if there is no life after death does anything matter at all?

[padren]

so because all things that have ever exist or will ever exist exist right now even after I die I will still be alive but just in a different time? i should have just paid attention in Sunday school and went along with the crowd after all it would be far less depressing to think that that life is a test and that a all powerful being cares about me. weather its hopelessly self-diluted or not.

 

The times you have been and will be alive will always be as they were/are/will be, so it's more like you'll still be alive in those times, not so much a different time. Another thing to be aware of too, is that humans have had radically different views on what the universe is and what we are throughout history, so whatever concepts about life and mortality that bother you now will quite possibly be viewed as obsolete concerns at some point.

 

We most likely will not be around to see it ourselves, but there could easily be people in the future who face the same concerns and come to conclusions that you'd be happy with thanks to a more mature understanding of the universe and the human experience.

 

Still, if that happens to be out there somewhere in the future, it will apply equally well to us as it does to them. Either way, we don't have control over what those answers would be - but what we can do is enjoy what we can and live the way we feel we should live.

[pioneer]

The idea of life after death helps create will power. It also helps one plan longer term.

 

As an example via a mental experiment, we begin with a large group of college students. We will tell one half of the group, when they graduate there will be no jobs after college. The other half we tell them there will be good jobs available, but one needs to work hard to get the best jobs. Which group will show more will power and will plan longer term?

 

If all that you do has no reward in the end, why work so hard? Short term reward is better.

 

After the four year experiment, we tell everyone this was an experiment and there will be plenty of jobs for all. Which of the two groups will make the future stronger? One path is evolutionary and one path regressive.

Edited September 26, 2010 by pioneer

[dragonstar57]

The times you have been and will be alive will always be as they were/are/will be, so it's more like you'll still be alive in those times, not so much a different time. Another thing to be aware of too, is that humans have had radically different views on what the universe is and what we are throughout history, so whatever concepts about life and mortality that bother you now will quite possibly be viewed as obsolete concerns at some point.

 

We most likely will not be around to see it ourselves, but there could easily be people in the future who face the same concerns and come to conclusions that you'd be happy with thanks to a more mature understanding of the universe and the human experience.

 

Still, if that happens to be out there somewhere in the future, it will apply equally well to us as it does to them. Either way, we don't have control over what those answers would be - but what we can do is enjoy what we can and live the way we feel we should live.

so don't let it bother you to much?

ha

thats imposable

[padren]

The idea of life after death helps create will power. It also helps one plan longer term.

Why stop with the idea of life after death? Wouldn't the idea that "everyone who sticks with a horrible job will automatically win the mutli-million dollar lotto on their 40th birthday" help "create will power" even better? At least up until their 40th birthday. It would probably be even better if we threw in a bunch of virgins and a kick'n sweet guitar.

 

And all coffee shops will have to give you free coffee for life - no matter what you order.

 

Also, you get to play "warship derby" where you and a few other lucky individuals get to control obsolete warships that are scheduled for scuttling and crash em into each other while you watch from a hot air balloon.

 

Now that's a will power incentive.

 

Of course, if none of it turns out to be true you won't exactly have a lot of well prepared 40 yr olds... but it would be one hell of a dream while it lasted.

 

As an example via a mental experiment, we begin with a large group of college students. We will tell one half of the group, when they graduate there will be no jobs after college. The other half we tell them there will be good jobs available, but one needs to work hard to get the best jobs. Which group will show more will power and will plan longer term?

A subset of both would probably drop out, with a higher percentage of those that are told that there is only a negative value (cost without benefit) in going to school. Many would drop out and start their own jobs, others would adjust their college courses to help them start their own businesses.

 

It boils down to if you convince people that "do [x] and your life will be hard" and others that "do [x] and your life will be great" naturally more of the latter will find [x] worth working towards, whereas the first group will be working hard to find alternatives to [x]. Pretty simple honestly.

 

If all that you do has no reward in the end, why work so hard? Short term reward is better.

You say "no reward" as if life can only have one. What you mean is "there is no reward of type [x]" so working hard towards reward [x] would be what we call "a huge waste of time."

 

Also, if you look at society, you'll see that there are a lot of people who choose to basically "give up" on life and get stuck in a funk. It happens to people of all variations of financial means. It has more to do with how people cope with when they do experience adversity and disillusionment, than whether they have the bizarre luck to never experience those things.

