Lesbians leading the way in eugenics

[Ben Kenobi]

The other argument you could make maniac is that evolution is an extended process and the immorality was greater than it was today, and hasn't yet disappeared.

[Maniac]

2, and 3, do not agree with each other.

I don't see why 2 and 3 are at odds.

"2. Morality is a construct of society" means that morality is not absolute. It does not have a divine origin. It is an outflow of a combination of nature, nurture, human consciousness, whatever, but in any case not absolute or unchangeable.

"3. Morality is the process of evolution in human society to improve survival." means that there are certain ethics which can better aid the survival of a society than others. What those best ethics are can depend on the environment the society is in, and changes along with environmental changes.

So 2 and 3 are complementary, rather than at odds.

How are we aware of a higher morality, if in fact it is disadvantageous to survival?

I assume with "higher morality" you mean "morality that is best for society".

If it truly were most beneficial to society to have a mix of altruism and egoism, why is altruism considered a virtue and egoism a vice?

I said that a mix of altruism and egoism is best for the individual, not best for the society. When you correct that misreading, the rest of your post no longer logically follows.

The other argument you could make maniac is that evolution is an extended process and the immorality was greater than it was today, and hasn't yet disappeared.

In this argument you are already assuming in advance that morality is something absolute and pre-existing, rather than something that arises and changes because of evolutionary processes.

[Ben Kenobi]

So 2 and 3 are complementary, rather than at odds.

No, they are at odds. 3 presumes moral absolutes exist, which are advantageous to survival. 2 says that all morality is relative, and thus is a construct by society, not formed by evolution. Changing morality has zero consequences for society in option 2, and in option 3, they can produce an advantage to survival, or a disadvantage.

I assume with "higher morality" you mean "morality that is best for society".

No. I mean that you see altruism as virtuous in and of itself, not just when balanced by egoism.

I said that a mix of altruism and egoism is best for the individual, not best for the society. When you correct that misreading, the rest of your post no longer logically follows.

Do you see altruism, in and of itself, as virtuous?

In this argument you are already assuming in advance that morality is something absolute and pre-existing, rather than something that arises and changes because of evolutionary processes.

Do you believe that immorality can hinder the development of a society?

[Maniac]

No, they are at odds.

No they're not. You must have different definitions for the words 'absolute', 'relative' and 'construct'. "Morality is a construct of society. The specifics of that ever-changing construct can depend on the environment the society is situated in." There is nothing contradictory in this statement.

Do you see altruism, in and of itself, as virtuous?

No I don't. How do I fit now in your worldview?

Even if I did, that would prove nothing. For instance, when people say "God exists, because *I* can FEEL it deeply inside", the only thing they prove is they're irrational morons.

Do you believe that immorality can hinder the development of a society?

Under certain definitions of 'development' and if you define moral behaviour as what is good for society, then of course. However of course not all individuals would define what is good for society as moral in their own personal moral code. I for one prefer to live in a society which is in certain aspects 'immoral' when assuming "what is good for society" as the measuring staff for morality.

You could argue for instance that nationalism is good for a society, but I think nationalism is retarded, so I prefer to live in an un-nationalist society.

Then again one can argue that this view fits perfectly for my European society of multiple nations, which makes me the perfect European citizen. What is considered moral or not, or what's good for survival or not, depends on what individual or group or society you consider.

[Ben Kenobi]

For instance, when people say "God exists, because *I* can FEEL it deeply inside", the only thing they prove is they're irrational morons.

Reason isn't everything. For me, it's looking up at the beauty of the night sky, the coat of stars when it is crisp and cold. So cold that you can't bear it for too long, when the sky seems to extend forever.

I think I did a thread on this. What would heaven be like for you? This is the second closest experience I have had.

Under certain definitions of 'development' and if you define moral behaviour as what is good for society, then of course. However of course not all individuals would define what is good for society as moral in their own personal moral code.

This is what I was driving at. If morality is relative, then it cannot be evolved. It is a construct, in the sense that morality is whatever we choose it to be.

I for one prefer to live in a society which is in certain aspects 'immoral' when assuming "what is good for society" as the measuring staff for morality.

You could argue for instance that nationalism is good for a society, but I think nationalism is retarded, so I prefer to live in an un-nationalist society.

Then again one can argue that this view fits perfectly for my European society of multiple nations, which makes me the perfect European citizen. What's moral or not, or what's good for survival or not, depends on what individual or group or society you consider.

