nicholsmom said:
Before I even get started on this, I want to reassure you that this is not in any way intended to be an attack on any person, including you. The sole purpose of this particular discussion is to demonstrate the contradiction between evolution (of any but the theistic sort) and morality.
Then you're fighting a completely meaningless battle. No-one says that we ought to derive morality from evolution and even if the mechanics of evolution were unjust for civil society (of course they are) then it wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not it was true.
We also do not derive it from PlayDoh. What I asked wasn't from where it wasn't derived, but rather from where it was.
Humanism
Tell me please how this doesn't mean that altruism, empathy and guilt are not derived then from our origins. If they are in our programming (brain/genetics) and input (experiences/thought) then where are they? If they are in our programming and input, then how can we trust them - they are mere constructs - outputs from programming and input. What if our programming were different and our input different? Would we not expect to come up with something different? If we are to accept that, then how can we condemn the response of any man to the equation that determines what is moral? Even the sociopath is therefore moral by his own brain's output.
A sociopath cannot conceive of morality full stop. He can have no consideration for others around him. The concept is thoroughly alien to him. In any case you answer your own question here almost explicitly. If our innate feelings towards specific situations were different then we would obviously reactly differently.
But you seem to think these brain outputs concerning good and evil are trustworthy:
Actually, I don't - but they are an example of moral issues exceeding mere self-interest or a desire to avoid punishment as you suggested (why do you suppose we do punish specific behaviours in the first place?)
But what makes your perception of injustice any better than a sociopath?
A sociopath cannot conceive of justice. Quite literally. The question is incoherent.
So elimination of the worst growth eliminates all growth? If the world is in fact overpopulated, should we not reverse all population growth - the small with the great?
Elimination of the worst growth prevents mass poverty in the third world and also greatly impacts upon asylum seekers and immigrants coming over for new lives (and of consequence having a large amount of children therefore boosting the birth rates in first-world nations).
You didn't, it's true. But the trouble is we have lots of overpopulation to overcome, and voluntary contraception hasn't stopped population growth in the USA, nor has abortion...
You are still imposing an argument upon me. Overpopulation is not a massive concern of mine and I've never seen anyone ever (even those who reference it) suggest mass murder to resolve it.
Yes. Lift the burden of dictatorship and poverty in third-world nations and immigration
everywhere (not just to the USA) will fall.
How long before there isn't plenty of room? What will we do then? Do you suppose that these immigrants don't have adequate access to contraception? That they don't choose their great numbers of children?
That would be an argument that should take place then. Ironically, I have heard that China of late is having a population
decrease or stagnation.
To themselves. They'll effectively commit tribal suicide.
As an aside, our civilization does suborn murder - it's called abortion, but it's still killing off the weakest of human beings for the presumed good of the stronger.
Yawn. Not having this argument here.
Not if we are to learn from Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin.
That's not accurate. Pol Pot's civilization didn't last as long as Hitler's and Stalin's (and he did do long lasting damage to his society) but it wasn't actually legal for citizens to murder others. You did not actually have the right in NSDAP Germany or Stalin's Russia to murder anyone you chose at random without consequence. Allowing that would be the death of civilization.
They murdered their own people by the truck-load, but their countries continued on. What about modern day China, killing babies when women try to violate the forced contraception, killing Christian protesters, wiping out millions, and yet they persist. I think you will have to look around you, and in history to find that this assertion is without foundation.
Again: Not what I was referring to. Totalitarianism can go on for a very long time if not sufficiently opposed but a society that allows in its constitution the right to murder immediately will destroy itself. It would be the ultimate in literal nihilism.
Certainly a culture that only murders the weak and rapes the women with the best genetics will thrive in intelligence, strength and heartiness. It is pure logic.
That culture would succumb to complete thuggery. All of the children would be taught a disgusting parody of Darwinism and taught about nothing more than abject survival over the arts, culture and intellectual pursuits. Think of the necessary totalitarianism and collectivism that society would have before insisting that it would produce a new transhumanistic enlightenment.
But your disgust at my logical reasoning is not worthy of the effort of typing the words. This has nothing to do with collectivism and everything to do with a species evolved from lesser life forms.
It has everything to do with collectivism. It is the only way any of your hypothetical propositions could ever happen. The government would have to take control of everyone's lives and decree who must die on the basis of some ridiculous fear of overpopulation and genetic superiority. It would be an abject dystopia. Why would anyone support that?
It entails simple logic and rational progression from evolution (apart from the God-directed sort) to evolution.