 

After the four year experiment, we tell everyone this was an experiment and there will be plenty of jobs for all. Which of the two groups will make the future stronger? One path is evolutionary and one path regressive.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Both groups would be stronger, just adapted for different environments. One will be adapted to jobs requiring college degrees, the other group will be adapted to financial independence without requiring a college level job.

 

In your scenario, because you lied to one group you gave them the idea they have to be adapted to an environment that doesn't exist (since there really was jobs) so naturally, they'll be more poorly adapted to that scenario. Conversely though, if you did the exact same experiment, but it turned out there weren't jobs, the preparedness of the two groups would be exactly opposite. This demonstrates it's not that "telling people things will be like [x]" is helpful, but telling people how the future will look is helpful.

 

so don't let it bother you to much?

ha

thats imposable

 

It doesn't bother me. Granted, I could be diagnosed with 12 weeks to live tomorrow and it's entirely possible my whole world view would change - or it wouldn't at all. I can't say, all I know is that there could potentially be life events that radically change my opinion on the topic.

 

Personally, I think that it doesn't bother me because (a) I really like what I get to see and (B) when I compare it to what I was promised (absolutely nothing, not even transient existence) I feel rather fortunate. Life's awesome.

 

Why does it bother you?

[dragonstar57]

how does it not bother you?

everything you do changes nothing!

you could walk on the moon, save the earth, win the mega-billions jackpot a thousand times over, go skydiving from a air plain that is designed to look like a dragon and still would still not mean a thing.

every dream, achievement, hope, aspiration, failure, fear, love none of it means a thing!

and this doesn't bother you???

[padren]

how does it not bother you?

everything you do changes nothing!

you could walk on the moon, save the earth, win the mega-billions jackpot a thousand times over, go skydiving from a air plain that is designed to look like a dragon and still would still not mean a thing.

every dream, achievement, hope, aspiration, failure, fear, love none of it means a thing!

and this doesn't bother you???

 

It will mean nothing at some point in the future, but it does mean something at least to me now in the present. The fact that it won't mean anything at some point in the future does not diminish the value it has in the present or the past. As I said before, in the objective sense past, present and future are equal - it doesn't matter when something happens, just whether or not it does. Whether myself or anyone else is around to appreciate it, I know what I appreciate in the Universe and even if I cease to exist, those aspects that I appreciated will always exist in their moments in time.

 

The value in going to the moon is being able to (at least during my cognizant span of time) to appreciate that in this Universe, somehow, that happened. The Universe exists in such a way that somehow I was able to find myself here and walk on the moon. If I get to walk on the moon, that will forever be a feature of this Universe within space and time, and I would absolutely love both the experience and the fact that such a moment exists.

 

I need a sense of Ego to function, but I don't need to let it torture me by it's insistence that impermanence equals absolute failure. Part of me would love to know that my efforts and actions will be valued (one way or another) for all time to the end of time and beyond. Part of me would love to be aware throughout it all. But I also know I have no control of whether the Universe actually works in such a manner that those things could be possible, and I accept that as happily as I would accept a cake without icing because - hey, free cake. I could get upset because "cake is supposed to have icing" but it would only be my limited preconception that cakes are supposed to have icing - but if the Universe is a cake without icing, then I'd rather enjoy the cake than descend into an existential crisis.

 

Right now I am here, and I am enjoying it, and I don't expect to be here for long. While I am here, I want to experience and enjoy what the Universe is, rather than be bothered by what I think it should be but it isn't. I am not the sort of architect that is qualified to make such judgments about the Universe, and even with the finite and transient nature of my existence I find the Universe amazing enough to keep me continually engaged and excited.

Edited September 26, 2010 by padren

[dragonstar57]

It will mean nothing at some point in the future, but it does mean something at least to me now in the present. The fact that it won't mean anything at some point in the future does not diminish the value it has in the present or the past. As I said before, in the objective sense past, present and future are equal - it doesn't matter when something happens, just whether or not it does. Whether myself or anyone else is around to appreciate it, I know what I appreciate in the Universe and even if I cease to exist, those aspects that I appreciated will always exist in their moments in time.

