| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2007 07:47:47 AM |
| Object: |
Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality |
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_further_response_to_larry_ar.html
A Further Response to Larry Arnhart, pt. 1:
Darwinism and Traditional Morality
Posted by John West at 12:05 AM
Political science professor Larry Arnhart, author of the book
Darwinian Conservatism, is probably the most thoughtful and articulate
proponent of Darwinism as a support for conservatism. My recent book
Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest is largely framed as a
response to Arnhart's arguments. I appreciate how seriously Arnhart
takes the debate over the implications of Darwin's theory, and also
how committed he is to a civil discussion. Arnhart has now responded
to my book in two posts (here and here) on his Darwinian Conservatism
blog, and in a four-part series over the next several days I will be
offering my response to his comments. After some initial
clarifications, today's post will focus on the issue of Darwinism and
traditional morality.
Unfortunately, Arnhart starts his analysis of my book by
mischaracterizing my position. He states that I reject "evolutionary
science as totally false." But that claim is incorrect. It is true I
am deeply skeptical of the neo-Darwinian claim that all of the highly
intricate features observed in nature are the products of an unguided
material process of natural selection acting on random mutations. The
scientific evidence, in my view, does not substantiate such a claim.
But this does not mean that "evolutionary science" is "totally false."
Certainly evolutionary theory offers interesting insights into a wide
array of microevolutionary changes, such as the development of
antibiotic resistance or changes in the size of finch beaks.
Evolutionary science also seems to offer at least a plausible
hypothesis about the role of common ancestors in biology, although
some of the reasoning used to support common ancestry seems circular
and the evidence for universal common ancestry seems lacking. One
reason I prefer to use the limiting term "Darwinian" or "neo-
Darwinian" when I talk about "evolution" is to make clear that I do
not rule out or reject all types of evolutionary explanations.
In the past, Arnhart has also mischaracterized my views about morality
and religion, claiming that I "insist that Biblical religion is the
only reliable source of moral norms," and suggesting that I reject the
idea of a "natural moral sense." Yet as I explained at the session in
which we both participated at the American Political Science
Association in August 2006, I embrace the natural law tradition and
believe that human beings have access to morality not only through
revelation (e.g., the Bible), but through reason and conscience-the
moral law "written on our hearts." My acceptance of the idea of
natural law has been a consistent theme in my writings, including my
work on C.S. Lewis (Public Life in the Shadowlands and The C.S. Lewis
Readers' Encyclopedia) and my work on religion and politics, including
The Politics of Revelation and Reason: Religion and Civic Life in the
New Nation and the introductory essay to The Encyclopedia of Religion
and American Politics.
Arnhart is right about one point: Just because I am skeptical of
Darwinism doesn't mean I reject a biological grounding for certain
human behaviors and traits. He is correct that I am open to some of
the ideas he offers about a "biological conservatism." I just do not
think that Darwinism provides a convincing or helpful explanation for
how most biological traits developed.
Following is my response to Arnhart's continued effort to enlist
Darwinism to support traditional morality.
1. Darwinism and Traditional Morality
In my book, I challenge the attempt to locate a non-relative
justification for morality in Darwinism. According to a Darwinian
conception of ethics, every behavior regularly practiced by at least
some subpopulation of human beings is ultimately a product of natural
selection. Thus, while the maternal instinct is "natural" according to
Darwinism, so is infanticide. While monogamy is "natural," so are
polygamy and adultery. Because of this uncomfortable truth, even some
noted Darwinists such as Thomas Huxley have recognized the difficulty
of grounding ethics in a Darwinian understanding of nature. If all
human behavior patterns are equally justified by natural selection,
then there is no way to use Darwinism itself to classify any
particular behavior as intrinsically right or wrong. For example, if
natural selection is a complete explanation for pedophilia on the part
of certain males, how can we say that such behavior is intrinsically
wrong in Darwinian terms? Pedophilia must persist in a certain
subpopulation of males because it offers a survival advantage selected
for by natural selection. Thus, in Darwinian terms, the behavior of
pedophiles is just as defensible as the behavior of non-pedophiles. Of
course, if we believe in a moral standard that exists outside of the
Darwinian process of natural selection, we can judge pedophilia
according to that standard and declare it to be wrong. But according
to Arnhart, no such standard exists. The most significant problem with
Darwinism is not that it encourages amoral behavior but that its
purported account of morality undermines the ability to make objective
and non-relative distinctions between what is moral and what is
immoral.
Rather than respond directly to my analysis of Darwinism as an
insufficient grounding for the principles of morality, Arnhart tries
to shift the focus to the presumed insufficiencies of the Bible as a
guide to morality. Before responding any further I need to make
something clear: Even if Arnhart's critique of Biblical morality
happens to be correct, it does not absolve Darwinism from the charge
of fostering moral relativism. Darwinian morality needs to be defended
on its own terms, not merely by pointing out perceived weaknesses of a
Biblical understanding of morality. Arnhart's critique of Biblical
morality essentially dodges the central question of whether Darwinism
itself is capable of justifying permanent moral standards. (As a
secondary matter, it should be mentioned that Biblical morality is not
the only alternative to Darwinian morality. The natural law/natural
justice tradition provides another way of understanding moral
universals. Thus, even if Arnhart shows that the Biblical account of
morality suffers from the same problems as Darwinism, that does not
mean that all other systems of morality are equally problematic.)
