A Rand Rant

[granfire]

well, somewhere in her making her husband vacate the house so she can have her affair does show a certain disconnect. The delusion about her emotional affairs/impact, very interesting.

 

[Touch Of Death]

LOL, if it was rational you'd run for cover.

I think what this is pointing to is the question of 'what's in it for me'
Obviously, you throw yourself on a grenade, not a whole lot, since you can't count on it being a dud and you getting to actually hold the Congressional Medal of Honor...

I don't think there is a lot of thought involved.

However, there is that lack of emotion involved in the idea to avoid altruism.
If you don't get a tangible return from it, if you lack the ability to feel emotions, it's for nothing, so you are out the whatever you gave, no return, unlike most people who get a good feeling for themselves from giving, which is for them beneficial.

To take it back to autism, I have talked to a couple of people with this condition (to put it most neutral) and they seem to have great difficulty to reconcile the emotional aspects of their environment and their actions. They simply could not muster the empathy needed to put themselves in someone else's shoes.

I can see where this different outlook on life can advance the thinking on a matter (Temple Grandin is probably right now one of the most high profile Autistics, but a leading capacity in her field of study about animal welfare in the slaughter industry) and I can see where a more 'objective' point of view can advance social thinking.

But I think that is somewhat unique and hard to duplicate for the average person who is in general highly emotional.

The whole idea of jumping on a grenade is that there is no cover.
Sean

 

[granfire]

The whole idea of jumping on a grenade is that there is no cover.
Sean

and that there is no time to reflect

thus irrational.

 

[crushing]

and that there is no time to reflect

thus irrational.

I agree, there wouldn't be any time for reflection. However, before the grenade goes of there may be just enough time to choose to save some people.

 

[granfire]

I agree, there wouldn't be any time for reflection. However, before the grenade goes of there may be just enough time to choose to save some people.

Not sure I would think past 'FUUUUUUUU....'

but that's just me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ah, but Bill.....

Yesterday, glitching through the rot on television to kill a little time, I caught a bunch of people risking their lives to save a moose that had fallen through thin ice. We've all seen footage of people doing the same for dogs, other animals, and each other, under other life-threatening circumstances like fires and raging rapids-to waterfalls.
We're also all familiar with the stories-all true-of men in combat diving on grenades to save their fellow soldiers. I can't find it online, but there's a story that's floated around about a rabid racist-a Klan member-who was killed saving a black child from being hit by a truck.

We-that is to say, human beings-don't do these things because they make us feel good, though they may, or because they're in the best interests of society, though they be.

We do them because we must. Altruism is a fundamental part of human nature.....and one which psycopaths, the autistic, and those with Asperger's can lack. Given her hyper-rationality, and the possibility that she had Asperger's, or some other autistic spectrum "disorder," many odd things about her philosophy begin to make sense.

I do not think we have enough data to argue nature or nurture in this sense. Do we do these things because we are hardwired to do them, or because we have been conditioned to do them. Living in a Judeo-Christian influenced society as (most of us) do, it is hard to escape the philosophic dictums of such religions, which of course include the concept of altruism.

Must we do these things? Perhaps. Is it because we are genetically predisposed to do so, or because our society has trained us to do these things? I do not know.

I would posit two things, however. The first is that I have a notion that societies inherently produce systems which reward behavior that is counter self-interest in favor of societal interest. That is, a truly enlightened selfish person would wish society to continue, because it serves their interests. However, that same person would be highly critical of every aspect of society, and would likewise demand that the parts of it that operate contrary to their own interests be shut down. Society is an organism, and like any organism, desires to survive, expand, and multiply. It is in the best of interests of a society that people occasionally jump on grenades, even when it is not in the best interests of the person who does so. Inducements from hero status and perpetual remembrance to societal caring for surviving family members and a culture of respect to those who selfless sacrifice are the conditioning operants I'm thinking of here.

The second is that conditioning and programming can be undone by conscious, if significant intentional effort.

And if I squint a little at it, I suppose I could even produce an Objectivist-style response to the question of why people risk their lives for what appears to be no reward. With the concept of equitable exchange on the table and the rational understanding that even one's own life is finite, one could make the argument that it is entirely rational for a self-interested person to risk their lives in exchange for a perceived higher value that gave that person joy; such as the idea of knowing they would be a hero to society or that their families would be cared for after they were gone. Just spitballin' here, I'm not an Objectivist, although I played one in college. Didn't get me the girls, though; it wasn't cool then.

 

[Touch Of Death]

and that there is no time to reflect

thus irrational.

Not if your goal was to keep your men alive.
Sean

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not if your goal was to keep your men alive.
Sean

Once you are dead, you can no longer keep your men alive. You have failed.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Once you are dead, you can no longer keep your men alive. You have failed.