 

The value in going to the moon is being able to (at least during my cognizant span of time) to appreciate that in this Universe, somehow, that happened. The Universe exists in such a way that somehow I was able to find myself here and walk on the moon. If I get to walk on the moon, that will forever be a feature of this Universe within space and time, and I would absolutely love both the experience and the fact that such a moment exists.

 

I need a sense of Ego to function, but I don't need to let it torture me by it's insistence that impermanence equals absolute failure. Part of me would love to know that my efforts and actions will be valued (one way or another) for all time to the end of time and beyond. Part of me would love to be aware throughout it all. But I also know I have no control of whether the Universe actually works in such a manner that those things could be possible, and I accept that as happily as I would accept a cake without icing because - hey, free cake. I could get upset because "cake is supposed to have icing" but it would only be my limited preconception that cakes are supposed to have icing - but if the Universe is a cake without icing, then I'd rather enjoy the cake than descend into an existential crisis.

 

Right now I am here, and I am enjoying it, and I don't expect to be here for long. While I am here, I want to experience and enjoy what the Universe is, rather than be bothered by what I think it should be but it isn't. I am not the sort of architect that is qualified to make such judgments about the Universe, and even with the finite and transient nature of my existence I find the Universe amazing enough to keep me continually engaged and excited.

so its future value has nothing to do with its current value?

all a person can do is be in awe of a universe that will fade?

so is it really the people on the boat scenario?

where they enjoy what of life that is available to them because they know that it is all they have?

so it means something now but wont later?

i know it has no bearing on its validity but I find that a little depressing.

and if this is true is right and wrong meaningless as well?

does right and wrong really exist or are they just an attribute that helps a social species be more fit to exist? a species that's existence will eventuality be snuffed out like a candle by the mighty wind of time?

Edited September 27, 2010 by cipher510

[Marat]

"So its future value has nothing to do with its current value?" That statement expresses the whole problem with this line of thought. Why should things which now seem to have a value somehow not matter unless they have a value in some make-believe world after I am dead? If I am put in a torture chamber and have various pieces and parts of my body pulled off over the next four years until I am dead, would I say to myself, "Luckily none of this matters because it will not be recorded eternally either in my memory during some coming everlasting life, in the history of God's mind, or in the eternity of the universe." Of course not!

 

The problem comes from the initial perspective created by religion, which is that the absolute force of moral values as we experience them in society must depend for its validity on their anchoring in the will of some infinite being, eternal plan, divine order or the universe, or some other force which is as absolute physically as the values are absolute morally. But as Kant famously said, "You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is,'" and so here, the absolute value of various moral imperatives cannot be meaningfully supported by their being supported by some absolutely powerful thing.

 

Moral values have all the support they need from their anchoring in a source superior to any individual, and that is in society itself. Just because human society, which creates our values, is not itself absolute, does not mean that its values cannot be absolute within the society into which we have been socialized and which forms our ultimate context of meaning. If someone tells me a native of the Amazon River basin feels worthless until he has proved his maturity by killing a man, that does not make me feel inadequate because I have not yet done so.

[pioneer]

Another way to approach this is consider the situation of one person who the doctors say has 1 year to live, to another who has 50 years. The shorter life sentence will increase fear consciously or unconsciously. Behavior become impacted by the fear. The longer life allows one to postpone this.

 

When the idea of eternal life is presented to the first Christians, many lost their fear of death, which had held them as slaves to law. The Romans had to crank up their terror tactics in an attempt to increase their fear, again, so they could continue to enslave them. Centuries later, this Christian lack of fear of death was what made the Christian soldiers, of the Roman empire, their best soldiers. To honor these soldiers, the emperor made Christianity the religion of Rome.

[Marat]

I thought that Constantine suffered some hallucination of the Cross in the sky before a battle he won and that's why he made Christianity the state religion. But whatever Christianity's positive effects, these seem to have worn off pretty quickly, since the Roman Army looked pretty pathetic when it ultimately succumbed to the masses of barbarian tribes streaming over the Empire's borders.

[pioneer]

What Rome could not do with atheist intellect and might they did via Christianity. The barbarians hordes were not afraid of men, but gradually became more pacified and domesticated as the Roman Christian influence began to spread.

[Marat]

I thought the Romans were quite religious, believing in a whole pantheon of gods and goddesses, whom early Christianity adopted and made into corresponding saints. A lot has been written about how the murder and and post-mortem rebirth or survival of Dionysus and Orpheus seamlessly morphed into the Christian idea of a god who is killed and is reborn, so it seems to me that both the Romans and the Christians were very much alike in their religious attitudes.

