|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
24th February 2018, 12:36 AM | #1561 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
This link doesn’t contradict the argument. Evolution favours traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce. It endows social species’ with qualities which include bonding, cooperation, reciprocity and awareness of the social rules of the group. These innate qualities form the basis of our morality.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
24th February 2018, 01:14 AM | #1562 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I don’t understand what are you saying.
First of all, I don’t know if you realize that the UDHR defends an egalitarian system of rights. If you are defending the UDHR you are defending an egalitarian system of collaboration. You seem recognizing that such a kind of collaboration doesn’t exist among animals neither in the first millenniums of human history. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law. If egalitarian collaboration, as the basis of moral, were a natural law it needn’t any supplementary enforcement. Natural laws execute themselves without any voluntary effort. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law. I ask myself if you have read Darwin’s quote that I have put in my previous comment. I repeat it: “there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life”. I insist, the struggle for life exists at every level of life, species and individual included. Of course, collaboration between individuals also exists in Nature, but not at higher levels as species and not egalitarian. This is a strong indication that your egalitarian collaboration, that is to say moral, is not a biological law. Moreover, egalitarian collaboration doesn’t exist in the contemporary world neither. The incomplete list of current conflicts that I linked in my previous comment is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration is not a fact neither a biological law. Neither a social law, but a moral aspiration of many human beings. Of course that it is not a moral aspiration of many others. If the evolutionary advantages of a politic/moral system would be without discussion we wouldn’t need to discuss it. In the facts, the superiority for survival of (relative) egalitarian societies is not warranted by historical facts. Thus has not only happen in the past but some current egalitarian societies have regressed towards totalitarian regimes and notwithstanding formal claims of our respected leaders there is not any guarantee that the whole humanity cannot regress under adverse circumstances. Naive confidence in linear progress has been refuted many times and everywhere. Conclusion: moral requirements of egalitarian collaboration are not sustainable in natural laws. They are a different kind of exigences that we call moral and need a constant effort of human will to implement them. Biology has nothing to do with freedom. History do. |
24th February 2018, 01:29 AM | #1563 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
Thank you Tommy
You left out qualities like deception, cheating, killing, stealing etc. These are to the advantage of the individual, never the group. The good of the group only becomes relevant when it is to the advantage of the individual. Google "tactical deception in primates". The individual will always try to cheat the group. Cheating might come at a cost, as a cheater caught at cheating will face repercussions from the group, but this only drives evolution to find a better cheater so as not to be caught. Competition "between tribes" and the "advantages of being members of a group" arises as a secondary result due to competition and natural selection between individuals and only if it advantages the individual. Then why do social animals, more than any other, cheat and deceive each other instead of always cooperating. Cooperating will always be better for the group. |
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
24th February 2018, 01:45 AM | #1564 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
Evolution and natural selection in social animals will favor individuals which are better at cooperating withing sight of the group and at the same time better at concealing deception from the group.
Those are conflicting morals. Just look at people. |
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
24th February 2018, 02:20 AM | #1565 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
Originally Posted by David Mo
|
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
24th February 2018, 03:05 AM | #1566 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
Morality developed in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups, important because humans are social animals. We primates will always try to cheat, which is why justice systems were developed. Primarily we need the advantages of group living and place a lot of importance in law and order.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
24th February 2018, 03:13 AM | #1567 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
24th February 2018, 03:14 AM | #1568 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
No, I already explained why and how, more than once.
Yes, I already explained why and how it works and how it evolved to advantage the individual, not the group. Yes, I already explained why and how it works. Are you sure you are still talking about evolution and natural selection? |
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
24th February 2018, 03:24 AM | #1569 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal. The Hominidae includes gorillas and the common chimpanzee, which do not live in social groups based solely on altruistic and reciprocal behavior. The same is true of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not all social groups are solely altruistic and reciprocal. So we don't need to live in solely altruistic and reciprocal groups to live in groups.
Here is how an authoritarian social group function: # A leader # A sub-group of people (in power) she/he is dependent on to maintain authority within the overall group of people. # The majority of people who are suppressed and used in favor of the leader and the sub-group of people in power. This dynamic can be observed in the common chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
24th February 2018, 03:57 AM | #1570 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
Altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the individual's self interest, nothing to do with the good of the species or tribe at all. Any selfless individual, acting for the good of the group and not itself, will be selected against and eliminated from the population.
