Why do people hate?

[ForgedinHell]

Mathematically, a group of mathematicians at Harvard proved that the attempt to explain altruistic acts based upon a genetic relationship is false. Think of Pat Tillman who left the NFL and joined the army after 9/11. Was he only defending his genetic relations? How many people will risk their lives to save a stranger at the site of a building on fire or a plane crash, etc.? Too many to be accounted for by some genetic kin theory. People are capable of performing heroic acts, and mass murder. No one is exactly sure why this is. But, the hateful people seem capable of behaving irrationally and adopting positions contrary to the evidence. That's what is strange.

If your rejection of any evolutionary basis for altruism is to say that some Harvard mathematicians have proved it then you'll be able to cite the article so that I can decide for myself whether they've proven it. If they have I assume that will mean that it's not contested by any of their peers.

Besides, no one is arguing that any particular behaviour patterns are entirely influenced by our genes, merely that it may explain certain predispositions towards particular behaviour. Perhaps some people, like Pat Tillman, do not posses a particular disposition but that could be for a number of reasons either genetic or social.


However, you proposed that we developed a genetic predisposition towards caring and I was making the argument that we could have done so whilst also developed a disposition towards hostility that would not necessarily be contradictory.

Where did I write that mathematicians rejected any evolutionary basis for altruism? I did no such thing. I stated that the kin-selection theory does not work, and that has been debunked. I don't know the actual study off the top of y head, but Edward Wilson mentioned it in his latest book. There are other evolutionary theories of morality.

[ForgedinHell]

Mathematically, a group of mathematicians at Harvard proved that the attempt to explain altruistic acts based upon a genetic relationship is false. Think of Pat Tillman who left the NFL and joined the army after 9/11. Was he only defending his genetic relations? How many people will risk their lives to save a stranger at the site of a building on fire or a plane crash, etc.? Too many to be accounted for by some genetic kin theory. People are capable of performing heroic acts, and mass murder. No one is exactly sure why this is. But, the hateful people seem capable of behaving irrationally and adopting positions contrary to the evidence. That's what is strange.

If your rejection of any evolutionary basis for altruism is to say that some Harvard mathematicians have proved it then you'll be able to cite the article so that I can decide for myself whether they've proven it. If they have I assume that will mean that it's not contested by any of their peers.

Besides, no one is arguing that any particular behaviour patterns are entirely influenced by our genes, merely that it may explain certain predispositions towards particular behaviour. Perhaps some people, like Pat Tillman, do not posses a particular disposition but that could be for a number of reasons either genetic or social.


However, you proposed that we developed a genetic predisposition towards caring and I was making the argument that we could have done so whilst also developed a disposition towards hostility that would not necessarily be contradictory.

Where did I write that mathematicians rejected any evolutionary basis for altruism? I did no such thing. I stated that the kin-selection theory does not work, and that has been debunked. I don't know the actual study off the top of y head, but Edward Wilson mentioned it in his latest book. There are other evolutionary theories of morality.

[chaz wyman]

Group hate is the natural extension of group-think.
When you decide that you belong to group A, then you automatically set yourself up against group B.
When you invent differences and interests then follows the justification, be that a definition based on race, creed, religion, nation or football team.
This is nothing more than tribalism and invokes humans tendency to compete.
When I support Man Utd. I am against Man City.
When I say 'I am a Jew" I set myself up behind the barricades against Muslims, Arabs and any other out-group.
When I declare that I am a Turk I threaten the Greek.

It's all a bit childish when you could just as well choose to be 'human' instead.

[Arising_uk]

...

Anyone have any thoughts on where this hatred comes from? Are the haters happy in their lives? Have they been taught to hate from an early age? Does their hatred make them feel superior and make up for deep-seated feelings of inferiority? Why are some people so attracted to targeting another group of people with pure irrational hate?

Is there anyone you hate? If so examine your thoughts and you will find your answer.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I, therefore, put forth the notion that we also evolved into caring machines.

We could have evolved both characteristics: care for those whose genes you share but show hostility to those you don't (or don't so much). Most people care about their immediate family and parents are often willing to sacrifice themselves for their children, who they also share the most genetic material with, so in evolutionary terms it seems sensible.

Hostility may have been a mechanism developed in the competition for resources but like many evolutionary impulses they can eventually find themselves subservient to impulses derived from social and cultural conditioning and become less relevant. However, even in evolutionary terms organisms that were adapted to cooperation when it was more profitable to behave cooperatively would be at an advantage over those that favoured hostility so I doubt it's a simple as saying that it's an evolutionary throwback that is in our nature.

Mathematically, a group of mathematicians at Harvard proved that the attempt to explain altruistic acts based upon a genetic relationship is false. Think of Pat Tillman who left the NFL and joined the army after 9/11. Was he only defending his genetic relations? How many people will risk their lives to save a stranger at the site of a building on fire or a plane crash, etc.? Too many to be accounted for by some genetic kin theory. People are capable of performing heroic acts, and mass murder. No one is exactly sure why this is. But, the hateful people seem capable of behaving irrationally and adopting positions contrary to the evidence. That's what is strange.

