Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 231 (214477)
06-05-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Trixie
06-04-2005 4:14 PM


Re: Exactly, Faith!!! You got it in one!
It doesn't matter what some misguided unfortunates think it means,
These "misguided unfortunates" were the intelligentsia of their day, dear. Nice try though.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-05-2005 10:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Trixie, posted 06-04-2005 4:14 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Trixie, posted 06-05-2005 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 197 of 231 (214506)
06-05-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
06-05-2005 9:59 AM


I've answered all the "positive ethics" rebuttals far as I know.
Nope - no reply to message 64 as far as I can see, which is when I originally posted compassionate ethics that stem directly from the model of common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 06-05-2005 9:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 198 of 231 (214523)
06-05-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
06-05-2005 10:01 AM


Pots and kettles
So it seems you do want to use these standards to judge the TOE. Why don't you now apply them to the uses the Bible has been put to. I think you'll find that the Bible will come across as an instigator of wars, genocide, torture, murder and victimisation in the name of God.
I'm not saying that the Bible is the instigator of thesethings, just that using your method of judgement it will appear like that. My, aren't you a wonderful witness forthe Word of God. If that doesn't turn thousands away in disgust I don't know what will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 06-05-2005 10:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 199 of 231 (220697)
06-29-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
06-03-2005 6:42 PM


Lets get the respective roles of the Bible and the ToE straight.
Faith said:
"I do claim that you can get humane principles from the Bible and no way can you get them drectly from the ToE"
Why would you look to the ToE for what are essentially moral or religious values? The ToE is a scientific theory. As such, it explains and interprets a set of scientific data. It has nothing to say about either morality or religion. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with either Darwin or the ToE. OTOH the Bible is a religious and moral document. It should be used as such and not to explain and interpret scientific data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 06-03-2005 6:42 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 1:32 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 200 of 231 (220699)
06-29-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by deerbreh
06-29-2005 1:20 PM


Having said that I would like to distinguish between the ToE and Evolution
Having said that the ToE has nothing to say about morality, it is quite possible that morality itself can have a genetic component and this has evolutionary implications.
Take the Golden Rule, for example. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Who can say that this does not have a genetic component? People who obey it get along better in society - this is good for them and their offspring. People who disobey it are going to be social misfits - this is bad for them and their offspring. It is a no-brainer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 1:20 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by robinrohan, posted 06-29-2005 2:09 PM deerbreh has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 231 (220710)
06-29-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by deerbreh
06-29-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Having said that I would like to distinguish between the ToE and Evolution
Take the Golden Rule, for example. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Who can say that this does not have a genetic component? People who obey it get along better in society - this is good for them and their offspring. People who disobey it are going to be social misfits - this is bad for them and their offspring. It is a no-brainer.
A vague extrapolation. One could very well posit the opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 1:32 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 2:36 PM robinrohan has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 202 of 231 (220723)
06-29-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by robinrohan
06-29-2005 2:09 PM


Re: Having said that I would like to distinguish between the ToE and Evolution
robin said:
"A vague extrapolation. One could very well posit the opposite."
How so? "A vague extrapolation" does not pass for an argument. Are you saying that adherence to certain social conventions is not adaptable behavior for social animals (including humans)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by robinrohan, posted 06-29-2005 2:09 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by robinrohan, posted 06-29-2005 3:30 PM deerbreh has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 231 (220750)
06-29-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by deerbreh
06-29-2005 2:36 PM


connecting natural selection to morality
Who can say that this does not have a genetic component? People who obey it get along better in society - this is good for them and their offspring. People who disobey it are going to be social misfits - this is bad for them and their offspring. It is a no-brainer.
Sorry for the incompleteness. I was rushed.
I have never seen one of these arguments suggesting an advantage in natural selection for adhering to this or that moral belief to be very plausible--or implausible. There are all on the same level of plausibility--just a guessing game. Your idea about obeying the golden rule helping survival is of course possible. So is the moral rule that we should do unto others before they do unto us--anticipate their weaknesses and destroy them before they do the same to us. Why may not that rule be evolutionarily advantageous?
One can understand why people make these guesses about the origin of morality. It had to come from somewhere.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-29-2005 02:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 2:36 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 06-29-2005 3:54 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 205 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 4:00 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 204 of 231 (220759)
06-29-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by robinrohan
06-29-2005 3:30 PM


Re: connecting natural selection to morality
One can understand why people make these guesses about the origin of morality. It had to come from somewhere.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
Is it possible that both have been tried?
Can either be said to be more moral without considering the context?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by robinrohan, posted 06-29-2005 3:30 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 12:02 AM jar has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 205 of 231 (220763)
06-29-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by robinrohan
06-29-2005 3:30 PM


