The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

1 - Because it qualify´s !
It distinguishes competence from incompetence...

2 - There´s no Good or Bad...there´s forces of construction and destruction...
Protective and expansive behaviour...it is n´t that different from cold and heat...Unfortunately most of us tend to compartmentalize so much that we can bring a thousand names up to explain more or less the same phenomena as soon as the medium by which it manifests changes...

3 - You wonder why should we not kill people as one pleases ?
Its not for any divine or earthly Moral reason, but instead, the protection of Social Trust simply reassures that cooperation between groups can continue to sustain an optimal level of development of the overall system...one could even be speaking on conservation of energy in a network that the same principle would apply, and guess what, in that field we don´t call it "moral" do we ?

This is not actually under the fallacy that you proposed it is. Though I certainly see your reason for saying it is. My argument is that the philosophy I called Darwinism - I believe someone else already called me out on this - is simply put the most logical philosophy that one would adopt given they believe in Macroevolution.
Again, I will restate that I am not at all arguing against the scientific theory of macroevolution in this thread. I am saying that there is a philosophy that - should you believe macroevolution - it is certainly logical to adopt. This philosophy is what I am calling Darwinism, at this point simply because it saves about a second's worth of typing out macroevolution. Since this semantic issue continues to arise, I apologize for using the terms Darwinist and Darwinism and will go back to using evolutionist.

You say that social development occurs separately from the genetic evolution. And you certainly back it up with an impressive concept(memes). But that is not what I am arguing. My argument, I will again say, is that the philosophy that is most logical to accept if you accept macroevolution is the same one Hitler used to justify genocide and the others to justify and even promote rape and infanticide as natural occurances. If they are natural occurances, there is no way to say they are right or wrong.
Your arguments are strong, but they are tangential to my arguments, not quite the same topic/issue.
Thank you very much for being level-headed and rational in your arguments.

I agree.
So would you consider a self-evident fact to be a Law? Such as the Law of Gravity or Causality? If so, you espouse a moral absolute, which would not be relative to culture.
If not, then it is not self-evident. Something cannot be self-evident most of the time. It is an all or nothing proposition.

Failures, I must say of all the people who have posited arguments contrary to my own, you are certainly one of the most logical.
You make a good case against my statement that "if morals are relative, then there is no right or wrong." But I think I can clear up my meaning a bit. I said there is no right or wrong in a morally relative system. My intention was that there is no absolute right or wrong. There would be many rights and wrongs on a single issue in a morally relative system.
What's at stake here is really the matter of whether moral rights and wrongs are facts or opinions. In a morally relative system, you cannot assert an absolute(which implies fact) right or wrong. It is right to you, but wrong to another. If it were absolutely right, then it would be right for the other person as well. In a morally relative system, right and wrong would be matters of opinion and therefore, subject to change at any time. This is not right and wrong, this is whim, fancy, expression, etc.

"It's false to assert that belief in moral relativity means that a person is unequipped with any moral standard of right and wrong."
Fair enough, but everyone would be equipped with beliefs that may contradict one another. For instance, one may believe it to be morally acceptable to steal for survival while another may not.
Under all this, I think the arguments we are making can be boiled down to is right and wrong a matter of fact or opinion? Would you agree?

As for the arcade, that dang Time Crisis 4 makes survival pretty freakin hard.
I asked what makes survival a good thing and you gave me good examples of the principal of continuation of the species. But why? That is, why do we strive to continue the species through adoption, childbirth, etc? Why is survival a goal of living things?

What changes in "moral" is the speech not the principles...
Moral´s task is always to preserve the system when clashing with other one...So independently of the system moral always play the same role with the same rules...

Your theory: The belief in evolution intuitively leads to a philosophy that condones (or could specifically endorse) infanticide, rape, and genocide.

A better approach would be to take the above acts and analyze the shared philosophies of those who do them.

I.e. - What common philosophical elements exist amongst rapists?

You may see memetics as being tangential, but your question at it's core is the exploration of how a philosophy originates. Being that philosophies that condone rape, infanticide, and genocide predate evolutionary theory by multiple millennium, it is more logical to conclude that the origin of such ideas are unrelated to Darwin et al.

