Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (42223)	9/29/2013 12:35:47 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

So you would perhaps harm the rapist without knowing whether his act was right or wrong or neutral? Yes, I would perhaps harm the rapist without knowing his intent. I would have to think more on how forcing sex on anyone would be right. I would probably default to treating the rapist as a threat. Apparently, you either trust your instincts to never cause you to act in a wrong or immoral way? No, that would be dumb. I may react instinctively under a time pressure to decide, and only later realize that my action was unwarranted. We often hear people saying things like "I didn't have time to think; I just acted." I accept that my actions, whether they are instinctive or morally weighed, can cause harm and may be judged illegal by some or immoral by others. I must be responsible for my actions, unless someone slipped some PCP into my coffee and I went berserk. Or you at least trust your instincts more than your reason when a judgement is required? No. I trust my instincts when I have no time to formulate a judgment. Suppose someone walked away from idling car and the transmission slipped into gear and started heading toward my wife or family. I wouldn't bother to decide if the car was good or evil before trying to deal with the threat. I would pull anyone out of the path of the car, or drive my car to intercept it. If a shark was about to attack my wife, I wouldn't spend time wondering if the shark had a good reason to eat my wife. I also wouldn't make a moral judgement before killing the shark or pulling my wife out of the water. One way or another I would want to neutralize the threat. Come to think of it, the shark is probably only hungry and wants an easy snack for lunch. Does this make the shark moral to other sharks or immoral to its victims? Hmm, are sharks evil by nature or do they just get hungry? Anyway, I won't be making moral judgements for runaway cars, or threatening sharks or rapists attacking my wife. How for instance, does your "instinct" tell you when you are being overtaxed by the Government So, now there is no time constraint on judging whether I'm being overtaxed, unlike the example of my wife being raped. If I need a year or two to decide, I can pay the required taxes and make a judgement based on the overall affect on my quality of life. I could make an instinctive judgement, but in this case I don't need to. I have paid taxes for both Federal and State at the maximum rate, and this level didn't impinge on my standard of living, I suppose that is because I live well within my means. For the last 10 years I have wanted for nothing. Before that, my tax rates were reasonable. (or shortchanged by a waitress)--or any other small or large act of immorality? If I get shortchanged by a waitress, I give her a bigger tip next time to curb that habit. I try not to let small acts of immorality to bother me - I have better things to do. Although I don't know precisely what you mean by "large acts of immorality," I will assume that those acts are also illegal and that the person will be fairly prosecuted and sentenced accordingly. Again, I will leave the moral judgements to others. Doesn't the Science of Evolutionary biology tell us that a great deal of mans instincts have been supplanted by his large brain and his ability to reason? No, they are not supplanted by reason. They coexist. In my view, reason is transitory and instinct is pervasive. That, in fact, instinct for us is usually an unreliable means of judging most situations and events? No, I don't think so. Malcom Gladwell suggest in his book, Blink, that our first instincts are usually correct, unless we have developed biases which skew our judgement. I thought it was proven that instincts very often cause irrational behaviours? They can, but they don't always produce irrational results. If a rabid dog is snarling and barking at us, we instinctively look for a weapon (to fight) or find a safe exit (flight). This instinct does not cause an irrational behavior in the least. Your posts and questions have provoked more and more thoughts and revelations for me. You made me think of instincts which indeed lead to irrational behaviors: lust, greed, wrath, envy and pride. Gluttony might have been an issue with small tribes, but not so much now. I must think more if sloth derives from an instinct or if it's a health issue.