While I believe Arnhart's critique of Biblical morality to be a
diversion from the main question, I am willing to respond to it
because I think his critique is largely wrong. I say "largely" not
"wholly" because Arnhart is right to point out the challenges of
applying moral truths to real life. Deciding how to apply an abstract
principle of morality to any particular situation can be difficult and
requires the ability to engage in prudential reasoning. This is a
challenge for any system of ethics, whether Biblical or Darwinian. But
logically prior to the determination of how to apply a moral principle
in practice is the question of whether a moral principle is
authoritative in the first place. The problem with Darwinian
explanations of morality is that they provide no adequate way to
distinguish "moral" behaviors from "immoral" behaviors because (by
definition) all behaviors that exist must exist because they somehow
promoted survival and were selected for by natural selection. Thus, in
Darwinian terms, men who commit adultery are just as biologically
"justified" as men who remain faithful to their spouses.
By contrast, in older systems of ethics such as Biblical morality or
Greek idealism or the natural law tradition, at the foundation of
moral reasoning were certain virtues and vices that were regarded as
intrinsically right or wrong. This was true even for Aristotle, a
thinker Arnhart prizes. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes
that
[t]here are some [vices] whose very name implies wickedness, as e.g.
malice, shamelessness, and envy, among emotions, or adultery, theft,
and murder, among actions. All these, and others like them, are
censured as being intrinsically wicked, not merely the excesses or
deficiencies of them. It is never possible then to be right in respect
of them; they are always sinful. Right or wrong in such actions as
adultery does not depend on our committing them with the right person,
at the right time or in the right manner; on the contrary it is sinful
to do anything of the kind at all.... [Nicomachean Ethics, Bk VII,
chapter 6, trans. by J.E.C. Weldon]
Unlike Aristotle-or Biblical morality or the natural law tradition-
Darwinism does not supply a basis for categorically declaring any
traits to be permanent virtues or vices across time and culture.
Arnhart's main response to this objection seems to be a claim that the
precepts of Biblical morality are just as prone to relativism as
Darwinian morality, and he cites the practices of polygamy,
infanticide, slavery to prove his point. These practices are typically
cited by critics of Darwinian ethics to show the inability of
Darwinism to defend such concepts as monogamy, the sacredness of human
life, and human equality. But according to Arnhart, the Bible has
espoused a view of these practices that is very similar to the
Darwinian understanding. As I noted previously, even if Arnhart has
correctly identified flaws in the Biblical approach to morality, it
would not absolve Darwinism from its own inability to justify moral
universals. However, I think Arnhart's exposition of Biblical teaching
is strained and unpersuasive.
(a) Polygamy and the Bible.
Consider Arnhart's claim that "polygamy is endorsed in the Old
Testament." Really? In the Bible's account of the institution of human
marriage in Genesis 2:21-24, monogamy is clearly upheld as the
original pattern for the human family: "Therefore a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become
one flesh." In the Biblical account, the marriage of Adam and Eve
before the Fall sets the marital ideal as monogamy, not polygamy. In
the rest of the Old Testament, polygamy is tolerated and occasionally
regulated, but only the most superficial reading would claim that it
is "endorsed." To the contrary, an underlying theme of Old Testament
accounts of polygamy seems to be the tragic consequences of departing
from God's original ideal of monogamy. In the Old Testament, polygamy
almost invariably produced family and ethnic discord (e.g., the story
of Hagar and Ishmael in Gen. 16 and 21; the story of Leah and Rachel
in Gen. 29-30; the conflict between Joseph and his brothers in Gen.
37). Polygamy also encouraged idol worship and unfaithfulness to the
true God (see the account of King Solomon in 1 Kings 11). In sum, the
Biblical ideal in marriage was monogamy from the very start, and
departures from that ideal were shown to be harmful to relationships
between human beings and between man and God. Just because polygamy is
not explicitly prohibited in the Old Testament does not mean the Bible
is neutral toward the practice. As Aquinas wisely pointed out, one
cannot legally prohibit every violation of Biblical morality in a
sinful world. Nevertheless, the Biblical ideal of monogamy as the
original form of human marriage provides a basis for discouraging
other types of conjugal relationships as inferior. In the Darwinian
account, by contrast, there can be no ideal form of marriage to appeal
to across time and culture. Mating practices continue to evolve
according to needs for survival of each period of time, and presumably
each mating practice that persists has been preserved by natural
selection because it somehow promotes survival.
(b) Slavery and the Bible.
Arnhart likewise insists that "the Bible endorses slavery. In fact,
the Biblical basis for slavery is so explicit that the proslavery
Christians in the American South were adamant in defending slavery as
Biblically justified." But in the Biblical story of creation-unlike in
the Hindu creation account of the Laws of Manu-human beings were
originally created equal in the image of God. Because of this, slavery
cannot be considered God's original ideal for human relationships.