That is true in all mammals, the exception being social insects who share the same genes. |
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
24th February 2018, 04:20 AM | #1571 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
|
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
24th February 2018, 06:15 PM | #1572 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
Sigh!
It is in "the individual's self-interest" to be a member of a functioning cohesive group, because for any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic, reciprocal group outweigh the benefits of individualism. Those who do not conform to the acceptable mores (i.e. morality) of the group will be removed from the group or otherwise dealt with. Where do you think morality comes from, divine revelation? LOL |
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
24th February 2018, 06:23 PM | #1573 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal certainly, but Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and Bonobo's are...to name three.
“Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”. Frans de Waal |
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
24th February 2018, 09:28 PM | #1574 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,146
|
|
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski |
|
24th February 2018, 09:37 PM | #1575 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
24th February 2018, 10:42 PM | #1576 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
Here is what I did, I googled Frans de Waal and followed the trial to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008...anzee-politic/
Quote:
Now it is your turn: Explain that using science and please cite a general study of the power and group dynamics in chimpanzee groups. In general it should answer such questions as: Do chimpanzees only exhibit non-violent behavior? Is the group behavior totally flat(no leader) or does a given group have a leader? If a non-flat and non-cooperative group structure, which in part relies on violence, can be observed, then what are the benefits of being a leader in such a group and how does that relate to the theory of evolution? Can similar group behavior be observed in humans? Are all in-group behaviors positive or do humans also use power and authority to achieve benefit and not just punish "social misfit" behavior? If a low ranking member of a group can do "bad" behavior within the group, can a high ranking member of a group do "bad" behavior within the group, which is not punished, but rather gives benefits? Tassman, try to answer these questions. |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 12:01 AM | #1577 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Frans de Waal is one of the strongest supporters of a definite line of continuity between animals and humans. He defends that some cultural and moral elements are present in animal species, specially in big primates. Empathy and primary altruism in the case of morality. However, he emphasizes that these disperse features doesn’t constitute a true morality because other specific human features —mainly culture and language— are absent. Morality is an specific human feature linked to an abstract language and the possibility to go beyond natural determinism.Asking whether animals possess morality is almost like asking if they have a culture, a policy or a language. If we take the human phenomenon as a model in its entirety, it is evident that it is not. However, if we divide the most relevant human skills into their various components, we will see that some are recognizable in other animals. (Frans de Waal: Bien natural, p. 270. Translation from Spanish is mine. I am sorry, I am not the English original.) Therefore you can say that nature puts the conditions that make possible morality but not that nature “predeterminates” morality. Human altruism doesn’t exist in any other species. The UDHR is only possible in the context of history and freedom. In the same way, nature puts some conditions to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not “predeterminates” Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a terrible outcome of human psychological, political and historical conditions. |
25th February 2018, 12:05 AM | #1578 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
Sigh2!
We have been over this, I'm not understanding you. The interests of the group comes secondary to the individuals self interest, it is a secondary effect and arises only because the self interest of the individual alines with that of the group. The individual is exploiting the group for it's own benefit. It is not a zero sum game though, both the group and the individual benefit. Since there is no mechanism for evolution and natural selection to operate on the group level, cooperation evolved solely for the benefit of the individual. Since evolution operates on the individual level, not the group, any individuals putting the interests of group above their own will be selected against and removed from the population. Natural selection guarantees that the individual will cheat the group/members of the group as often as it can get away with it. How ridiculous, divine revelation, really? How do you come up with this? Literally everything I have written to you explains how morals originate due to evolution and natural selection. The mistake you are making seems to be in assuming that the interests of the group supersede those of the individual. That is impossible. It cannot happen, ever, not via evolution and natural selection, not in primates. You are the one who mistakenly thinks you can devise a single morality based on evolution and natural selection, is this correct? Looks like you decided "cooperation with the group is good" and "putting your self interest above that of the group is bad." If so, you are dead wrong. Science clearly and unambiguously shows that this is not true and in fact cannot be true. The individual will apply and operate under a different set of morals withing the group than it would on it's own. This is so clearly true that I have no idea how you can even question it. |
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
25th February 2018, 12:21 AM | #1579 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
25th February 2018, 12:26 AM | #1580 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
Male Homo sapiens also cause the death of others. So what’s your point? In neither instance does such behaviour nullify that we are social species. Nor does it eliminate the demonstrable fact that altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour. Frans de Waal and others view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. This is evident both with regard to the observed behavior of our primate cousins and the biological fact humans and other primates possess a part of the brain known as the ‘ventromedial pre-frontal cortex’. It has been demonstrated experimentally...due to cases of brain injury to this region...that this part of the brain is the very part of the brain responsible for our capacity to engage in ethical decision making. When that part of the brain is damaged, ethical decision making is manifestly impaired. In other words, we have an organic and biological basis as well as an evolved social basis for our capacity to act as compassionate, moral beings.