I might well save a stranger, empathy is empathy, but I know that if there was a choice between saving a stranger or saving one of my children I have no doubt which I would choose. It's a no-brainer to say that we are going to favour those we love.
Individuals are decent on the whole, but when they get together as a mob it's a whole different story.

[ForgedinHell]

I might well save a stranger, empathy is empathy, but I know that if there was a choice between saving a stranger or saving one of my children I have no doubt which I would choose. It's a no-brainer to say that we are going to favour those we love.
Individuals are decent on the whole, but when they get together as a mob it's a whole different story.

I have no doubt there is a biological basis to morality, for precisely the reason you said. Parents favor their children, and people don't even question such behavior. However, there are times when people make sacrifices to help others, at the expense to helping their children, so there is another evolutionary tug on our heart-strings as well, and that is group selection. We've also evolved to defend our "tribe", even at the expense of ourselves or family.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I might well save a stranger, empathy is empathy, but I know that if there was a choice between saving a stranger or saving one of my children I have no doubt which I would choose. It's a no-brainer to say that we are going to favour those we love.
Individuals are decent on the whole, but when they get together as a mob it's a whole different story.

I have no doubt there is a biological basis to morality, for precisely the reason you said. Parents favor their children, and people don't even question such behavior. However, there are times when people make sacrifices to help others, at the expense to helping their children, so there is another evolutionary tug on our heart-strings as well, and that is group selection. We've also evolved to defend our "tribe", even at the expense of ourselves or family.

I can't speak for others but I would not help a stranger at the expense of my children. People help others for a variety of reasons, many of them selfish. They don't want to feel bad if they don't help, they think it will get them a better seat in heaven, they want to look good to others (status raising), peer pressure......Whereas the love for our children is straightforward; I wouldn't want to live without them so I will do whatever it takes to protect them.

[Arising_uk]

...Whereas the love for our children is straightforward; I wouldn't want to live without them so I will do whatever it takes to protect them.

If they were thieves? Murderers? Paedophiles? Rapists? Etc, etc?

[chaz wyman]

[
I can't speak for others but I would not help a stranger at the expense of my children..

I think you could image such a situation - I could!

I would not assist a child of mine if he were doing harm to a stranger.

[ForgedinHell]

[
I can't speak for others but I would not help a stranger at the expense of my children..

I think you could image such a situation - I could!

I would not assist a child of mine if he were doing harm to a stranger.

If the stranger were Jewish, you would help them.

[ForgedinHell]

...Whereas the love for our children is straightforward; I wouldn't want to live without them so I will do whatever it takes to protect them.

If they were thieves? Murderers? Paedophiles? Rapists? Etc, etc?

It's really a rotten question to ask her. I will say this though, I have represented a lot of people, some of whom were guilty of horrid crimes, involving child molestation, rape, robbery, assault, etc. On numerous occasions, I saw parents still cover for their children. It's actually quite common.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

...Whereas the love for our children is straightforward; I wouldn't want to live without them so I will do whatever it takes to protect them.

If they were thieves? Murderers? Paedophiles? Rapists? Etc, etc?

I was referring to a hypothetical situation where it was a choice between saving the life of either my child or a stranger, eg if I could only carry one person from a burning building, assuming neither of them are child torturers, mass murderers, serial rapists/murderers/torturers of babies, dogs, and grannies.........
If my child happened to be a serial torturer and rapist of children then I don't think my love would stretch so far as to not do whatever it took to save the lives of others' children. I thought people on here would know what I meant.

[ForgedinHell]

...Whereas the love for our children is straightforward; I wouldn't want to live without them so I will do whatever it takes to protect them.

If they were thieves? Murderers? Paedophiles? Rapists? Etc, etc?

I was referring to a hypothetical situation where it was a choice between saving the life of either my child or a stranger, eg if I could only carry one person from a burning building, assuming neither of them are child torturers, mass murderers, serial rapists/murderers/torturers of babies, dogs, and grannies.........
If my child happened to be a serial torturer and rapist of children then I don't think my love would stretch so far as to not do whatever it took to save the lives of others' children. I thought people on here would know what I meant.

He knew. He was just being hateful.

[John]

I stated that the kin-selection theory does not work, and that has been debunked. I don't know the actual study off the top of y head, but Edward Wilson mentioned it in his latest book. There are other evolutionary theories of morality.

I assume the paper you're referring to is by Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson and you've read Wilson's book and accepted it as fact. Hundreds of evolutionary biologists have disagreed though so saying it's a dead theory is premature. It may well be wrong but it is far from having been proven to be wrong.

[chaz wyman]

...Whereas the love for our children is straightforward; I wouldn't want to live without them so I will do whatever it takes to protect them.

If they were thieves? Murderers? Paedophiles? Rapists? Etc, etc?

I was referring to a hypothetical situation where it was a choice between saving the life of either my child or a stranger, eg if I could only carry one person from a burning building, assuming neither of them are child torturers, mass murderers, serial rapists/murderers/torturers of babies, dogs, and grannies.........
If my child happened to be a serial torturer and rapist of children then I don't think my love would stretch so far as to not do whatever it took to save the lives of others' children. I thought people on here would know what I meant.

Its clear that there is no absolute moral rule like the one which you seemed to describe, without many codicils and exceptions.