Instead, as Augustine explained in the City of God (Book XIX.15),
slavery should be regarded as a consequence of sin, not as part of
God's original plan. Far from encouraging slavery, the Bible sought to
circumscribe its practice and articulated a clear vision of human
equality before God that made slavery increasingly indefensible over
time. In the Old Testament, the Jews' exodus from Egypt celebrated the
movement from slavery to freedom that is central to both Jewish and
Christian theology. Jews were forbidden to enslave their fellow
Israelites (Lev. 25:42-43), and anyone "caught kidnapping one of his
brother Israelites" into slavery was given the death penalty. (Deut
24:7) Jews were allowed to become temporary indentured servants, but
they had to be released after six years of service or at the next year
of jubilee (Ex. 21:2, Lev. 25:39-41). Only foreigners were allowed to
be purchased as permanent slaves (Lev. 25:44-46). In the New
Testament, "slave traders" were put on the list of the "ungodly" (1
Tim. 1:20), Christians were urged not to sell themselves into slavery
(1 Cor. 7:23), and Christians already enslaved were encouraged to gain
their freedom if they were able (1 Cor. 7:21). Most important of all,
the New Testament taught unambiguously the equality of slaves and
masters before God, because in Christ "[t]here is neither Jew nor
Greek, slave nor free, male nor female... all are one in Christ
Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) Thus, a Christian slave was to remember that he
was now "the Lord's freedman," while a Christian slave-owner was to
remember that he was "Christ's slave." (1 Cor. 7: 22) While slaves
were encouraged to serve their masters "wholeheartedly" as if they
"were serving the Lord, not men," masters were urged to "treat your
slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he
who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no
favoritism with him." (Eph. 6:7-9, emphasis added) Like many practices
resulting from human evil, slavery has been difficult to completely
eradicate. But the Biblical recognition that human beings were
originally created in God's image inspired countless people throughout
history to work for slavery's amelioration and eventual abolition. The
Bible's emphasis on equality before God provides a clear basis for
preferring freedom over slavery. The Darwinian account of morality, by
contrast, provides no such guidance. As Carson Holloway perceptively
points out in his recent book The Right Darwin:
at best Darwinism can only report our natural ambivalence with regard
to slavery without giving us any compelling reason to either choose or
reject it... in light of the ambivalence of our natural desires, both
slavery and freedom are in some sense natural.... A moral theory that
cannot persuasively condemn slavery cannot, of course, repudiate any
less extreme forms of injustice or tyranny, whether perpetrated by
majorities, minorities, or individual despotic rulers. [p. 95]
(c) Infanticide and the Bible.
Arnhart tries in vain to find a general endorsement of infanticide in
the Bible. Most of the passages he cites do not even deal with
infants, let alone infanticide. The two that do mention infants in
passing deal with killing civilians during the conquest by Israel of
Canaan. While the question of killing civilians during wartime is an
important moral issue, it has nothing to do with the debate over
whether parents should be allowed to put to death their recently born
children. Incredibly, Arnhart tries to cite the story of Abraham and
Isaac in Gen. 22 as an endorsement of infanticide. Let alone the fact
that Isaac was hardly an infant in this story, reading the story as an
endorsement of child killing is absurd. Child sacrifice is treated
with abhorrence throughout the Old Testament and perpetrators were
subject to the death penalty under the Mosaic law (see Lev. 18:21,
20:2-5, and Jer. 32:35). Ancient Israelites hearing or reading the
story of Abraham and Isaac clearly would have understood that God was
asking Abraham to do something that in the normal course of affairs
would be immoral. The main point of the account is to show Abraham's
absolute trust in God, not to justify child killing. It also should be
noted that Isaac is not killed in the story, because God brings a ram
for the sacrifice. If anything, the message communicated by the story
is that unlike the gods of ancient Canaan that did demand the
sacrifice of children, the God of Israel does not desire human
sacrifice. (In Christian theology, of course, the story of Abraham and
Isaac prefigures the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.) In any case,
in no way does the story endorse either infanticide or the killing of
children.
To reiterate, even if Arnhart's interpretations of Biblical teaching
happened to be correct (and I don't think they are), they would not
rescue Darwinism from its own inability to provide a coherent basis
for moral universals.
In future posts, I will respond to Arnhart's comments about my book's
treatment of free will, economic liberty, limited government,
religion, and intelligent design.
.
|
|
| User: "Lee me@localhost" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality |
19 Sep 2007 10:21:21 AM |
|
|
Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality
Nah! If you got some morality Darwinism won't harm it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vlad the accountant" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality |
19 Sep 2007 09:16:43 AM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 1:47 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_further_response_to_larry_ar.html
A Further Response to Larry Arnhart, pt. 1:
twat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality |
19 Sep 2007 09:59:45 AM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 5:47 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
As I noted previously, even if Arnhart has
correctly identified flaws in the Biblical approach to morality, it
would not absolve Darwinism from its own inability to justify moral
universals. However, I think Arnhart's exposition of Biblical teaching
is strained and unpersuasive.
Would you argue over the best way to hold satellites in a stable orbit
with a person who believed that the Earth was flat? For example, he
spouts nonsense like:
"Far from encouraging slavery, the Bible sought to circumscribe its
practice and articulated a clear vision of human equality before God
that made slavery increasingly indefensible over time."
All the Bible had to say was, "Slavery is repugnant to God. Don't
practice it and do everything you can to stamp it out."
Instead, he justifies a perfect God imploring masters to be kind to
their slaves! That's a moral monstrosity and cannot even compare with
any possible errors in Larry Arnhart's view.
He says, of the story of Isaac, "reading the story as an endorsement
of child killing is absurd." That's right, but what it does say is
that if you believe that God wants you to kill someone, you should
kill them. This is what suicide bombers agree on and where they break
from rational, moral people. He is on the suicide bombers' side on
this issue of morality.