I've said it repeatedly and I'll repeat it again. We do not derive morality from evolution. I've never met anyone who says that we should.
It shows the complete inadequacy of perceived morality toward that end, and in face, shows how moral behaviors (as defined by religious folks - "murder is wrong" and "rape is wrong" and the like)
Yet I say those things as well. I say it influenced by Libertarianism, Humanism, Socialism and I have always said it. Millions of non-religious people across the world say it. Do not misrepresent it as the exclusive property of the religious.
are actually antithetical to evolutionary progress of the species toward healthier, smarter, stronger, and generally more survivable individuals.
That's not what evolution entails.
If we want something other than healthier/smarter/stronger/more-survivable, then we must ask ourselves why. Why should evolutionary processes cause our species to want something contrary to our further evolution?
Evolution does not mandate our mind on all things. We have gained sentience and can act contrary and outside of our survival instincts and indeed have advanced to the pivotal point where many of us do not need to worry about survival.
I'm glad to hear it, but I'm puzzled by it. Why should an evolved being be concerned with things contrary to the evolutionary progress toward healthier/smarter/stronger?
Because I am sentient. I am observent of things
outside of the biological theory relating to the human origins.
The whole point of this conversation is that it isn't all you need to say. I can tell you why I value these things, but you have not yet provided a reason for your valuing them. You value them because you do?
Because I find them interesting, funny and thought-provoking. I don't need to say anymore than that and I'd be impressed if you could come up with anything more than that yourself (not withstanding some inane reference to the creator endowing you with art appreciation).
Can you provide historical evidence for that position? I mean something that counters mine?
I'm sorry, are you doubting the proposition that the United States (or any first-world country for that matter) would suddenly become infinitely more dangerous if both rape and murder were legalised?
What's wrong with anarchy? Isn't that the evolutionary model?
No it isn't (hence social species) and if it was I wouldn't care. I don't derive morality from the evolutionary model.
But you forget that their cultures include multi-child families. Multiple children is their desire. Offering them contraception is like offering them poison. They won't take it voluntarily in any quantity that is likely to affect overpopulation in any significant way.
Then we work to alleviate the suffering that brings. It is no coincidence that birth rates in first-world countries are significantly lower than third-world countries. Uplift people from poverty and you will get results.
Right. To an atheist, death is non-existence. See, my morality comes from the Christian notion of the soul. The soul has a beginning but no end. Contraception denies a soul existence; murder just shortens the carnal portion of that existence, but doesn't shorten or eliminate it.
Yes, a shame you might add that I don't have such a similar loathing or disregard of life.
One more point on this: can you see how cultures that survive in spite of extreme poverty value multiple children even more? But clearly you think that eliminating the poverty would eliminate this valuation. I and my 6 children beg to differ.
So because you have six children (a rarity in first-world countries) that means that the birth rates statistics don't mean anything.
I and the vast community of home-schooling moms who have an average of 6-8 kids (yep, loads of them have 10 or more) each beg to differ. Haven't you seen "Cheaper By The Dozen" ? The premise of that show was a real study done by a real man in the efficiency of larger families as compared to smaller ones. It is far more efficient to raise many children who can benefit from hand-me-downs and help with raising food and other necessary chores, than to raise only one or two. Those in poor countries know this too. It is only selfishness of adults that has blinded us in this country to this fact of life.
Whether or not this is true has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that the birth rate is much smaller in first-world countries than third-world countries.
They help to perpetuate the misery of the citizens within that nation and hinder aid and rebuilding efforts. Isn't it obvious?
Wanna take that back?
Or provide some counter evidence?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment
Then explain to me why we evolved from the very successful apes Or why anything evolved from the very successful roach, the very successful rat, the very successful plankton, bacterium, etc.
The most successful life form on the planet is bacteria. It can live effectively
anywhere on earth and makes all other species their host and have us rely upon them. Are you now going to argue that is our goal?
God provided His Son to die a most horrible and painful death upon the cross so that any who wanted to be could be saved from Hell (which we, each one, deserves for our choice to sin). That is mercy tempering the justice of Hell. But that's another topic...
Of course it is. But I'll bring it up again whenever I see you displaying your sanctimonious tendencies regarding your own morality. I'll make note that you endorse the recognition of a human sacrifice to absolve oneself of all personal responsibility nonetheless.
lain: Is this how you've managed to keep claiming that Christians won't answer your questions, by failing to read the responses? Wow. Just wow.
