spendius wrote:I figured that out when,despite the fact that I knew I responded positively to large white breasts,I couldn't work out why I responded as positively as I did.I must have developed an axiomatic structure of ethics based on an early experience which I was not consciously aware of.Probably a much repeated experience.It certainly got me thinking.
No, that wouldn't be an ethical imperative, and wouldn't have anything to do with ethics at al really.
spendius wrote:If I do I am up for having it out.Isn't that the trick Freud used.Trying to frighten the well brought up young ladies by telling them that they unconsciously wished to have......fill in as required.
I see my "unconscious" remark has struck a silly chord. You're reading a lot of stuff innto it that isnt really there, I only meant to say that you didn't seem quite aware of all of your premises, and that many people go trough life without analysing the foundations of their ethics.
spendius wrote:Thanks for the "seem" though.
It was my impression is all.
spendius wrote:Quote:You conclude that since evolution tends to produce, over generations, whichever behavioural biases are most conductive to spread the genetic material of the individual exhibiting them trough the population, it follows from the theory of evolution that one should do anything in ones power to spread ones genetic material, irrespective of other considerations.
It seems reasonable in some ways.That is quite a complex question.Many a man has wrestled with that in moments of high excitement.
See, you're doing it again. Read the "quotes" below, make sure you understand what I mean by them, and let me know if you disagree.
I just wrote:An ethical imperative can only ever follow from another ethical imperative.
I then wrote:An ethical imperative can be considered self evident.
This amounts to positing it as an axiom. All ethical imperatives which are not axioms are deducted from such axioms, though ofthen in conjunction with postulates about how the world works.
(Since people aren't always too concerned with which of their more fundamental ethical imperatives follow from which, ethical systems are sometimes founded on circular structures of imperatives, where it is arbitrary which ones are the axioms, and which follow from them.)
Finally I wrote:An ethical imperative also can follow from another ethical imperative in conjunction with a statement of fact, such as:
Ethical premise: One ought to smell awfully.
Postulate: Not bathing causes one to smell awfully.
Conclusion: One ought not to bathe.
Notice though, that without the ethical premise, the conclusion does not follow.
That is what I see you doing with respect to evolution. You posit a statement of fact, that natural selection would tend to favor such and such behaviour, and then attempt to conclude with an ethical imperative, without making clear your ethical premise.
(You need to posit an ethical imperative in order to deduct one, but we've been over that.)
(Oh, and all I meant to convey with the "unconscious" remark was that I didn't think you were omitting stuff on purpouse.)
spendius wrote:Quote:That only follows from the theory of evolution in conjunction with the inference of intent and the imperative to function as intended, both of which I and most other atheists would reject.
I'm not sure what you mean.There is a natural urge to spread one's genetic material,as you call it,far and wide.There is also a natural urge to lead a peaceful existence.Are these "intents".(Answer-they can be but you have to stay on the move in comfort.)
You are concluding with an ethical imperative, but you do not posit one as a premise in plain text. That makes your argument a non-sequitur.
Instead of leaving it at that, I took it upon myself to try to deduct from your conclusion and postulate what that premise might have been. I now have two of your arguments to work with:
spendius wrote:Ethical premise: *UNKNOWN*
Postulate: Natural selection tends to favour such and such behaviour.
Conclusion: We ought to behave in such and such a manner.
In order for this to follow your ethical premise would have to be something like
Ethical premise: One ought to behave in such a manner as to be favored by natural selection.
I reject every variety of that premise.
spendius wrote:Ethical premise *UNKNOWN*
Postulate: "There is a natural urge to spread one's genetic material,as you call it,far and wide"
Conclution: One ought to "spread one's genetic material,as you call it,far and wide"
That only follows if Your ethical premise is omething in the order of:
Ethical premise: One ought to follow ones natural urges.
I reject that ethical imperative. Perhaps if you inserted a bunch of caveats, some people might be inclined to agree with it, but those caveats would simultaneously make the thrust of your argument moot.
If you just state your ethical premises clearly when you make an argument you intend to conclude with an ethical imperative, I won't have to do all this guesswork in order to contend those premises.
spendius wrote:No missing link you mean.Where is the transition from animal to man.When is "that" an animal and when is "that" a man.I'd look pretty stupid calling IDers loonies and barmpots unless I could answer that under serious scrutiny.
I consider one to be a subsection of the other.