Re: connecting natural selection to morality
There is actually a great deal on this - E.O. Wilson has written on it,among others. Here is a nice summary.
http://www.learningtogive.org/...hil_in_america/altruism.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by robinrohan, posted 06-29-2005 3:30 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 231 (221039)
07-01-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
06-29-2005 3:54 PM


The evolution of moral intuition
Can either be said to be more moral without considering the context?
No, either is ultimately arbitrary without an Absolute to ground it.
My own view about the origins of morality (for which I have no proof)is that mankind evolved not an allegiance to a particular dictum but a moral faculty by which to judge issues of morality. We intuit moral answers just as we intuit mathematical answers. We intuit that 2+2=4 and we intuit that murder is wrong.
Some people, of course, are better at mathematics than others. The same is true for morals. Some are morally sensitive; others are morally obtuse.
The evolution of this faculty aided survival. Moreover, the use of this faculty produces Absolutes. True, it is an absolute based on an "if" proposition, as in a syllogism, and if laid out seems to be a tautology. But it is not, I think, meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 06-29-2005 3:54 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 10:18 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 207 of 231 (229658)
08-04-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 12:02 AM


Was Hitler right (sort of)?
I wanted to ask this question, but it seems like someone beat me to it. I'm wondering, with TOE in mind, is a humane, compasionate and individualist society not counter productive for the evolution of man? Hitler said it is unhealthy for any nation to live in peace for longer than 20 years. He said that violence must be part of the political process. He wanted to create a world where you are either master or slave, and where doctors look after the (genetic) health of the nation, while the induvidual is irrelevant. The weak may be used for experimentation to benefit the strong. An often overlooked fact is also that promonent Nazis believed that if Germany looses the war, the Germans do not deserve to live. Survival of the fittest, even at your own expence. Is this not the kind of social structure that is needed to direct human evolution to a stronger future? One might even argue that we should do away with all weaponary: battles must be won purely on physical superiority. If the slave is superior to his master, then he must force his master into submission. When a leader gets old, he must be replaced with younger blood through violence, like it is the case in the animal world. There must be no police, and no laws other than the fist. Without God, there is no moral absolutes, and there is no purpose other than survival. Should this not be reflected in society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 12:02 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 11:05 AM compmage has replied
 Message 209 by Ben!, posted 08-04-2005 11:52 AM compmage has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 208 of 231 (229690)
08-04-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by compmage
08-04-2005 10:18 AM


Re: Was Hitler right (sort of)?
The problem here is that the criteria you use to determine fitness may not be those that natural selection would choose. One of the major problems with most advocates of eugenics is that they really want to do all the selection themselves, but they can't and if they did they would almost certainly get it wrong, because they don't understand the full complexity of the system.
Cooperative social phenomena are also arguably things which have been selected for in terms of behavioural dispositions why should we ignore the benefits of these in favour of struggle?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 10:18 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 12:00 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 209 of 231 (229723)
08-04-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by compmage
08-04-2005 10:18 AM