There is no point in discussing fine points of a scientific theory
with someone who is irrationally committed to a nonsensical view and
will defend it with absurdities like that one.
-
http://www.geeksparadise.com/atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
19 Sep 2007 10:06:01 AM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 10:59 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:47 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
As I noted previously, even if Arnhart has
correctly identified flaws in the Biblical approach to morality, it
would not absolve Darwinism from its own inability to justify moral
universals. However, I think Arnhart's exposition of Biblical teaching
is strained and unpersuasive.
Would you argue over the best way to hold satellites in a stable orbit
with a person who believed that the Earth was flat? For example, he
spouts nonsense like:
"Far from encouraging slavery, the Bible sought to circumscribe its
practice and articulated a clear vision of human equality before God
that made slavery increasingly indefensible over time."
All the Bible had to say was, "Slavery is repugnant to God. Don't
practice it and do everything you can to stamp it out."
Instead, he justifies a perfect God imploring masters to be kind to
their slaves! That's a moral monstrosity and cannot even compare with
any possible errors in Larry Arnhart's view.
He says, of the story of Isaac, "reading the story as an endorsement
of child killing is absurd." That's right, but what it does say is
that if you believe that God wants you to kill someone, you should
kill them. This is what suicide bombers agree on and where they break
from rational, moral people. He is on the suicide bombers' side on
this issue of morality.
There is no point in discussing fine points of a scientific theory
with someone who is irrationally committed to a nonsensical view and
will defend it with absurdities like that one.
-http://www.geeksparadise.com/atheism
There is always the humor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
19 Sep 2007 10:45:23 AM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 11:06 am, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:59 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:47 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
As I noted previously, even if Arnhart has
correctly identified flaws in the Biblical approach to morality, it
would not absolve Darwinism from its own inability to justify moral
universals. However, I think Arnhart's exposition of Biblical teaching
is strained and unpersuasive.
Would you argue over the best way to hold satellites in a stable orbit
with a person who believed that the Earth was flat? For example, he
spouts nonsense like:
"Far from encouraging slavery, the Bible sought to circumscribe its
practice and articulated a clear vision of human equality before God
that made slavery increasingly indefensible over time."
All the Bible had to say was, "Slavery is repugnant to God. Don't
practice it and do everything you can to stamp it out."
Well, then you have the problem of God allowing it
to get started in the first place. But in fact it is worse
than that. Not only does the Biblical God condone
slavery and genocide, he orders them! Later it turns
out that he is not only going to have people killed for
the most trivial reasons, like what they think, but
he's going to burn them in Hell for all eternity -- a
divine being who is the very image of hatred and
evil. Let's hope it's an imaginary one.
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian, or
professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed to
create or destroy morality, traditional or otherwise?
It is just a description of how certain things happened,
based on the available evidence. I don't get it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Ward Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
19 Sep 2007 01:33:05 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1190216723.949963.144330@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian, or
professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed to
create or destroy morality, traditional or otherwise?
It is just a description of how certain things happened,
based on the available evidence. I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on Darwin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
19 Sep 2007 10:43:38 PM |
|
|
Gene Ward Smith <genie@chewbacca.org> wrote in message
news:Xns99B075746C135geniechewbaccaorg@207.115.33.102...
jxrodri@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190216723.949963.144330@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian, or
professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed to
create or destroy morality, traditional or otherwise?
It is just a description of how certain things happened,
based on the available evidence. I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on Darwin.
You can't base ethics on gravity either, or the melting point of toffee.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
19 Sep 2007 02:14:15 PM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
jxro...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190216723.949963.144330@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian, or
professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed to
create or destroy morality, traditional or otherwise?
It is just a description of how certain things happened,
based on the available evidence. I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on Darwin.
But he thinks it's a problem, as if Darwin was supposed
to provide us with an ethical system.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
19 Sep 2007 01:52:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:33:05 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<genie@chewbacca.org> wrote:
jxrodri@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190216723.949963.144330@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian, or
professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed to
create or destroy morality, traditional or otherwise?
It is just a description of how certain things happened,
based on the available evidence. I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on Darwin.
As Hume pointed out, you don't get "ought" from "is".
That said, it is well known that there was no slavery or genocide or
child murder or terror before Darwin. The greatest prophasy in the
Bible was predicting the Fall of Man which did not take place in Eden
by with the publication of _Origin of Species_. Until then there was
no war or hunger or anything bad at all anywhere. Then Darwin wrote
and the world had gone to Hell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
20 Sep 2007 01:17:59 AM |
|
|
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian,
or professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed
to create or destroy morality, traditional or
otherwise? It is just a description of how certain
things happened, based on the available evidence.
I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on
Darwin.
As Hume pointed out, you don't get "ought" from "is".
Hume also applied the same argument to fire and ashes,
concluding that one cannot say that fire causes paper to
burn.
Whatever "ought" may mean, everyone knows what "evil"
means, and you certainly can get "evil" from "is" -
Fairy tales, like Darwinism, are simply an account of
events, but, like Darwinism, contain compelling morals
for all that.
When evolutionary psychologists construct conjectures or
discover results about the ancestral environment, they
are telling stories, stories that we hope are
better founded than Grimm's fairy tales, but nonetheless
cover much the same subject matter.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
20 Sep 2007 09:52:02 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:eo34f3difko5m72f8m5t6g43p6jh4j8v5m@4ax.com...
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian,
or professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed
to create or destroy morality, traditional or
otherwise? It is just a description of how certain
things happened, based on the available evidence.