In that instance you have succeeded. Future incidences are where your point may come in.
Sean

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not if your goal was to keep your men alive.
Sean

But did you rationally think about that prior to the act or just act out of reflex?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In that instance you have succeeded. Future incidences are where your point may come in.
Sean

Actually, you cannot even know if you have succeeded. You can only hope that your sacrifice worked; you won't be around to observe whether it did or not.

This is why the US military teaches us not to go around leapin' on grenades. In addition to it being your last act, it may not even be effective; as 'smothering' a modern fragmentation grenade may not even be possible - it might be that your bone shards will be what kills your comrades rather than little pieces of red-hot metal.

Immediate action for a grenade is to immediately take a prone position with your feet towards the grenade and your head as far from it as possible. Feet together, of course, if you value your wedding tackle.

If everyone does so - looking to their own self-interest as their highest value - then survival rates tend to be higher. Uncle Sam is really rather unfond of their soldiers, whom they have paid good money to train, becoming something that must instead be scraped off of walls and removed surgically from other soldiers.

Yes, we honor 'heroic' acts, but many of us who are veterans have also heard our Drill Instructors tell us that if we drop the grenade during live throwing exercises, they will be placing our bodies over the blast, not their own.

 

[Touch Of Death]

But did you rationally think about that prior to the act or just act out of reflex?

That would depend on the individual, I suppose. Some of us are just waiting for a grenade to jump on, and others would do it out of reflex... oh, and some of us would stand there slack jawed saying, "Fuuuuuuu....."
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Actually, you cannot even know if you have succeeded. You can only hope that your sacrifice worked; you won't be around to observe whether it did or not.

This is why the US military teaches us not to go around leapin' on grenades. In addition to it being your last act, it may not even be effective; as 'smothering' a modern fragmentation grenade may not even be possible - it might be that your bone shards will be what kills your comrades rather than little pieces of red-hot metal.

Immediate action for a grenade is to immediately take a prone position with your feet towards the grenade and your head as far from it as possible. Feet together, of course, if you value your wedding tackle.

If everyone does so - looking to their own self-interest as their highest value - then survival rates tend to be higher. Uncle Sam is really rather unfond of their soldiers, whom they have paid good money to train, becoming something that must instead be scraped off of walls and removed surgically from other soldiers.

Yes, we honor 'heroic' acts, but many of us who are veterans have also heard our Drill Instructors tell us that if we drop the grenade during live throwing exercises, they will be placing our bodies over the blast, not their own.

Thank you, but the grenade is just a metaphor.

 

[Touch Of Death]

OK... now your child is standing in the way of a Speeding Mack Truck and you run in its path to push them out of the way, so as not to offend modern, military trained, response sensibilities.:mst:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Thank you, but the grenade is just a metaphor.

It's a good one, too. The point being that there is usually more than one way to look at things. What appears on the surface to be a selfless act that accomplishes a worthy goal might actually be capable of being accomplished sans the heroics.

 

[elder999]

Thank you, but the grenade is just a metaphor.

No, it's not.

Lots of stories like that one.

A California-based SEAL who threw his body on a grenade to save his comrades in Iraq will posthumously receive the Medal of Honor

 

[Bill Mattocks]

OK... now your child is standing in the way of a Speeding Mack Truck and you run in its path to push them out of the way, so as not to offend modern, military trained, response sensibilities.:mst:

I cannot imagine why one would push a child out of the way of the speeding truck and then just stand there, waiting to have one's forehead imprinted with the reverse-image of a bulldog. I would think that continuing to run would be a good course of action.

In cases of certain death, one merely has to consult the notion that once one is melded with a radiator, one can no longer see to the safety of one's progeny anymore. In fact, one's hurling to safety may have amounted to a hurling down a sewer grate or into the path of yet another vehicle.

 

[Touch Of Death]

No, it's not.

Lots of stories like that one.

Oh, for God's sake. I'm afraid when discussing self sacrifice, even real cases become a metaphor.:ultracool
Sean

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, it's not.

Lots of stories like that one.

John 15:13 says it all. But it pretty clearly is establishing a norm which is expected to be respected by society. The question a person must ask oneself is whether or not that is a rational reaction.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I cannot imagine why one would push a child out of the way of the speeding truck and then just stand there, waiting to have one's forehead imprinted with the reverse-image of a bulldog. I would think that continuing to run would be a good course of action.

In cases of certain death, one merely has to consult the notion that once one is melded with a radiator, one can no longer see to the safety of one's progeny anymore. In fact, one's hurling to safety may have amounted to a hurling down a sewer grate or into the path of yet another vehicle.

One would just have to make the assumption you weren't pushing your child into the other lanes of traffic, or off a cliff, into a woodchipper, or what ever else you can come up with.
Sean