Every moral standard is a meme, and a moral philosophy being a collection of said memes would require the successful copying and passing of the memes themselves. Unless you can demonstrate that believers in evolution pass rape, genocide, etc memes more than evolutionary skeptics, then your theory is busted.

I think the exploration of said question would actually yield the opposite result. I think you'd find more successful rape and genocidal memes in theological moral systems.

A
R
T

You want a meaningful concrete answer to an abstract question...why does Nature evolve, is it ? From simple to complex ? How about the second law of thermodynamics...IT QUALIFY´s us to deal with ever bigger amounts of work seams good to me...but maybe it is to much abstract for you...

so to the first point, it qualifies an animal as what?
Deserving of survival?

2 and 3 I will answer at once, as they are closely related.

"the protection of Social Trust simply reassures that cooperation between groups can continue to sustain an optimal level of development of the overall system..."

You argue that we are under an obligation of some kind to not harm others to allow for the continuation and betterment of the social unit, which could be a tribe, city, or species. Why is this a good thing? This goal is simply survival(and progression) of the species, therefore my first question of why survival is good has still not been answered.

forces of construction and destruction... that's an interesting thought. So under this concept, Hitler's actions were reprehensible because they were destructive and took away from the ability of the species to progress and develop. Would that be accurate under this thinking?

There´s no fundamental difference between genes and memes but in the medium by which they operate, is like software and hardware...the purpose is the same, that is, to conserve information that as proven useful.

Solvent, not evident. I can't assert that any moral is self-evident. In other words, if your moral authority is a god or gods and the moral commandment is to rape, the individual is forced to accept or reject. A god, even with absolute authority can't force a moral that will be rejected. Similarly, a god can't make 1 = 3. The development of moral systems is less likely to be about divine commandment, and more about values humans have already developed by eh successful passing (and mutation) of memes.

No person exists outside of ALL moral standards, since part of human development is the formation of social patterns. If there is any formation of morals, then moral declarations of right and wrong exist for the individual. So to say that moral relativity means there is no right and wrong, applies only to being that doesn't exist.

A
R
T

"Being that philosophies that condone rape, infanticide, and genocide predate evolutionary theory by multiple millennium, it is more logical to conclude that the origin of such ideas are unrelated to Darwin et al."
Agreed that rape, infanticide and genocide predate Darwin. But my argument is again not when these arose, but are they condoned under a philosophy that is founded on the same principals found in evolutionist thinking? The answer is yes.
I am not saying that all who believe in evolution are therefore rapists, etc. No, they are still aware of a moral obligation not to do such things. However, the ones that commit such acts can easily justify them in a philosophy derived from evolution.

No, that is only deliberately vague...

First of all what is it specifically that you criticise in Hitler ?
Second, war for instance, sometimes proves useful...just like a fire that cleans up the forest floor time to time...so its no that easy...it imply´s timing...there are moments in which "heat" and "expansion" are needed for the overall development of the system...Hitler to my view had no criteria...he was simply destructive without purpose...no "energy gain" in there...

You probably already know that there is a very good Darwinian explanation for rape...again is not about moral, but about serving or not serving a useful purpose...
Rape numbers are kept by nature at a low level because rape is a less good technique for conserving genes once it only proves useful in very extreme rare conditions...nevertheless a certain number of potential rapist must endure if to assure a certain particular group survival in the brink of extinction can go on even when ostracised by the majority of other enemy groups...Nature protects diversity and often prevents the total extinction of a genotype, unless its usefulness as dropped below a certain level...its actually well know that at war times the number of rapes ramps up...

Do you understand why discussing the origin of these things is relevant? Specific moral features define a philosophy. If you assert that evolutionary thought correlates to a philosophy that condones x,y, and z, then you might be omitting the true relationship these things have within our society.


But they aren't. I don't understand where you're drawing this conclusion from.


No. You're asserting that some philosophy of "Darwinism" creates some sort of dilemma for those who believe in evolution.

This is false.


Ah. Okay. You see, here's the disconnect. The reason I'm not raping and killing around the clock is not due to any obligation. I don't do these things, because I have no desire; I'm not driven to do any of them.

Why don't you rape people? I doubt your answer is because you're following some sense of duty originating because you were told not to.


Dude, if you're raping up a storm and killing for personal gain then later asked why you did it, it doesn't really matter if they give credit to evolution or you tell everyone that your dog told you to do it.

