|
Real_Solitude -> RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo (5/16/2008 6:16:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
You laid out a scientific theory you claimed was the basis for morals. Albeit it was vaguely asserted, empirically unsupported, intellectually mushy and clichéd idea about where morals come from, but it still aspired to be some notion of the origin of morals, and thus attempts to tell us what is ‘right and wrong’ as much as it claims notions of right and wrong are mere derivations of our evolution as a species.
The origin of something does not tell us whether it is morally good, or morally bad. Even if we knew exactly where and how morality came about, that should not have any impact on our moral judgments. If morality emerged out of in-group mentality, then according to your way of thinking this would make purely in-group morality acceptable. In this day and age we disagree with that notion. We no longer subscribe to a purely in-group system. We no longer torture prisoners simply for being enemy combatants. We don't automatically condemn to death those who commit murder or treason.
This is why we have moral and ethical debates, because opinions on what is correct changes, morals change generation to generation. This is why laws are created and replaced. Whether the origin was natural or supernatural, morals have changed over time. If the origin was what dictated what is correct, morality should not have changed.
quote:
First off, don’t decry anything here; when you say that you sound like some literary twit who is trying to find new words for ‘disagree with’.
And I have to point out you consistently contradict yourself as in:
Evolutionary theory can not justify anything…
then, immediately
It can be used to justify things…
Seriously, read what you post at least once and pick up on these obvious contradictions. Enough said about this.
I like the word decry, it is a good word. It means, "to speak disparagingly of; denounce as faulty or worthless." You will notice that this fits fairly well with what I was saying. When used as "I decry..." it does basically mean, "I disagree with."
Further, as twit means, "an insignificant or bothersome person" it is a rather subjective term. I do, however, like literature (both writing and reading), and I do seem to be bothering you. Literary twit would, strictly speaking, be an appropriate label for me, from your viewpoint.
Allow me a simple self-correction, if you will. The idea I meant to convey was that evolutionary theory does not intrinsically justify things, but can be used to. This is in the same manner that the Bible has been used by some to justify technophobia. This is why I included "in and of itself," after "Evolutionary theory can not justify anything."
I will not accuse you of cherry-picking my post for quotes, because I believe you to be an honest person. Rather I will re-state myself. "Evolutionary theory does not intrinsically justify anything. It can, however, be used by people to justify things, as any idea can."
Does that work?
quote:
I have to say, forcing myself to read through this stuff is pure torture. I mean absolute and utter torture. It’s like reading a really bad amalgam of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and the reluctant essay of a first year psychology major who is trying desperately to remember what was said in lecture and repeat it back to the professor in a way that sounds like one paid attention in class. Seriously, it’s that bad. It’s almost impossible to respond to because it’s like responding to smoke. Morals are fluid, morals are relevant, morals caused us to progress, morals hindered us, morals helped us survive, morals shaped us. Arrrghhh!!! Lots of words, nothing said.
Actually, the end of your summary was quite correct. The bulk of it, however, was simply a mean-spirited retort verging on ad-hominem attack. It is not appreciated.
Most morality has been shown to be fluid, and even cursory observations of human history verify this. A few select morals seem to be universal, many others are not, and shift generation-to-generation.
Morals are relevant in that they have affected human development.
Morals helped us to progress because if we had no morality, there could be no cohesion in society.
Overly-strict in-group mentality has (IMO) hindered us.
Morals have obviously shaped our societies. This is why we have prisons and mental institutions.
There are only four basic points I presented. Fluidity, relevance, progression, and hindrance as they apply to morality. (I'm lumping shaping and relevance here). I don't see how this is overly complicated, but if you give me an idea of what you'd like me to expound on, I will try.
quote:
Finally, a statement of substance which can be objectively considered – okay, I considered it for two seconds, and it’s obviously wrong. Some of the worst wars and greatest prejudices of all times occurred as communication abilities increased; and there is no shortage of conflict or prejudice in the age of information. So wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong.
See how easy it is to measure the accuracy of a moral assertion?
I would argue that the wars and prejudices are only seem greater from an absolute vantage, not a relative vantage point. The barbarism of the Mongol hordes surely rivaled Hitler's in ferocity, if not numerically. The same applies to historic wars. I would be interested in seeing a percentage spread of casualty/population ratios. I would be willing to bet that they are at least nearly equal.
Globalsecurity.org lists 42 ongoing conflicts. It also lists, as of 2005, eight 'major' conflicts (military conflicts inflicting 1,000 battlefield deaths per year).
I will attempt to find statistics to back this up, but I believe that, in many periods of history, 42 wars worldwide would be considered a fairly low number. The wars of the past seem to have been generally more 'friendly', being in some cases even a gentleman's game of sorts, but if we're counting all of the inter-warring lords within countries, I would bet that there was a larger number of wars prior to the advent of mass communication.
I would also argue that the greatest conflict of recent history, WWII, was due to a breakdown of communication, and not because of greater communication. Directly before WWII, Hitler did four things. He rescinded Habeas Corpus, outlawed labor unions, outlawed all political parties except the Nazi party, and closed all newspapers aside from the national Nazi paper. This shows a complete shutdown of communication between not only Germany and the rest of the world, but within Germany itself.
Hitler's rise to power was, in part, due to the Allies refusal to listen to Germany's complaints about the Treaty of Versailles. It was not communication that stated WWII, but lack of.
However, WWII falls before the period I'm trying to get at. The advent of the internet, I would say, truly started the age of mass communication. It allows the people to immediately respond to any idea. It allows people of common views to meet each other readily. It provides a non-physically violent (usually) realm for communication. It's too early to tell, but I would hope that the spread of the internet will contribute to world peace. What I truly hope for is a ubiquitous, instantaneous translation device. Then people the world over could meet together on the net and share ideas. If this mass amount of communication were to ever be allowed, I believe it would be beneficial to society.
What I mean by mass communication is not the ability of the leaders to spread propaganda, or the ability of leaders to communicate with leaders. What I mean by mass communication is allowing the populations of different countries to directly influence each other by collective dialog.
quote:
Okay, we are back to lala land. You don’t know whether the ‘lack of prejudice’ is good, despite the fact that you connect it to ‘less war’. If you can’t objectively say ‘less war’ is preferable to ‘more war’, can you make a judgement about anything at all?
If "lala land" means "your personal opinion," then I agree, that was my person opinion. It was not any sort of empirical, objective statement. I, in fact, prefaced it with "This is belief is not scientific."
I would say that objectivity within morality is fairly impossible. I can imagine circumstances in which war would be preferable to a given alternate (Say, starvation of two non-waring populations, instead of each shoring the others numbers, and the victor taking the needed resources). In these cases, 'more war' could be argued to be a good thing.
I can make personal judgments about things, but I by no means claim them to be objective. I would go so far as to say that claiming objectivity in morality is a destructive thing. When two groups, each claiming the correct objective morality, come into contact, there is often fighting. The concept of subjective morality inherently allows for change and compromise of ideas. I don't know of any historical nation that held such views, so I can't really say what would happen if two of them met. I would speculate that there would be less fighting than between nations that believed strongly in their own objective morality, but this is unfounded speculation.
|
|
|
|