I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on
Darwin.
As Hume pointed out, you don't get "ought" from "is".
Hume also applied the same argument to fire and ashes,
concluding that one cannot say that fire causes paper to
burn.
He was correct, fire does not cause paper to burn, the paper burning _is_
the fire. Paper burns when heated to a specific temperature, how that
temperature is reached can vary, applying another burning material to it
will suffice or it may spontaneously combust when heated suffciently. But
again, 'fire' is the result, not the cause. At best, you could say that
another instance of burning may contribute to another instance of burning by
increasing the temperature of that material, together which will constitute
a 'fire'.
Whatever "ought" may mean, everyone knows what "evil"
means, and you certainly can get "evil" from "is" -
Fairy tales, like Darwinism, are simply an account of
events, but, like Darwinism, contain compelling morals
for all that.
Apparently not, for we seem to require your 'fairy tales' to help us
identify 'evil'. So, you could say that we are taught to recognise 'evil',
but that would be 'evil' as considered to be such by our teachers. Thus the
nazi's 'recognised' the 'evil' of Judaism, once they had been taught to
recognise it. Oddly, tribes which practised canabalism rarely noticed the
'evil' until they had been taught to do so by missionaries, who, seemingly,
always knew it was such, even when the missionaries religious practice
celebrated symbolic cannabalism.... ain't life strange eh?
When evolutionary psychologists construct conjectures or
discover results about the ancestral environment, they
are telling stories, stories that we hope are
better founded than Grimm's fairy tales, but nonetheless
cover much the same subject matter.
When evolutionary psychologists construct conjectures they face the same
problem as any psychologist : their perception of what is 'normal' or
'healthy' or 'obvious' is governed by the society in which they were raised
and educated. Thus to a Soviet era psychologist any behaviour which
seemingly confronted the State and Party was 'obviously' abnormal and the
patient 'obviously' required treatment. In the Victorian era it was
'obvious' that unmarried mothers were 'mentally deficient' and 'obviously'
required treatment. Not that long ago it was 'obvious' that frontal
lobotomies cured all, that electro-shock therapy cured even more, now such
views tend to get laughed at.
At best evolutionary pyschologists can look at past societies and perhaps
give an insight into their structure and practice based on modern notions of
how society behaves, but such a view will always be coloured by the viewers
own 'home' society and the viewers relationship to that. They may be
correct, they may as likely be totally off the wall, but we shall probably
never know which applies, lacking a time machine. They remain, at best,
guesses and should be given the same weight in arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, ChildMurder, Terror, etc.) |
21 Sep 2007 02:05:13 PM |
|
|
brique wrote:
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:eo34f3difko5m72f8m5t6g43p6jh4j8v5m@4ax.com...
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian,
or professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed
to create or destroy morality, traditional or
otherwise? It is just a description of how certain
things happened, based on the available evidence.
I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on
Darwin.
As Hume pointed out, you don't get "ought" from "is".
Hume also applied the same argument to fire and ashes,
concluding that one cannot say that fire causes paper to
burn.
He was correct, fire does not cause paper to burn, the paper burning _is_
the fire.
I hardly matters. In any case, it is not true that Hume applied the same
argument to causality and the ought-from-is problem.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
23 Sep 2007 08:04:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:05:13 -0700, Dan Clore
It hardly matters. In any case, it is not true that Hume applied
the same argument to causality and the ought-from-is problem.
Hume wrote:
: : All events seem entirely loose and separate.
: : One event follows another; but we never can
: : observe any tie between them. They seem
: : conjoined but never connected. And as we can
: : have no idea of anything, which never appears
: : to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the
: : necessary conclusion seems to be, that we
: : have no idea of connexion or power at all,
: : and that these words are absolutely without
: : any meaning, when employed either in
: : philosophical reasoning, or in private life.
Hume rejected causation as unprovable, and thus
meaningless, by much the same reasoning as he rejected
morality as unprovable, and thus meaningless.
The difference is that people want to believe there is
no such thing as morality, and do not want to believe
there is no such thing as causation
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
23 Sep 2007 01:24:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:04:26 +1000, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:05:13 -0700, Dan Clore
It hardly matters. In any case, it is not true that Hume applied
the same argument to causality and the ought-from-is problem.
Hume wrote:
: : All events seem entirely loose and separate.
: : One event follows another; but we never can
: : observe any tie between them. They seem
: : conjoined but never connected. And as we can
: : have no idea of anything, which never appears
: : to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the
: : necessary conclusion seems to be, that we
: : have no idea of connexion or power at all,
: : and that these words are absolutely without
: : any meaning, when employed either in
: : philosophical reasoning, or in private life.
Hume rejected causation as unprovable, and thus
meaningless, by much the same reasoning as he rejected
morality as unprovable, and thus meaningless.
The difference is that people want to believe there is
no such thing as morality, and do not want to believe
there is no such thing as causation
He did not reject either as meaningless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
24 Sep 2007 06:09:29 PM |
|
|
Hume wrote:
: : All events seem entirely loose and
: : separate. One event follows another; but
: : we never can observe any tie between
: : them. They seem conjoined but never
: : connected. And as we can have no idea of
: : anything, which never appears to our
: : outward sense or inward sentiment, the
: : necessary conclusion seems to be, that we
: : have no idea of connexion or power at
: : all, and that these words are absolutely
: : without any meaning, when employed either
: : in philosophical reasoning, or in private
: : life.