 

However, to keep this comment focused on the thread topic, it seems clear that we don't really need any anchoring of experience in absolute foundations, whether theological or material, in order to find it important. Just look at how passionately two chess masters are committed to the outcome of a game which is, when seen from a wider perspective, just colored wooden pieces pushed over a checkerboard. We can change our existential focal width at will and find all the meaning we need in a single moment or in the ultimate fate of a thousand-year empire.

[padren]

so its future value has nothing to do with its current value?

its current value has nothing to do with its future value - if something no longer exists in the future, and there is no one to recognize it then, the value it has currently is unaffected by that future value.

 

When you build something that is worth little to you currently in hopes that it will be something of value in the future, that is still a worthwhile endeavor but it is a gamble and the only thing that you can be sure about is it's current value. The only other thing you can be sure about is that at some point in the future, it probably will have passed it's moment and no longer exist.

 

But it's value comes from the span of time in which it does exist, which is not negated by a future in which it doesn't.

 

all a person can do is be in awe of a universe that will fade?

so is it really the people on the boat scenario?

where they enjoy what of life that is available to them because they know that it is all they have?

so it means something now but wont later?

i know it has no bearing on its validity but I find that a little depressing.

If you subconsciously expect some sort of immortality tied to either your identity or the results of your actions, the idea that it probably won't be like that is kinda depressing. But I also thought I would be an astronaut and get to hang out with aliens when I was a kid... realizing aliens don't really buzz this rock and the limits of FTL was pretty depressing for a while. The whole reason things are depressing aren't because the reality is so dire - it's that expectations were so much higher. The only way to overcome that IMO is to take a small bit of time to appreciate what you do know you have and try to enjoy it. Maybe you won't, maybe you will.

 

Maybe my one true calling in life was to hang out with aliens from other planets, and now that it won't be like that I will have nothing worthwhile to find my whole life.

 

Or, I'll find that life - even sans-aliens is worthwhile. I have to try to give sans-alien reality a chance though before I could be sure... so far I'm pretty happy with the results.

and if this is true is right and wrong meaningless as well?

does right and wrong really exist or are they just an attribute that helps a social species be more fit to exist? a species that's existence will eventuality be snuffed out like a candle by the mighty wind of time?

Meaningless is a very strong word. You imply for something to have meaning, it must persist. Is time infinite? Will the universe go on forever? How can anything persist beyond the lifespan of the universe?

 

Right and wrong exist in the same manner that love and beauty exists. When we experience those things and don't understand them, we think of them as miraculous mysteries - learning about how brain chemistry works and "answering" the mysteries of the feelings we have when we see beauty or fall in love may take the mystery out, but it doesn't invalidate the value.

Miraculous mysteries are great, but even without the mystery part the miraculous experiences still exist.

 

The fact you are able to worth within a framework where right and wrong exist allows you to benefit from them and value their meaning. If all life in the universe ceased to exist at a point in the future, there really couldn't be any right or wrong - stray photons and electrons buzzing around atoms aren't likely to run into moral quandaries.

 

Within the framework of our lives right and wrong, beauty and love all have meaning and give our lives richness of experience plus the knowledge that the universe does include right and wrong, as it includes us and we experience those things. So it does have meaning, it's just not likely to still mean something during the time-span when the universe eventually dies.

[pioneer]

One difference was polytheism versus monotheism. Say we worked under the assumption religion was a fantasy, polytheism is a more dissociated disorder. If the entire effect stems from a single source, the personality is far less dissociated. The barbarians had a dissociation problem with polytheism.

 

As an analogy, say science had 4 theories for the same phenomena. Most people, to avoid the confusion, would pick one and stick by that. The Romans were the same way, with people tending to favor one of the gods; become part of a cult. But being a specialty, they lost the completeness.

 

But say instead, you had to learn all four, for completeness, since each treats the same data somewhat differently. This can create confusion. Say someone found a way to integrated the four theories into one, one will have an easier time, since they only need to look at the phenomena in a single way.