Or do you prefer the view that every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and only exhibits altruism as a means to a selfish end? .Is this what you believe, what DO you believe?
Quote:
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
25th February 2018, 12:31 AM | #1581 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
25th February 2018, 12:53 AM | #1582 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
It is a primary effect. No group involvement = no benefits to the individual.
We are by nature a species that lives in groups.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Social species are genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals. Humans can be considered a social species because we tend to live in communities instead of segregating ourselves as individuals and dispersing to unoccupied territory. In many species, a family unit, meaning parents and their immediate dependent young, groups together and follows particular guidelines of interaction. However, this does not qualify as a society. A society must be composed of more individuals than are contained in a family unit." https://www.encyclopedia.com/science...social-animals |
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
25th February 2018, 12:54 AM | #1583 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
Tassman, here is the God, I believe in!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=326 Relevant to behavior, to kill another human is a natural, physical and biological behavior. It can be described in such terms, but can't be describe as being done by "a social misfit". The problem is the is-ought distinction and that can't be solved using science. In the end that is where you fail. Both "good" and "bad" are natural, physical and biological behavior, but you can't give evidence for good and bad using science. With regards |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 12:56 AM | #1584 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
25th February 2018, 12:58 AM | #1585 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
|
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 01:05 AM | #1586 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
Interesting world view. Would you describe yourself a Deist?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
25th February 2018, 01:12 AM | #1587 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
No, I am an adeist!
Quote:
It is possible to have a different set of principles than you and still be an atheist. The only thing atheists have in common, are that they are atheists. That is what you don't understand. With regards |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 01:25 AM | #1588 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
Wrong!
Evolution cannot operate on the group/species level. Please explain how that is possible. True to a degree, but in self interest, as I explained. Evolution cannot operate on the group/species level. It is a fact. Please prove otherwise, give me a single example of any primate that, when on it's own, out of sight of the group, won't attempt to selfishly exploit a food source, but will alert the group and share it. Nothing here contradicts anything I said. Read this: The evolution of altruistic social preferences in human groups
Quote:
Cooperation with offspring supersedes cooperation with the family group. Cooperation within the family group supersedes cooperation within the tribe. Cooperation within the tribe supersedes cooperation within the species. Cooperation within the species supersedes cooperation with other species. This is explained by kin selection. |
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
25th February 2018, 02:03 AM | #1589 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
Your problem is this:
You accept that a single individual can work against the group and not that the group can work against the individual. Further you ignore "strong man" groups and think that there are only egalitarian groups. And when that is brought up, you claim it means that we are religious. Your last line of defense is that your atheism and world view is the only non-religious world view possible and all other world views therefore must be religious. Added: You are in sense dogmatic and an moral/ethical objectivist and realist when it comes to morality and ethics. You deny cognitive and moral relativism and claim all other moral systems are religious. You don't know what moral anti-realism entails. |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 02:46 AM | #1590 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ghis-Khan.html
So war pays!!! Good to be the Khan, when it comes to breeding. |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 03:10 AM | #1591 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
|
|
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB |
|
25th February 2018, 03:40 AM | #1592 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Of course, there are many. If you ask me what I prefer my answer wouldn't be simple. I suggest a mixed of emotional morality, dialogical morality and political action. For the first I sugger a reading of Hume; Habermas or Rawls for the second; and the third is a personal elaboration. I cannot expound this now. But I can come back on the subject if it interest you.
|
25th February 2018, 04:04 AM | #1593 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
Well, I am properly a lot like you, but since I am Danish I would also add a Scandinavian. Knud Ejler Løgstrup.