Re: Was Hitler right (sort of)?
Let me first say that I'm not at all against asking the questions you're asking, or wondering about what social system can best use the results of the TOE. I think they're good questions to ask.
And with that out of the way, ... I think you're way off the mark here. Without having read the thread, I'll just address you directly.
With TOE in mind, is a humane, compasionate and individualist society not counter productive for the evolution of man?
It depends on what you view man AS. I think it is clear that man is a social being; i.e. man needs to work in groups. I also think it is clear that man is physically slow and weak, and needs to use tools to compensate. If you disagree with these or simply don't see them, I can elaborate.
But given those things... like WK says, there's no reason to think that humanity and compassion are both bad traits within a society. Of course it depends on the dynamic of the group, as well as the environment outside of the group, but there are at least some situations where humanity and compassion are selective. You should search for threads on "the golden rule" and "objective morality" around here, and I think you can read a bunch about that.
Hitler said it is unhealthy for any nation to live in peace for longer than 20 years. He said that violence must be part of the political process. He wanted to create a world where you are either master or slave, and where doctors look after the (genetic) health of the nation, while the induvidual is irrelevant. The weak may be used for experimentation to benefit the strong.
So it looks like Hitler has two parts of his philosophy; first, man is a social being, and is strongest in a group. Second, violent and aggressive groups will have a reproductive (including survival) advantage. Third, weak individuals make a group weak, and strong individuals make a group strong.
I'm not much of one on sociology of anthropology, but I can't imagine group dynamics being so simple. In my experience, a strong group isn't one that's filled with aggressive people, but one that has many people playing different roles. We can't all be the leader of the group, we can't all be on the front line, etc. Those with specialized roles, and specialized attitudes, are the successful ones I see. this is especially true in team sports.
Who in an aggressive group wants to be a doctor? Or do research? Or to collect trash?
Is this not the kind of social structure that is needed to direct human evolution to a stronger future?
There are two kinds of competitions going on, and you're assuming that success in one means you're best fit for success in the other. You're saying that if one group of men can defeat other groups of men (competition between men), that that group has the best chance to survive in the world. Is that true? s,
Given the very basic important properties of man above, it seems to me that, since man is physically weak, men who best compensate for this weakness have the best chance to survive.
Is there any problem matching an aggressive, violent culture with one that wisely uses tools? Well if recent history is any indicator... yes. Is it just a coincidence that the nations with the best military tools are also the nations who destroy the foundation on which they live with their environmentally destructive manufacturing methods and lifestyles?
Another point is, survival in the future depends on what you see the future as. Usually, we assume the future will be just like now... but that's a difficult assumption to make. Especially given our dependence on non-renewable energy sources and on processes that are physically changing the earth on a timescale not to different from our own lifespans.
One might even argue that we should do away with all weaponary: battles must be won purely on physical superiority. If the slave is superior to his master, then he must force his master into submission. When a leader gets old, he must be replaced with younger blood through violence, like it is the case in the animal world.
Now, this is really getting away from it, I think. We already said that man is physically weak; his ability to develop and use tools far outweigh physical abilities. If anything, I think man should (and will) become weaker and weaker. The brain will be used less and less for driving physical force, but instead becomes more and more integrated with tools. Our integration of tools and mind is very coarse now. If you can make the transition between thought and action of tools faster, you will have an advantage. One that's much better than any physical advantage you could develop.
Without God, there is no moral absolutes, and there is no purpose other than survival. Should this not be reflected in society?
I guess what I'm saying is... it is. In some cases, the environemnt of the earth was such that aggressive cultures dominated. In other cases, the environment was different, and cooperative cultures dominated.
Was Hitler right? Not at all. Things are not so fixed and rigid for ideas like Hitlers' to be true. Does that mean that all men are "truly" created equal? Well... there's no... GOD to answer that question. There is no BEING qualified to answer that question. The only thing we can do is either to CHOOSE to have that rule, or choose NOT to have that rule. And, as you can find in the morality threads, there's a lot of good reasons to CHOOSE to have that rule.
Thanks,
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 10:18 AM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 210 of 231 (229730)
08-04-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Wounded King
08-04-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Was Hitler right (sort of)?
I don't think you understand exactly what I mean. Eugenisists still live in a "civilised" world, in which there is a social contract, and good order. I was thinking more in the line of a society like in a maximum security prison: Dominate, or be dominated. Show no mercy. Unregulated violence, tribalisation, factions, constant fighting and oppression. Children must dominate their siblings, like we see in nature, and must be encouraged to do so. The sissy must not be shown any compassion and mercy, not even by its parents. Parents must favour the strongest child over the weakest. Do away with all social rules and all sences of decency. Anyone who wants a place in society must fight for it, and must fight to maintain it. Let nature take its course. That is how it is in nature. You have an alpha animal, that will be dethrowned when he gets older, and in some species, you get the omega animal. He gets picked on by everyone. The fight for supremacy goes on for ever, to ensure bad genes get worked out. It is a shocking statement, I know, but natural selection demands this, and any species who defy natural selection will be punnished with bad genes, and eventually extinction. Maybe Natural Selection should even become a universal God. This "God" rewards the brutal species, and punnishes the compasionate. If we accept evolution as a fact, evil must become good, and good must become evil. Christians say we are born with sin, and this is demonstrated by the observation that children can be very cruel. Maybe this sin is nothing more than survival instinct, and cruelty in children must be encouraged. The goal in society should not be to end oppression, but to become the oppressors. That must be the ultimate goal. Look at the migrations in Seringeti. Little do those animals care for those who can not cross the river, and get trappled on to death. Make no mistake: Nature and the animal kingdom is not a pretty place. If humans are subject to the same evolutionary laws than any other animal, and if we are an animal just like any other, then we must live acording to natures rules, or our domination in the animal kingdom will come to an end. Defy those rules at your own perril. Well, either that, or those rules does not exist. If they exist, they apply to us, and we must change our behaviour accordingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 11:05 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 12:06 PM compmage has replied
 Message 212 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 12:16 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 213 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 12:19 PM compmage has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024