Hume rejected causation as unprovable, and thus
meaningless, by much the same reasoning as he
rejected morality as unprovable, and thus
meaningless.
The difference is that people want to believe there
is no such thing as morality, and do not want to
believe there is no such thing as causation
Matt Silberstein
He did not reject either as meaningless.
" absolutely without any meaning, when employed either
in philosophical reasoning, or in private life."
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
25 Sep 2007 09:01:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:09:29 +1000, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Hume wrote:
: : All events seem entirely loose and
: : separate. One event follows another; but
: : we never can observe any tie between
: : them. They seem conjoined but never
: : connected. And as we can have no idea of
: : anything, which never appears to our
: : outward sense or inward sentiment, the
: : necessary conclusion seems to be, that we
: : have no idea of connexion or power at
: : all, and that these words are absolutely
: : without any meaning, when employed either
: : in philosophical reasoning, or in private
: : life.
Hume rejected causation as unprovable, and thus
meaningless, by much the same reasoning as he
rejected morality as unprovable, and thus
meaningless.
The difference is that people want to believe there
is no such thing as morality, and do not want to
believe there is no such thing as causation
Matt Silberstein
He did not reject either as meaningless.
" absolutely without any meaning, when employed either
in philosophical reasoning, or in private life."
Reference please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
26 Sep 2007 06:52:08 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald
Hume rejected causation as unprovable, and thus
meaningless, by much the same reasoning as he
rejected morality as unprovable, and thus
meaningless.
The difference is that people want to believe
there is no such thing as morality, and do not
want to believe there is no such thing as
causation
Matt Silberstein
He did not reject either as meaningless.
James A. Donald:
" absolutely without any meaning, when employed
either in philosophical reasoning, or in private
life."
Matt Silberstein
Reference please.
http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/10.html
As I said, Hume purportedly demolishes causation as
unknowable, in the same fashion as he purportedly
demolishes morality as unknowable. The one argument is
as good as the other, which is to say, no good at all,
but people want to believe the one, and do not want to
believe the other.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
20 Sep 2007 09:36:54 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 2:17 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
The stuff about Darwin, however, mystifies me.
Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet, theologian,
or professor of ethics. Why is his theory supposed
to create or destroy morality, traditional or
otherwise? It is just a description of how certain
things happened, based on the available evidence.
I don't get it.
That's the guy's point: you can't base ethics on
Darwin.
As Hume pointed out, you don't get "ought" from "is".
Hume also applied the same argument to fire and ashes,
concluding that one cannot say that fire causes paper to
burn.
Whatever "ought" may mean, everyone knows what "evil"
means, and you certainly can get "evil" from "is" -
Fairy tales, like Darwinism, are simply an account of
events, but, like Darwinism, contain compelling morals
for all that.
When evolutionary psychologists construct conjectures or
discover results about the ancestral environment, they
are telling stories, stories that we hope are
better founded than Grimm's fairy tales, but nonetheless
cover much the same subject matter.
Sure. But the theory of Evolution, or any other
scientific theory, can't tell you why you should do
one thing or another. It may tell you why you have
urges to do one thing rather than another, like
sacrifice your life for the good of the tribe rather
than look on all teary-eyed as someone else does
it for you, but in itself it doesn't give any reason
why anyone should give in to the pleasures of
yielding to the temptation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
20 Sep 2007 07:41:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:36:54 -0700, *Anarcissie*
Sure. But the theory of Evolution, or any other
scientific theory, can't tell you why you should do
one thing or another.
It can tell you about people - leading to the conclusion
that certain people are apt to do harm, whereupon we
think to ourselves "best get rid of those people", and
thinking so, call those people "evil", and call the
deeds that indicate their propensity to do harm "evil".
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
20 Sep 2007 11:19:10 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:bh46f3phurt3c86bjcqf6gs5rdgrq2he2q@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:36:54 -0700, *Anarcissie*
Sure. But the theory of Evolution, or any other
scientific theory, can't tell you why you should do
one thing or another.
It can tell you about people - leading to the conclusion
that certain people are apt to do harm, whereupon we
think to ourselves "best get rid of those people", and
thinking so, call those people "evil", and call the
deeds that indicate their propensity to do harm "evil".
You seem justify any claim that the Nazi's did indeed have a scientific
basis for undertaking the Holocaust? After all, _they_ seem to have been
able to recognise the alleged 'evil' of this specific people and the
consequent propensity towards 'harm ' and the necessity to 'best get rid of
those people'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
21 Sep 2007 05:03:54 AM |
|
|
*Anarcissie*
Sure. But the theory of Evolution, or any other
scientific theory, can't tell you why you should
do one thing or another.
James A. Donald:
It can tell you about people - leading to the
conclusion that certain people are apt to do harm,
whereupon we think to ourselves "best get rid of
those people", and thinking so, call those people
"evil", and call the deeds that indicate their
propensity to do harm "evil".
"brique"
You seem justify any claim that the Nazi's did indeed
have a scientific
basis for undertaking the Holocaust? After all, _they_
seem to have been able to recognise the alleged 'evil'
of this specific people
Hitler inferred that the Jews were evil from the fact
that they produced better art that he did - logic only
marginally more coherent than your own.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
22 Sep 2007 03:23:05 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:0k57f3liojrmvg5cp8bg7q1dlsd0qbo5sj@4ax.com...
*Anarcissie*
Sure. But the theory of Evolution, or any other
scientific theory, can't tell you why you should
do one thing or another.