I have this part of me, I like phenomenology and other variants of how to explain reality as a human experience/condition. Further since my wife is a social worker, I have been exposed to a lot of practical applications of morality/ethics in asymmetrical one to one human interaction. And because I have a psychiatric disorder myself, I have experiences of being on the receiving of both normal humans and the welfare state. There is a joke about social workers in the Scandinavian sense. For someone like me it goes like this: Show me your(special needs person) closet and clothes and I shall tell you, how and who your social worker is. So I have a bias against any one system of correct behavior, because it tends to stigmatize my kind as the "social misfits" or what not. And as a skeptic I don't believe in any strong justification of morality and ethics only using the strong version of being rational and using evidence/proof or indeed Truth. Yes, we can make a thread, if you like. |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 08:24 AM | #1594 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,146
|
Originally Posted by Tassman
|
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski |
|
25th February 2018, 10:12 PM | #1595 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
25th February 2018, 10:24 PM | #1596 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
Yes, of course it is.
Hence, as I’ve been arguing all along, social animals such as these have evolved to instinctively cooperate with others within the group. Primarily within the family, but by extension within their tribe and then by extension with other tribes etc. I would go one step further in the case of human primate. Among humans the innate loyalties to the family and tribe have now been extended to the ‘super tribe’ of our multicultural global village as indicated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
25th February 2018, 10:50 PM | #1597 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,237
|
All of the above are of interest. But my only point throughout is that ANY moral system is based upon our evolution as a cooperative, altruistic social species. This is the starting point for any moral system and must take into account the interactions that occur between individuals when they form simple aggregations, cooperate in sexual or parental behaviour, engage in disputes over territory or mates, or simply communicate with each other. To facilitate all of this is surely is the only purpose for a moral code.
|
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams. |
|
25th February 2018, 11:19 PM | #1598 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
I urge you to at least read introductions on the morality/ethics of David Hume, Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls and Knud Ejler Løgstrup.
Now if you do, look for what they have in common and compare that with what you say and then be critical of the notion of a social misfit; i.e how do we know that there are social misfits and how should we treat them if we apply the combination of the above writers. With regards |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
25th February 2018, 11:42 PM | #1599 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Any moral system is based on evolution, because man is a product of evolution. But man is also the product of cultural learning. There are many diverse moralities because morality is not natural, but cultural. In modern societies we consider properly moral those that reinforce cooperation instead aggression, altruism instead selfishness, empathy instead hate, etc. Nature provides us both aggression as cooperation. Therefore our choice for reinforce cooperation cannot be a natural impulse but a cultural option. In order to foster moral choices we cannot to have recourse to natural impulses but cultural reasons and learnings.
|
26th February 2018, 12:08 AM | #1600 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
|
The problem is that it is natural to have a "strong man" authoritative system as it falls within evolution. What Genghis Khan did, was not unnatural and it meets the requirements of evolution, he had a lot of offspring.
That is your problem. Here is another example - The few versus the many in a modern setting and the difference between caring and having offspring. Think of a welfare grandmother or if you like a social misfit. She "misuses" the welfare system and has a lot of children. Both her sons and daughters do the same - "misuse" the welfare system and have a lot of offspring. And in general they don't care for their offspring as you would like them to do. Now do their behavior fall within biological evolution? Can we say that they are a biological niche or human subculture that works in biological terms? Do you see the problem now? If you want to achieve a better world through intelligence then you have to explain how that works in practice?!! Your claim to intelligence is empty because you have only used emotions so far. I.e. that we must understand that human rights are better for us. That is an emotional plea, so far not backed up by intelligence. As David Mo pointed out it is a question of culture, what we learn. Not that we can learn as humans, that is biology. And again if you want to reason for/use intelligence to achieve it, it is to simple just to say that human rights are good, because you need a cultural practice in order to implement that. With regards |
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic. #JeSuisAhmed |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|