We need not fascinate ourselves with the insane motives of the mentally unsound. People do not rape and kill on the the foundation of logic. It really doesn't matter if they think life is natural or supernatural in origin.

A
R
T

yay, I finally caught up to the end of the thread!

"No person exists outside of ALL moral standards, since part of human development is the formation of social patterns. If there is any formation of morals, then moral declarations of right and wrong exist for the individual. So to say that moral relativity means there is no right and wrong, applies only to being that doesn't exist."

The issue in this is that 'existing for the individual' means it varies from person to person, and is therefore an opinion. Again, in such a system there are many contradictory views on issues that a society would face. If you accept that there is no objective, absolute right and wrong, then there is no reason to accuse Hitler of wrongdoing.
But you did address this earlier when you said there is not good or bad, but construction and destruction. I believe your implication was that destructive behavior such as Hitler's costs the society as a whole and should therefore be avoided.
What this says, in essence, is that Hitler's behavior was bad because it hurt society as a whole. If it is true that Hitler's behavior was bad because it hurt society, then anything else that hurts society would be bad, right? If the objective is societal growth, then anything that prevents or halts that is bad. Your argument for construction v destruction is then just a renaming of good and bad.

Your statement about 1=3, if this is a reference to the trinity, that is a completely different topic that gives even the most apt theologians migraines. If it is simply an expression of God's inability to make 2 things that don't equal each other eqaul, then it is merely an argument of semantics, is it not? Like "God can't make a 4 sided triangle." This is simply an argument that says a triangle is by definition, 3 sides. If it has a 4th side it is no longer a triangle. The simple answer is, yes. God did make a triangle with a 4th side. We know it as a square.

I do appreciate your arguments. They are very thought provoking and challenging to me. But where I am it is 1:55 in the morning and I need to sleep. I look forward to resuming this once the sun wakes back up.

Private Message to Failure's Art:

You can get good prices on Red Bull if you buy it in bulk. This will help if you plan on staying up to debate with HeroicOvenmitt.

EDITED

You probably already know that there is a very good Darwinian explanation for rape...again is not about moral, but about serving or not serving a useful purpose...
Rape numbers are kept by nature at a low level because rape is a less good technique for conserving genes once it only proves useful in very extreme rare conditions...nevertheless a certain number of potential rapist must endure if to assure a certain particular group survival in the brink of extinction can go on even when ostracised by the majority of other enemy groups...Nature protects diversity and often prevents the total extinction of a genotype, unless its usefulness as dropped below a certain level...its actually well know that at war times the number of rapes ramps up...the very same people who would never do it in normal circumstances

As usual Fail, you writing is very clean, but often ill informed and shallow...

Framing morals as either opinion or fact is a waste of time. Morals only exist in social interaction. Being that all beings interact, morals are not only present but being applied.

In short: This isn't theoretical, life is an active experiment.

So whether you believe your (and other's) morals are fact or opinion, if you are executing them, they will either fail or succeed. "Good" morals are probably better measured in their successful execution and reproduction.

So if my moral standard is based on opinion or not is irrelevant. Does it work?

Also, I have a no Hitler rule in debate. He's off limits. He's the most overused and useless example in all of human history. I'm tempted to explain to you why your analysis of him is factually incorrect, but please assist me here. I'm trying to avoid rhetorical cliches in 2011. No more argumentum ad Hitlerum.

The "1=3" was in no way related to the concept of the trinity. Three was the first number in my head. It could have been any number. It is not an argument on semantics. The bit about triangles and squares is not semantics either. It's moving the goalposts. If a triangle with four sides is a square, and a square is not a triangle, then having a square and a triangle is having two triangles. Speaking to your objections on moral relativity in regards to no right or wrong, then if geometric definitions are relative to each person, then there can be no such things as shapes. You've created a paradox.

That's language on holiday, and it's impossible to navigate. More so when you consider we are not talking about shapes, but social development of some theoretical philosophy which you say creates a dilemma. Mind you, you assert this dilemma. Who is claiming to actually have this dilemma?

A
R
T

I have some Red Bull. Funny you mention it. Perhaps you're not familiar with my odd hours, but I work 7p-7a. It's noon for me right now.

A
R
T

You didn't quote me... You quoted Ovenmitt. I'm not sure what you're replying to.

A
Reply, who?
T