way out of this dilemma is to tell yourself that the starving babies also have siblings who could and would help them, just as you would help your brother.
To think that there is another helping hand, when you are almost certain that there is none.
It is easier to live with dead babies in foreign lands than with outraged relatives in the same country... Tellingly, your relatives would say, "For God's sake, it's your brother. You don't even know these babies!"
Self-protection, again!
I'm afraid that is all there is to life by definition. If we were all self-damaging or suicidal, we as a species would be wiped out.
You know, I'm getting a bit tired of this. Everything is about survival of myself, my lineage, my race, my kind of people, and ultimately, homo sapiens.
Given the fact that we are biological beings, the most important imperatives are the ones you just mentioned.
It's all by definition...
Think about a variation of the brother-or-babies situation. Suppose there are only four of you left on the planet, you and the three starving babies.
No way I can take care of three at the same time!
Your resource that could have gone to your brother would necessarily go to the babies. If not, it would be considered immoral.
Except that there wouldn't be anyone who could pass judgment on my action.
Isn't it obscene that by turning off the television we can forget about others' life-or-death problems, even though we are responsible for world politics as electorate?
We should be talking to Jean-Paul...
Are you talking about Jean-Paul with glasses, not the one with a skullcap? I don't think the bespectacled one was into diet-soda, but I can't be sure about the other...
Posts
