10
   

The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 01:26 am
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Quote:
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.


That piece of argument its actually my own not failures...and of course bad or good equals to constructive or destructive...the difference is that the expression is less biased...
But again, there are times in which the development of a Society is more reassured by stopping to catch up and see where you stand...so again there is no linear answer to this questions, which in turn does n´t mean that there is n´t an overall holistic approach to them...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 01:35 am
@failures art,
You know what Fail, honestly, I like your style, (even if we had a wrong start) but often you over simplify and just don´t listen when the argument is not crystal clear...but mind that that alone does n´t make it wrong...you should be more patient.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITED

...that one was about the approach on rape from a no moral perspective and it was addressed to you in general...no particular quote to be made...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 02:18 am
To my view Moral is an instrument to protect reasonably working systems of beliefs operated by a group, and has no other greater purpose then that...it works like an anti-virus against "alien" concepts that might bring prejudice to that very same group...

So what else can we say...

Moral is relative in fine detail, but Absolute in its main protective goal...

Moral is a sort of "social cement" (concrete) which ensures complex tasks productive cooperation in a Darwinian background, through the group expansion of our sense of family belonging, to further develop its systemic operative intrinsic competitiveness and fitness as a unity or a cell.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 03:34 am
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
I never said evolution demands that this happen
I argued that in the philosophy that would apply if the theory of macroevolution holds true, there would be nothing WRONG with killing off the old 'versions'.
Do you agree?


No.

I repeat that you have failed to understand the mechanism by which evolution works. I repeat that evolution is not a philosophical proposition. I repeat that you are attempting to characterize evolution as morally bankrupt.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 03:36 am
@HeroicOvenmitt,
I haven't said that the purpose of this thread is to disprove evolution. I have said that you are attempting to undermine the credibility of evolution on moral grounds.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 04:24 am
@Setanta,
He doesn't want to understand.
The web just gets more tangled as he goes.
I've always thought the moses story made the evolution of law and morals pretty clear, along with the motives for such. But people don't get far when they aren't willing to give moses the credit for being as smart as he was.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 05:37 am
Evolution is not moral, but the evolution of morality is pretty clear. Any society which doesn't have a successfully functional concept of morality is doomed. Any society which successfully puts in place a set of rules by which people can live in relative peace will have a survival advantage over societies which do not have such a system in place. Of course, all societies are subject to the aggression and venality of other, neighboring societies--and it is that which this member mistakes for an evolutionary imperative.
0 Replies
 
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 02:55 pm
Okay, let us go back to the veeeeery top of this debate.
I may have poorly worded it, and if so I am sorry, but there are several indisputable facts that I would like to point out.

1) Hitler used natural selection to justify genocide.
2) Others that I mentioned use natural selection to justify infanticide and rape.

These 2 things are facts. Their arguments DO use natural selection(though in a social manner) - which is inherent in macroevolution - to justify their deeds. This whole time we have been debating if it is possible for philosophy to arise from a scientific theory and that is not at all the issue here. I am guilty, in fact, of misunderstanding my own arguments.

But the simple fact is that whether it arose from the macroevolutionary theory, or if it was simply justified by it, this philosophy has been and is currently in use by some people.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 02:58 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Additionally, I would assert(this is an assertion, not an argument) that later on down the road, this philosophy will become more and more widespread or at the very least, reach the higher echelons of power. That is though, as I said, merely an assertion.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 02:58 pm
You're so full of ****, i can smell it from here. There's nothing more to be said to you. You are hateful, irrational, and not worth giving the time of day.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 03:01 pm
@Setanta,
it's 3:59 here.
Do you disagree with my previous statement? Because it is historically accurate. It is true. There is no discussion to be had on that topic.
Now, I will agree that perhaps this does not flow naturally from the evolutionary theory, you guys have made a strong case for that.
However, whether logical or not, Hitler used the principal of natural selection to justify genocide. The logic of that justification is debatable perhaps, but the fact of it having been used is not.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 03:07 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Your use of the words natural selections for your two examples isn't "natural." Killing may be natural, but the selection process isn't in the two examples you posted.

The definition for natural selection is:
Quote:
a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment


Killing infants/babies is not natural for evolution of organisms; feeding and nurturing is.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 03:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm not arguing what natural selection is.
The fact of the matter is that Hitler saw it as a scientific principal. He also saw a philospohically applicable side to it. Because of this, he believed genocide was natural.

I agree with your argument.
I think the people who use natural selection to justify genocide and infanticide are irrational. There is no rational reason for such actions. But I am no longer arguing if it is morally right under this philosophy, but that there ARE people who see it as being morally right. Hitler was one, there are now others who seek to use the 'solely scientific' principal of natural selection to justify infanticide and rape.
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 04:18 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Hitler didn't apply a survival of the fittest philosophy. He replaced fittest with Aryans. Which is to say he applied survival of the select, not fittest. This is not a philosophy based in evolutionary thought. Your analysis of his actions is flawed.

So, say his professed beliefs specifically cited evolution. If his philosophy didn't apply the proper principles of evolution, it would seem your concern is misplaced. It would be like basing a life philosophy off the game of football, but then having a poor understanding of the sport. Hitler was a Catholic and his actions cited more divine providence than science.

In fact, the opposite of your theory may be true: That the misunderstanding of evolutionary principles leads to inhumane philosophies.

A
R
T
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 04:24 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You're so full of ****, i can smell it from here. There's nothing more to be said to you. You are hateful, irrational, and not worth giving the time of day.


That's not an answer to HO's arguments. It's childish and an insult to A2Kers.

I don't see how people who want to commit serious crimes are going to fail to use evolution theory as a justification irrespective of whether doing so is rational or not. And I don't see how the mass teaching of the subject is not going to increase the number of people taking such a route. Some of them could even imagine they are on a mission.
0 Replies
 
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 06:02 pm
Quote..... And I don't see how the mass teaching of the subject is not going to increase the number of people taking such a route. Some of them could even imagine they are on a mission. Unquote.
Just like religion does
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 06:13 pm
@tenderfoot,
So it's a choice.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 07:51 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I recently became aware of the implications of what a pure Darwinist philosophy entails. This is not to say that all Darwinists believe this to be true, but if someone claims to be a Darwinist and does NOT believe these things, then they are not true Darwinists.

Your use of the term "Dawrinist" seems synonymous with "Boogeyman". You could have saved time creating such a complex argument and just said, "boo!".
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 07:53 pm
@rosborne979,
Same way I interpret his Darwinist; doesn't make much sense at any rate. What's "pure Darwinist philosophy?"
north
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 08:29 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I made no assertion that you would go berserk down the street smashing heads.
But such an action is entirely acceptable in a Darwinian philosophy. Your hesitance to agree with this shows me that you are not a pure Darwinist, as Hitler and those others I quoted were.

Let me rephrase a bit. If Darwinian philosophy is TRUE. Why SHOULDN'T we go down the street smashing heads? Rounding up those that are polluting our gene pools with inferior traits and doing away with them. At the very least we should exile them to a remote place where they will haunt us no more.
Using a Darwinian argument, what is right or wrong with doing this?


hitler wasn't a pure Darwinist

because he tried to control evolution , by control

wereas evolution doesn't control , evolution reacts to an enviroment
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 10:14:55