James A. Donald:
It can tell you about people - leading to the
conclusion that certain people are apt to do harm,
whereupon we think to ourselves "best get rid of
those people", and thinking so, call those people
"evil", and call the deeds that indicate their
propensity to do harm "evil".
"brique"
You seem justify any claim that the Nazi's did indeed
have a scientific
basis for undertaking the Holocaust? After all, _they_
seem to have been able to recognise the alleged 'evil'
of this specific people
Hitler inferred that the Jews were evil from the fact
that they produced better art that he did - logic only
marginally more coherent than your own.
But Hitler used the same logic as yourself, James. He 'recognised ' evil and
decided it was 'best get rid of those people'. Your problem is that what you
'recognise' as 'evil' and what I may recognise as evil and what Hitler
recognised as evil does somewhat very, enough that we can say that the
evidence for some geneticaly-based ability to recognise 'evil' is left a bit
confused by all these different 'evils' getting recognised so innately..
However, there is abundant evidence for social and peer pressure to
'recognise' specific peoples and acts as 'evil', even more abundant evidence
that educating children to 'recognise' these 'evils' will produce adults
pretty much in agreement as to what constitutes 'evil'.
So, couldn't poossibly be that then, could it ? No, must be some genetic
thang,,,,
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
22 Sep 2007 10:26:24 PM |
|
|
brique:
But Hitler used the same logic as yourself, James. He 'recognised ' evil and
decided it was 'best get rid of those people'.
It is only logic if you do it logically.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
23 Sep 2007 07:13:46 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:v5nbf313sa7jfi3d8usqvqk1q2ln9ijcf0@4ax.com...
brique:
But Hitler used the same logic as yourself, James. He 'recognised ' evil
and
decided it was 'best get rid of those people'.
It is only logic if you do it logically.
But who is to say whose logic is logical? Whose 'recognition' is truely
'recognition' and whose 'evil' is truely 'evil'?
Genetics certainly doesn't. If it 'recognises' evil and prompts the
appropriate reaction (getting rid of the evil people) then who is to say
that the Nazi's were wrong? They recognised 'evil' and acted, as your theory
suggests they should, unable to do otherwise because of their genetic
inheritance.
The same argument must apply to Caligula, Attila, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,
Castro and any other historical figure you care to condemn.
Which is not quite what you meant, is it James? I would suggest you
re-evaluate your genetically-inpired 'evil recognition' theory so as to
accomodate all these different, even contradictory, 'evils' that so many
keep 'recognising'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
24 Sep 2007 04:53:13 PM |
|
|
brique:
But Hitler used the same logic as yourself, James.
He 'recognised ' evil and decided it was 'best
get rid of those people'.
James A. Donald:
It is only logic if you do it logically.
"brique"
But who is to say whose logic is logical?
People with at least half a brain. This, alas,
disqualifies yourself.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
25 Sep 2007 11:46:21 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:1ccgf3l9tabt2d22h3n037t6qc25lgoeq8@4ax.com...
brique:
But Hitler used the same logic as yourself, James.
He 'recognised ' evil and decided it was 'best
get rid of those people'.
James A. Donald:
It is only logic if you do it logically.
"brique"
But who is to say whose logic is logical?
People with at least half a brain. This, alas,
disqualifies yourself.
But qualifies me twice as much as you.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
23 Sep 2007 12:17:30 PM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 8:13 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in messagenews:v5nbf313sa7jfi3d8usqvqk1q2ln9ijcf0@4ax.com...
brique:
But Hitler used the same logic as yourself, James. He 'recognised ' evil
and
decided it was 'best get rid of those people'.
It is only logic if you do it logically.
But who is to say whose logic is logical? Whose 'recognition' is truely
'recognition' and whose 'evil' is truely 'evil'?
Genetics certainly doesn't. If it 'recognises' evil and prompts the
appropriate reaction (getting rid of the evil people) then who is to say
that the Nazi's were wrong? They recognised 'evil' and acted, as your theory
suggests they should, unable to do otherwise because of their genetic
inheritance.
The same argument must apply to Caligula, Attila, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,
Castro and any other historical figure you care to condemn.
Which is not quite what you meant, is it James? I would suggest you
re-evaluate your genetically-inpired 'evil recognition' theory so as to
accomodate all these different, even contradictory, 'evils' that so many
keep 'recognising'.
Racism and nationalism seem to grow out of
tribalism. Tribalistic feelings, at least, are probably
coded in the genes. It seems that far from telling us
what's right and what's wrong, Evolution -- not the
theory but the phenomena it studies -- has given
us a Pandora's box of emotions and intuitions
which not only don't fit our lives but are active
agents of self-harm and self-destruction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.) |
24 Sep 2007 06:06:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:17:30 -0700, *Anarcissie*
Racism and nationalism seem to grow out of tribalism.
Tribalistic feelings, at least, are probably coded in
the genes. It seems that far from telling us what's
right and what's wrong, Evolution -- not the theory
but the phenomena it studies -- has given us a
Pandora's box of emotions and intuitions which not
only don't fit our lives but are active agents of
self-harm and self-destruction.
