Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

ooops my bad worded it wrong
but i knew he was missing out on somehting to do with specie extinction because he didn't know about fossils and genes.

Of course he knew about fossils.It's also possible that he was at least aware of the work being done by Gregor Mendel.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

DAMN TEACHERS TEACHING ME INCORECT STUFF >_<
either that or YOUR wrong >.>
or i was half awake and missinterperated it... i seem to be doing a lot of that lately

Not when he published the Origin.

Here is the web address of the complete text of Origin of Species.The Victorian prose is kind of labored, but the main thing I got from this book is what a great scientist Darwin was. He constantly questions his findings and his theory, looking for ways he could be wrong.The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

Hey PaulK,Thanks for the workable outline of how Darwinian/naturalistic ethics/morals have come to be. It still seems to me that we are talking moral relativism, maybe not in the strictist sense, but morals and ethics become somewhat of a shifting landscape. And some morals/ethics (sexual, for instance) become completely up to the individual.Let me try a couple of other scenarios:My wife and I run a couple of businesses. My understanding of the naturalistic logic would tell me to maximize profit; not necessarily cutthroat to the point of pissing people off, because in a community of businesses, word does get around and that type of behavior may cost you in the long run, but certainly within the company itself the standard should be "what have you done for me lately" and "my way or the highway". But my understanding of the Christian approach is that there is an ontological entity called "good", and the greatest good is that I "love" others, even my enemies (think not romantic love or even necessarily the way you love your mom, but a self sacrificial love which is shown in it's ultimate form by being willing to lay down ones life for another). So in the businesses we run, we are called to "love" those who work for us. Of course that brings into play the concept of "tough love" as in the case of the brother-in-law, but in a loving environment, mistakes are more readily forgiven, concern for the individual may even at times take precedent over the job itself, and a sharing of resources is more readily facilitated.And if there is no ontological entity called "good", why are some things more "good" than others? Why are some murders called "heinous" or "brutal"? Why is Mother Teresa more "good" than Bill Gates? Are these just vestiges of a less evolved society?Second scenario:Let's say that you are projected into the future, and the society you encounter has had to come to grips with massive overpopulation. And in order to control this problem and provide food for vast areas where starvation is rampant (there is now a one-world government) the powers that be have dictated that 25% of the population over 45 are killed off each year, and every third child born is slain, and then the bodies are carted off and processed for food. Would this be "wrong"?ThanksDennis

Hey Dan,You wrote:"By my personal morality? Because Hitler was a mass-murdering fuckhead.By the terms of society? Because a society that randomly allows itself to slaughter 11 million people is clearly not offering the benefits of the society to the whole. Moreover, the benefits are defacto taken away from the survivors, because it establishes a precedent that allows anyone to be carted off to the camps. Therefore, the people are better off without that society than with it. So the society is harmful, and the people have no incentive to maintain it."Sorry, I have to press you on this one a little. You are saying that he wasn't actually a mass-murdering fuckhead, just to you (and others who share your view like myself). But the possibility exists that there are those who don't share our view believe Hitler to be a hero. After all, if he was right and he could have succeeded in killing off all of those "inferior" races and gotten the Germans to speed up there reproduction rate (threesomes nightly for everyone?) he could have populated the world with a "superior" race of humans. And besides, planet earth is headed for ultimate destruction anyway, so shouldn't we try a little experiment now and then to see if we can create nirvana or at least something "better"? (Author's note: this is a philosophical discussion, I do not personally advocate anything I have just written, so spare me the personal remarks and insults.)Dennis

Hey Jazzn,I am kindof in the same boat; former rockn'roll guitar player discovers family life, affluence, and normal hours. But then I discovered church bands. A fifty-something year old riffin' weekly in front of 800 plus people, no smoke, home in time for football, no money or ego or girlfriend issues, life is good!Merry Christmas

quote:

---

My wife and I run a couple of businesses. My understanding of the naturalistic logic would tell me to maximize profit; not necessarily cutthroat to the point of pissing people off, because in a community of businesses, word does get around and that type of behavior may cost you in the long run, but certainly within the company itself the standard should be "what have you done for me lately" and "my way or the highway".

---

Thats an odd understanding. Adam Smiths original formulation is quite specific that the purpose of wealth generated by trade is to advance the whole of society. This is not merely a moral position but also an analytic one, in that an unhappy populace is prone to rioting and rebellion. It is true that in the modern context, capitalism advocates this winner-takes-all approach, but that should not be seen as arising from ideological materialism so much as opportunism. The one political strand that is purposefully and expressly based on materialism - Marxism - is of course the primary critic of the actual functions of capitalism. So I think there are good reasons to think that materialism is much more humane than theistic absolute morality.

Oh and I'm still waiting to hear what this 'fatal flaw' is.

Edited to delete repeat postThis message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 12-23-2004 02:22 PM

Hey Dennis,
Thanks for copying this over here, more appropriate thread. You might look into it, but there is a way to make my original post more distinct (different UBB code?). This looks like it will be a fun discussion. That is quite a dilemma! Personally I don't think any Darwinian logic plays a part in making his behavior acceptable. I believe that social and familial customs evolved as well. He broke those customs. Your helping him was an altruistic act but also ultimately benefitting you on social and genetic levels (your sister carries on average 1/2 of your genome, her children each 1/4). From what it sounds like I personally wouldn't have that person over for dinner.My wife comes from a very large Mormon family. As appears to be common in those families (my experience, not a judgement on the belief. I have seen the same in large families in a variety of denominations) there are a million conflicts and strifes but at gatherings everyone is expected to put on a goofy smile and compliment everyone else. We don't play that game in any form, and it has led to us being cut off from the rest of the family. So be it!This in no way reflects my naturalistic beliefs. This more reflects my "I am getting too old to waste more of my life catering to as**oles" belief. Someone attempting to disrupt or harm my family in any way is a direct threat and should be avoided. This includes indirect through employment. I don't give people second chances in these cases.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Hey Contra,You wrote:"So I think there are good reasons to think that materialism is much more humane than theistic absolute morality."How so? I certainly don't want to get into politics, but the practice of Marxism has not been very humane historically. As it has worked out the only way to get people to work for the "good of the whole" under a Marxist regime is through force. What I am suggesting is a balance (not that we attain it), if you will, between keeping the engines of commerce running while recognizing that people are not machines and will come to work with a different set of issues every day. Some admittedly have no place at work, but others can't be ignored if you care a whit about them.

Well, sure. Someone who does not see Hitler as a mass-murdering fuckhead would not see him as a mass-murdering fuckhead. We should always be striving for "better". But leaving aside the statement in my previous post about Hitler's policies being to the detriment of even those who weren't rounded up, the problem with Hitler's vision also boils down to objective logical flaws inherent in racism. There is no objective way to show that Jews (or gypsies, or homosexuals, etc) are, in fact, inferior.His standards for improvement were flawed; so was the society. If we're not allowed to use personal remarks and insults, then frankly, I'm starting to wonder what my job is around here.

Dan Carroll These new p.c.children have no backbone for hard comedy eh? If we didn't have the occasional dose of reality from the likes of you I think suicide would be my only reasonable option to the usual banter of thought processes between my ears.My thanks. How about a decent insult then?I mean I really deserve something for the smear of your character I made in post 28.Go on,I DARE you.