 

Christianity does become a trinity, but this was still one source for all effects, with two sub-filters mediating these effects. For example, our instincts include hunger, thirst, sexual desire, etc. The one common link is instinct, but there are many distinct expressions. Polytheism had a similar hierarchy, but the output was a little more random via the whims of the gods who often fought and tired to undermine each other. That would be like having instincts, but where one is not sure if hunger means eat, fight or whatever. One might specialize in a cult to learn eat from the eat specialty god. Monotheism did not have to specialize since it thought in terms of instinct allowing the entire spectrum. With less dissociation it was easier to deal with the barbarian dissociation.

Edited September 28, 2010 by pioneer

[padren]

Another way to approach this is consider the situation of one person who the doctors say has 1 year to live, to another who has 50 years. The shorter life sentence will increase fear consciously or unconsciously. Behavior become impacted by the fear. The longer life allows one to postpone this.

Only if you have a fear of non-existence. Besides which - of course 50 years is better than 1.... you get to actually live longer. I'd rather know now if I was going to die in exactly 1 year or in 50 years so I would know how best to use that time.

 

Saying life is better when you are ignorant to the facts is a rather ugly way to view the world IMO. I want to understand what actually is to the very best of my ability and do my best to appreciate what actually is, not live in blissful ignorance based on a completely inaccurate view of the world.

 

I honestly believe the more you know about the Universe, the more meaning there is to be found. Hiding in ignorance and blatantly false predictions may allow someone to have a less stressful life for a span, but hiding in a delusion is no way to go through life. At least it's not how I want to spend my time here.

 

When the idea of eternal life is presented to the first Christians, many lost their fear of death, which had held them as slaves to law. The Romans had to crank up their terror tactics in an attempt to increase their fear, again, so they could continue to enslave them. Centuries later, this Christian lack of fear of death was what made the Christian soldiers, of the Roman empire, their best soldiers. To honor these soldiers, the emperor made Christianity the religion of Rome.

 

The idea of eternal life has existed long before Christianity, and I hardly think that it makes the world a better place within the context of producing "the best soldiers" frankly. The concept also gave us the brutality of the vikings as they sought Valhalla, the kamikaze soldiers of WWII Japan, and of course the fruits of radical Islam. You can throw in the crusades of course, and all the brutality of the Christian Age of the Roman Empire.

 

I fail to see how the idea of immortality giving people a religious zealot's dedication to killing without regard for their own safety is considered beneficial to the world.

[dragonstar57]

so the idea is that nothing can exist forever so not even a legacy can?

and the fact that it will mean nothing doesn't doesn't mean that it is meaningless now?

but if there is no divine punishment for wrongdoing why not do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it?

[padren]

so the idea is that nothing can exist forever so not even a legacy can?

and the fact that it will mean nothing doesn't doesn't mean that it is meaningless now?

but if there is no divine punishment for wrongdoing why not do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it?

As for the top two: yes, I agree with those statements.

 

Consider watching a movie, and for about 30 minutes in the middle the movie takes place on some of the most scenic landscapes imaginable. By the time those scenes are over and you are in the last half of the movie, the movie will never show those landscapes again. The fact they aren't at the "end" of the movie doesn't mean the movie is ineligible for Best Cinematography Academy Award. You may say "if no one is around to remember the film, then what's the point?" and that would be understandable, but even if you watched the movie, noticed the great scenes, and lost your memory of the movie immediately after - would that mean the movie did not contain those great scenes? They are still there, and they'll still be great even if no else ever saw them. The movie doesn't ever have to be played again to contain the attributes that make it remarkable, nor does it need a legacy. Not having a legacy simply means it doesn't have a legacy - it does not mean that there is nothing great about it.

 

 

On the last question, asking whether one can get away with wrongdoing is not the same thing as whether right and wrong are meaningless. I doubt there is any divine punishment for wrongdoing, but really we have to ask whether divine punishment is a realistic way to address the value of right or wrong. Personally, I think the punishment for wrongdoing is built into the laws of physics (from which our biological systems emerged) in that in order to justify a life of wrongdoing the wrongdoer has to either (A) have no conscience at all, like a sociopath, (B) feel justified by viewing the world as a place where "right" is meaningless, or © feel like a broken useless person who can't seem to do right.

 

Granted, I do have a rather self-specific sense of right and wrong so the standards I hold myself to are different than those I expect others to hold themselves to. Overall, I feel my personal morals are the best ones I could live by and happily update them as my views evolve. I think that's the best way to go about it though, and whether there is divine punishment for wrongdoing or not, I don't think "fear of judgment" is a very good monitor of a person's morality - it only tells you they can follow orders when intimidated enough.

