Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:39:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020830125515.I53482-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D6FC4A6.5E7590AC@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than > > > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. > > > > Is this a good or a bad thing? > > It's an example of adversity which is not also evolutionary pressure. > I could just have easily picked diabetes or any other recessive > genetic trait that would normally be fatal, if it were expressed, > and for which we now have treatment which keeps the people with the > trait in the gene pool long enough to reproduce and pass the trait > on to their offspring. But you've just dodged my question. Is it a good thing that we have the ability to keep those traits in the gene pool? Or is the development of that ability also a result of evolution? If so, how do we know that what we are talking about isn't actually de-evolution? By the same token, is the development of light bulbs a good thing? Why? What I'm trying to get at is your ultimate criteria. Usefulness? But then pragmatism is only useful if you know what ends to pursue. > > > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? > > > > > > Of course. Society defines morality. > > > > Society enacts laws. Whether or not they are moral or not would depend > > on a standard by which you could judge them to be moral or immoral. > > Such a standard would have to be non-arbitrary and transcendant to all > > societies. Whether or not such a standard exists determines whether > > we can talk about ethics, morals, etc. at all. If not, everyone is > > just blowing smoke. > > All societies enforce standards of conduct upon their members, > and people are members of many societies. Morality relationships > are generally hierarchical on one axis, and peering on another > (i.e. society condones the soldier that kills the soldier of the > enemy state, but not the clerk at the grocery store down the block, > even though both are human beings). Are these standards of conduct arbitrary? Why do societies go to war with each other, if not to enforce it's own standards of morality on that other society? Why enforce those standards, if there is no ultimate criteria by which you could judge one society's standards as "right" over against the other societies standards which are wrong? > Morality is dictated by the larger society, in any given context. > It doesn't need to be transcendent, per se, it merely needs to > transcend the individual, or the smaller society within the larger. Why does it need to transcend the individual, but not individual societies? Or do you advocate a global society? If so, is whatever mores that society adopts right by definition? > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also > not tolerate it in others. Then it would not be an internal code of conduct, by definition. Just because you wouldn't engage in a particular activity doesn't mean that somebody else shouldn't. > When you get a group together into a society, and there is general > agreement that a particular ethic is shared, to the point that the > society is willing to censure the activity _as a society_, then at > that point, it becomes a moral for the society. Okay, but then if there is general agreement in that society that it would be genetically beneficial to kill off a certain segment of society, say, the jews, or people with certain genetic defects, it is then moral by definition for that society to do so. > Individuals do not have morals, though individuals may *be* moral > or *act* morally or *demonstrate* morality. Act morally with regard to what? You seem to think that a society cannot enshrine laws that are immoral. > If you want to boil down this whole discussion so far, it's that > Dave has an ethic which he would like to convert into a moral, by > getting other people to share it. This ethic venerates the rights > of the individual over the rights of the state (the society to > which the individuals belong). And you are making the opposite error, of venerating the rights of the state over the rights of the individual. Such societies inevitably become tyrranical. > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. I see. And what exactly is "the greatest good for the greatest number"? Weeding out inferior individuals from the gene pool? Why not? Moreover, who makes these decisions? Philosopher-kings? > I personally believe that Dave is intentionally ignoring the fact > that membership in nominally open online societies is by way of > self-selection. It is convenient for him to take this position, > since he can't people to self-select into a society which agrees > with his ethic, and he doesn't understand complexity sufficiently > to create a society on his owm but he believes that he understands > it sufficiently to impose his ethic on a preexisting society. > > What I find amusing about this whole thing is that those people > who share his ethic have already self-selected membership in the > society composed of "people who share Dave's ethic". He's just > having a hard time getting them to self-assemble at a particular > forum, or finding a forum where they have already done so. > > The reason this is amusing is that he attempted to create a forum > in which his principles were also embodied in the nature of the > forum itself, and it failed. The failure arose from people who > attacked it... and which Dave has so far failed to recognize as > "trolls", in the same sense that he is asking everyone else to > accept, when he could not. Yes, I agree that his ideas are self-refuting...but then ultimately so are yours, you just don't see it. > > Nature has no vote. It just is. "Natural Selection" is an oxymoron. > > According to naturalism, scientific theories are to be non-teleological, > > right? > > Self-organizing systems don't have to admit non-teleological basis. > > Science acknowledges "gosh numbers", such as "PI", "e", "G", or "The > Fine Structure Constant", etc., without needing to acknowledge a > non-teleological cause with a set of thermostats that can be adjusted, > one of which reads "Speed of Light" or another which reads "Planck Length". Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? > > > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. > > > > Is this wrong? > > Does it matter if an action is wrong or not, if a penalty will > be assessed for the action regardless of your own personal views > of right and wrong? If you want to avoid the penalty, you must > act as if you believed the action were wrong, regardless of your > personal beliefs in the matter. Of course, my answer will be, "Yes it does." I just think you are not thinking high enough on the ontological scale. > > > > Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, > > > > and That's The Way It Is. > > > > > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. > > > > When we punish them, is our justification for doing so solely because > > we have the guns and the will to do so? > > Pretty much, yes. So I take it you're not a libertarian...<g> Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020830125515.I53482-100000>