All the great mass murders were a result of attempts to
apply our altruistic inclinations to a larger group than
is natural - attempts to violate nature.
The crimes you allude to, the crimes of communism and
fascism, were a result of trying make people better than
they are.
When someone claims to care deeply about far away
strangers, he is at best lying, at worst lying to
himself, and is likely to commit hideous crimes he gets
th power.
Saloth Sar was a saint. Commentators of that time were
deeply impressed by the astonishing saintliness of the
Khmer Rouge and the historians of that time frequently
commented on the general saintliness of the leading
members of the Khmer Rouge. People who knew Saloth Sar
personally were hugely impressed by his goodness and
kindness.
As western admirers of these totalitarian states pointed
out at the time, those implementing those states showed
every indication of sincerity, and indeed in the case of
the Khmer Rouge, every indication of saintliness. If
they were insincere, their insincerity was of the same
kind as we see in this newsgroup, was doublethink and
doubletalk, the same kind of doublethink and doubletalk
as I continually hear in this newsgroup. Those being
tortured into false confessions by Stalin's minions
believed that those minions believed. The minions
probably believed that they believed.
Pol Pot sincerely believed he was implementing a society
of prosperity, freedom, equality, social justice, and
personal liberty. Of course to give effect to this
noble ideal he regrettably had to murder huge numbers of
people, work even larger numbers of people to death, and
starve large numbers of people to death. It eventually
became apparent that he had created a society of
slavery, fear, and death. He was very disappointed.
His disappointment, however, manifested not in any
reduction of the torture and terror, rather it was
expanded to include the party itself. He personally
tortured his minister of economics into confessing all
sorts of ridiculous crimes. These confessions
supposedly proved that the failure of Pol Pot's policies
to produce the desired results were not the result of
anything wrong with the policies, which were excellent
and needed to be carried out even more vigorously, but
rather the result of evil plots against Pol Pot.
It is obvious that when Pol Pot repeatedly tortured his
minister of economics, he really believed that his
economic program had failed because of hostile
conspiracies by those he directed to implement it. It
would never have occurred to him that his economic
program failed because in reality it merely consisted of
confiscating rice from the peasants to buy guns and
Johnny Walker whisky without worrying what the peasants
were going to eat. If someone had suggested such a
thing, I expect Pol Pot would have taken it for a joke.
Pol Pot sincerely believed he was implementing a society
of prosperity, freedom, equality, social justice, and
personal liberty. Of course to give effect to this
noble ideal he regrettably had to murder huge numbers of
people, work even larger numbers of people to death, and
starve large numbers of people to death. It eventually
became apparent that he had created a society of
slavery, fear, and death. He was very disappointed.
His disappointment, however, manifested not in any
reduction of the torture and terror, rather it was
expanded to include the party itself. He personally
tortured his minister of economics into confessing all
sorts of ridiculous crimes. These confessions
supposedly proved that the failure of Pol Pot's policies
to produce the desired results were not the result of
anything wrong with the policies, which were excellent
and needed to be carried out even more vigorously, but
rather the result of evil plots against Pol Pot.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, Child Murder, Terror, etc.)-- Or We Wish It Did |
24 Sep 2007 10:54:46 PM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 7:06 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:17:30 -0700, *Anarcissie*
Racism and nationalism seem to grow out of tribalism.
Tribalistic feelings, at least, are probably coded in
the genes. It seems that far from telling us what's
right and what's wrong, Evolution -- not the theory
but the phenomena it studies -- has given us a
Pandora's box of emotions and intuitions which not
only don't fit our lives but are active agents of
self-harm and self-destruction.
All the great mass murders were a result of attempts to
apply our altruistic inclinations to a larger group than
is natural - attempts to violate nature.
I'm glad to see you agree with me for once.
The crimes you allude to, the crimes of communism and
fascism, were a result of trying make people better than
they are.
When someone claims to care deeply about far away
strangers, he is at best lying, at worst lying to
himself, and is likely to commit hideous crimes he gets
th power.
Saloth Sar was a saint. ...
Forget Pol Pot. Apply your theories to your everyday
patriot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Destroys Traditional Morality (Slavery, Genocide, ChildMurder, Terror, etc.) |
23 Sep 2007 09:56:44 PM |
|
|
brique wrote:
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:v5nbf313sa7jfi3d8usqvqk1q2ln9ijcf0@4ax.com...
brique:
But Hitler used the same logic as yourself, James. He 'recognised ' evil
and
decided it was 'best get rid of those people'.
It is only logic if you do it logically.
But who is to say whose logic is logical? Whose 'recognition' is truely
'recognition' and whose 'evil' is truely 'evil'?
Genetics certainly doesn't. If it 'recognises' evil and prompts the
appropriate reaction (getting rid of the evil people) then who is to say
that the Nazi's were wrong? They recognised 'evil' and acted, as your theory
suggests they should, unable to do otherwise because of their genetic
inheritance.
The same argument must apply to Caligula, Attila, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,
Castro and any other historical figure you care to condemn.
Which is not quite what you meant, is it James? I would suggest you
re-evaluate your genetically-inpired 'evil recognition' theory so as to
accomodate all these different, even contradictory, 'evils' that so many
keep 'recognising'.
Well, James spent a lot of times not recognizing the evil of Marx,
Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, and any number of other former heroes of
his. So, on his own premises, his genetics would seem to have given him
a rather suspect ability to employ logic.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