[Mr Skeptic]

so the idea is that nothing can exist forever so not even a legacy can?

and the fact that it will mean nothing doesn't doesn't mean that it is meaningless now?

 

Yes and yes.

 

Incidentally, a temporary thing can be worth more than an infinite one. For example, if I offered you a billion dollars today, or 1 cent per year for the rest of eternity (assume that were possible), then you are still by far better off choosing the billion. After all, you can invest it and gain far more than 1 cent per year. The same is true of most everything, for example a scientific advance now is worth more than one later.

 

but if there is no divine punishment for wrongdoing why not do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it?

 

So are you suggesting that Christians are evil and only do good because they fear divine punishment, whereas the atheists are simply good people and do good even without expecting a reward? No, there's plenty of other reasons to do good.

[AzurePhoenix]

but if there is no divine punishment for wrongdoing why not do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it?

If you can get away with it, then sure, there may be no consequence to yourself if you're willing to take the risk, but for most of us, it's in our best interest to play by the rules and exercise morality towards each other. And anyhow you may still be negatively affected by such things as guilt and whatnot.

 

I don't see why divine punishment is considered a better motivator than worldly practicality. Both are ultimately rooted in self-interest, the former via extortion, the latter more generically. It's not like doing good out of fear of divine retribution or reward is any more noble by comparison.

[Horza2002]

If there is no life after death, then these 80 or so years that we have are very important. So why not make them the best you can and for others as well?

[Marat]

Horza is right: Turning the initial idea around makes an even more powerful point. If we knew we had an infinite life ahead of us, absolutely nothing would matter, since we could repeat everything infinitely to get it right eventually, so there would be no significance in any individual outcome.

[dragonstar57]

So are you suggesting that Christians are evil and only do good because they fear divine punishment, whereas the atheists are simply good people and do good even without expecting a reward? No, there's plenty of other reasons to do good.

no i'm saying I as an an atheist no longer see a reason to do good (or not do bad)

it is beginning to seem pointless and stupid.

perhaps one of you could point one out?

Edited September 29, 2010 by cipher510

[Mr Skeptic]

no i'm saying I as an an atheist no longer see a reason to do good (or not do bad)

it is beginning to seem pointless and stupid.

perhaps one of you could point one out?

 

Oh, were you a Christian before? Because according to many Christians there is no reward for doing good works: salvation is a gift from god, all sins will be forgiven, and no one deserves any of that. It is certainly not only atheists who believe they won't be punished for bad things they do nor receive extra reward for good they do.

 

So, you only do good because you want a reward, and only avoid bad because you fear punishment. Suit yourself.

 

If you want one reason I do good, it is simply because it makes me feel good to do so. It may seem a small thing, but then consider whether people eat icecream or candy for its nutrition value of for another reason.

[dragonstar57]

Oh, were you a Christian before? Because according to many Christians there is no reward for doing good works: salvation is a gift from god, all sins will be forgiven, and no one deserves any of that. It is certainly not only atheists who believe they won't be punished for bad things they do nor receive extra reward for good they do.

 

So, you only do good because you want a reward, and only avoid bad because you fear punishment. Suit yourself.

 

If you want one reason I do good, it is simply because it makes me feel good to do so. It may seem a small thing, but then consider whether people eat icecream or candy for its nutrition value of for another reason.

once but no longer (like 5 years ago)

and i didn't take that into consideration

[AzurePhoenix]

no i'm saying I as an an atheist no longer see a reason to do good (or not do bad)

it is beginning to seem pointless and stupid.

perhaps one of you could point one out?

I like to cook food I like and eat it and go home to my own bed in my comfortable home and do things to my loved one and go outside to swim and hike and kayak. At the simplest level, the freedom to be able to do all these things is all the incentive i need to not do bad.

 

On a deeper level, we evolved as a social species with the necessary instincts to behave socially, including an underlying, instinctual sense of right and wrong, and interpersonal empathy shaped by behavioral evolution to ensure we get along, for our individual sakes.

 

There's an entire field of the relationship between evolutionary behaviorism, morality and the advantages, and how it relates to Game Theory. Look the last up.

Edited September 29, 2010 by AzurePhoenix