Does this new scientific research support the Epicurean doctrine of anticipations? The study concluded that human beings are born with the ability to sometimes exhibit a selfless inclination for the well being of others. This seems to be an innate propensity to treat others as having equal value and shares some resemblance to justice. Does anyone agree or disagree?

Below are two links. One is to a short summary of the research and the other links to the scientific publication.

Born Kind? Researchers Prove Altruism Begins In Infancy
https://www.studyfinds.org/benevolent-bab…rs-study-finds/

Altruistic food sharing behavior by human infants after a hunger manipulation

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58645-9

Quote from Cassius

I think it's perilous to think in terms of "good" and "evil" and as to whether we approve or disapprove of the inclination being discussed, but at the basic level of there being any kind of inclination at all, as opposed to there being only a total blank slate, I bet the findings of the article do support a reasonable theory of "anticipations."

However - is this next quote true? Because I would expect a form of anticipations would probably exist in all higher animals, and perhaps in all life forms.

"Kindness towards others at one’s own expense is a uniquely human trait. While some primates have displayed a tendency to help each other out and share resources in certain situations, it is virtually unheard of across the animal kingdom for an animal to give up food he or she needs just because another is in need."

Good points Cassius. I had also seen the grey parrot study and forgot about it. I agree that this behavior is likely not limited to humans although it may be most developed in homo sapiens .

When I consider altruism in the context of the anticipations of friendship and justice along with the evolutionary-like mechanisms of Epicurean physics, it seems like the behavior is fundamental to our social nature because it works better than being selfish.

I may be hopelessly biased by a Christian and virtue ethics-based upbringing and therefore looking for a justification to see life as more than a brutish survival of the fittest. However, it does seem objectively true that we all live better when we have the circumspection to see the well-being of others is sometimes more important than our own.

Quote from Hiram

I'm planning on discussing this actually in my Twentieth message.

I look forward to seeing the message Hiram as I am signed up to your email list.

Quote from Hiram

Though concord not in every wise could then

Begotten be, a good, a goodly part

Kept faith inviolate- or else mankind

Long since had been unutterably cut off,

And propagation never could have brought

The species down the ages.

Lucretius, in De Rerum Natura 5:1015-27

(also, the book The Bonobo and the Atheist is an anthropological account of the origins of morality, for which I wrote a review

http://societyofepicurus.com/the-bonobo-and…st-book-review/)

Display More

Thanks for pointing out the quote from Lucretius. It seems to be an excellent example of the evolutionary-type materialist explanation of how and why we develop social bonds and eventually civilization.

Thanks also for the link to your review of “The Bonobo and the Atheist.” I look forward to reading it.

Lee

Quote from Hiram

(also, the book The Bonobo and the Atheist is an anthropological account of the origins of morality, for which I wrote a review

http://societyofepicurus.com/the-bonobo-and…st-book-review/)

Hiram, I read your review and thought it was very good. In particular the point at the end about “is” vs “ought.”

I completely agree with you that “ought” statements are true and it is misguided to look for a rational first principle for their validity beyond human feelings. We can reason about what we ought to do but will never find a reason for the original moral principles. Those who intellectualize morality as only about “is” statements run the risk of becoming amoral which is unnatural.

Thanks for clarifying this point Elayne. I see the distinction and the need to resolve our behavior back to the experience of pleasure as the primary principal.

I believe I read somewhere (maybe De Witt’s book) how Epicurus taught that giving up one’s life for a friend could be justified/rationalized because living with the pain of choosing one’s life over that of a friend was more painful than death.