Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Atheists & Agnostics
In reply to the discussion: Are Scientific And Religious Explanations Incompatible? [View all]Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)31. Your words:
"the good" is what natural selection chooses as the most beneficial behavior for the species in question.
When given the example of extinction of other species for our benefit, you ran away from that by claiming that it wouldn't be in our long term interest,
In the long run human caused extinction is a symptom of ecological degradation
but of course it could be, and most likely has been exactly that in our past. While such acts might be a symptom of other undesirable behaviors within your framework, they need not be, and so elimination of competing species can be "the good" within your definition, and, at least to me, morally reprehensible.
When given the example of intra-species genocide that increases the survivability of the species you have simply avoided explaining how that would not meet your ethical requirements, and in fact you downgraded your original claim:
As for culling Anglo-Saxons, that would not be "the good" from the Anglo-Saxon perspective.
now it seems that 'the good" is derived from units less than "the species", that instead 'the good" can be derived from what benefits a sub group, without any explanation of how competing sub-group "goods" don't wreck your proposed ethical system.
I really don't think your position is defensible, which is why you are now off claiming I am making up your position.
But there are other huge flaws with your original statement. How can "the good" being wholly derived from "what natural selection chooses as the most beneficial behavior for the species" actually function as an ethical system? For example, why shouldn't I murder the person next to me? How do I run that through your generator of "the good" (what natural selection chooses as the most beneficial behavior for the species) and come up with an answer? It might very well be the most beneficial behavior for the species for me to murder the person next to me, and if so, according to your system, that is what I should do.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Again the point is that all that is required is a gap, not diminishing nor increasing gaps.
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2015
#19
explanations of values are difficult to put into a scientific framework.
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2015
#8
Fine, but again if our species "benefits" from the wholesale slaughter of other species,
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2015
#18
In the specific example, according to you, it would be good to slaughter all anglo-saxons
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2015
#24
Let's discuss something more productive. So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? n/t
Binkie The Clown
Apr 2015
#32
"It is made by the interactions of neurons in the brain" - is not an explanation of "the good"
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2015
#23
There has been nothing in human history that has required a supernatual explanation.
Arugula Latte
Apr 2015
#3