The truth I was referring in the previous comment is Scientific understanding.
I don’t understand what these words mean to you.
Something like a reimagining of what life could be for the human race and the commitment to implement that vision as expressed by the people telling the story and living the story.
I still don’t understand. What does “fidelity to the truth” mean in the context of ideology? Science doesn’t tell you what your values should be.
What does “fidelity to the truth” mean in the context of ideology?
Think about a SF movie like Gravity, fidelity to truth is making sure the details are coherent with the way reality works, with the way we currently understand reality to work.
Science doesn’t tell you what your values should be.
In a certain regard this is true. Science doesn’t tell you if you should be a sociopath of a pro-social person. However, once the pro-social stance has been selected, science can point at what values have a track record of providing this pro-social outcome. Cooperation, compassion, forgiveness… this have documented outcomes. There are scientific studies regarding what is conducive to happiness and meaning. There is the whole field of eudaimonia studies that is clearly pointing towards specific values. It doesn’t tell you how to prioritise them but it sure points at what they should be.
Greed, altho a value to some… is not something that has pro-social outcomes (not to my knowledge).
fidelity to truth is making sure the details are coherent with the way reality works
So, a simpler word would be “realistic”.
Science doesn’t tell you if you should be a sociopath of a pro-social person.
That’s an interesting choice of values.
science can point at what values have a track record of providing this pro-social outcome. Cooperation, compassion, forgiveness… this have documented outcomes.
Links?
Greed, altho a value to some… is not something that has pro-social outcomes (not to my knowledge)
Then the success of capitalism must be a complete mystery to you.
Prosocial behavior, or “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another”,is a social behavior that “benefit[s] other people or society as a whole,” “such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering.”
Prosocial behavior, or “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another”
That is altruistic behavior. However I asked for the definition of a “pro-social outcome”.
Let’s say there was some change as the result of some action. How can I figure out whether that change is a “pro-social outcome” or is not a “pro-social outcome”?
If “greed” is defined as something like “behavior intended to increase one’s own wealth”, it seems that as long as a behavior has only one intent (which may not be the case), greed and “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another” are mutually exclusive by definition. However, if you care about whether it benefits others regardless of intent to do so, the answer may be quite different.
I don’t understand what these words mean to you.
I still don’t understand. What does “fidelity to the truth” mean in the context of ideology? Science doesn’t tell you what your values should be.
Think about a SF movie like Gravity, fidelity to truth is making sure the details are coherent with the way reality works, with the way we currently understand reality to work.
In a certain regard this is true. Science doesn’t tell you if you should be a sociopath of a pro-social person. However, once the pro-social stance has been selected, science can point at what values have a track record of providing this pro-social outcome. Cooperation, compassion, forgiveness… this have documented outcomes. There are scientific studies regarding what is conducive to happiness and meaning. There is the whole field of eudaimonia studies that is clearly pointing towards specific values. It doesn’t tell you how to prioritise them but it sure points at what they should be.
Greed, altho a value to some… is not something that has pro-social outcomes (not to my knowledge).
So, a simpler word would be “realistic”.
That’s an interesting choice of values.
Links?
Then the success of capitalism must be a complete mystery to you.
Start here:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/
Wouldn’t be more useful to just provide a valid counter example instead of mocking me?
The success of capitalism is a valid counterexample.
non sequitur.
Just because you view capitalism as a form of success it does not follow that greed has pro-social outcomes.
What exactly is “pro-social outcome”? Can you define it?
Prosocial behavior, or “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another”,is a social behavior that “benefit[s] other people or society as a whole,” “such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering.”
That is altruistic behavior. However I asked for the definition of a “pro-social outcome”.
Let’s say there was some change as the result of some action. How can I figure out whether that change is a “pro-social outcome” or is not a “pro-social outcome”?
If “greed” is defined as something like “behavior intended to increase one’s own wealth”, it seems that as long as a behavior has only one intent (which may not be the case), greed and “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another” are mutually exclusive by definition. However, if you care about whether it benefits others regardless of intent to do so, the answer may be quite different.
google says that the definition of greed is “intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.”
Replace “behavior intended to increase one’s wealth” with that definition, then. Everything else I said still stands.