Personally I believe that morality has nothing to do with nationality, with a group of people. Morality is like an immutable universal law, like gravity. I personally think you are in category 2, asserting that morality is relative and simply the creation of the society. It has diddly poo with survival.

[BeBMan]

This is what I was driving at. If morality is relative, then it cannot be evolved. It is a construct, in the sense that morality is whatever we choose it to be.

Which is why it can be evolved. Otherwise it couldn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is it necessary to invoke evolution? Couldn't we simply be making it up as we go along?

[BeBMan]

You opened the door by writing 'evolved', I just anserwed.

However, when I look around the globe or back in time I see that morality isn't/wasn't always like it's now in the 'west', so it looks as if (in the west, probably elsewhere too) it changed/developed/whatever, so it 'evolved', no?

If your 'construct' or 'making it up' means that it is not real morality because it's man-made I'd disagree.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm being somewhat flippant, but I really don't see why evolution has to be invoked.

Arguing that it is a man-made construct is a perfectly valid argument.

[N35t0r]

Modern sheep have much greater wool and meat yields than 2000 ago. This is a result of evolution, which was caused by direct intervention of human beings (it wouldn't have happened without us).

I am not aware of there ever being a council, vote or discussion, ever, to set morality. Rather, it varies with culture, time, and events, and no person is directly in control or has a say on it. Thus, claiming it is a mere construct and that it hasn't evolved is hand-picking specific meanings of several words to force the argument at best.

[Maniac]

Reason isn't everything.

Reason and empiricism are the only reliable tools to acquire knowledge and facts. Considering morality has no absolute basis, reason and empiricism are not necessary when devising an ethical system. You can justify every behaviour to yourself with "because I feel like it" or "because the night sky is beautiful". The problem with poly/monotheists is that they are making empirical claims; they are trying needlessly to justify their ethical system with unreliable "facts", for instance "Behaviour X is good (moral claim), because God exists (empirical claim), because the night sky is beautiful (feeling)". Just cut out the middle part.

Why is it necessary to invoke evolution? Couldn't we simply be making it up as we go along?

Evolution and memetics can explain why certain people held certain beliefs at certain times. "They just made it up" can't. There are only few Overmen with a sui causa morality.

[Heraclitus]

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2...blem-with.html

Questionnaires went, at various points in the study, to both mothers and children. But the conclusion about how well adjusted the children were was based entirely on the reports of their mothers. A more accurate, if less punchy, headline would have read: "Lesbian Mothers Think Better of Their Kids than Heterosexual Mothers Do."

This sudy has so many flaws if one wants to turn it into a "gay parents are better" proponent that I can't see how CNN could make such a big deal of it.


Seriusly MSM sucks when it comes to science, even especially squishy science.

[DaShi]

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2...blem-with.html





This sudy has so many flaws if one wants to turn it into a "gay parents are better" proponent that I can't see how CNN could make such a big deal of it.


Seriusly MSM sucks when it comes to science, even especially squishy science.

You'd think someone so renowned for posting hack science and then asking others to provide evidence against it would do the same himself when presented with such a situation.

[loinburger]

Black people are just plain dumber, just look at their ACT scores.

[Ben Kenobi]

Reason and empiricism are the only reliable tools to acquire knowledge and facts.

For certain things. There are limitations to both reason and empiricism. Empiricism requires the proper tools and the proper understanding of them to obtain reliable results. Without the proper tools, empiricism cannot do much at all.

Reason is broader in that it doesn't require any equipment whatsoever. However, the conclusions postulated by reason have less force than those proven by empirical means.

Considering morality has no absolute basis

This is an assumption that we are testing. How can we prove that morality does not have an absolute basis? We can't just reach agreement here and then move on.

reason and empiricism are not necessary when devising an ethical system.

I'd argue that morality ought to be accessible to reason, though it should not be defined by reason. Parts of it are governed by reason, and other parts of it are not, from our current understanding of reason.

You can justify every behaviour to yourself with "because I feel like it" or "because the night sky is beautiful". The problem with poly/monotheists is that they are making empirical claims

I'm not making an empirical clais. My response to you should have indicated this quite clearly. I'm making quite the opposite. I'm claiming that knowledge of God is entirely outside the empirical realm. However, I'm also arguing that something can be just as valid and true even if it is outside empirical means.

they are trying needlessly to justify their ethical system with unreliable "facts", for instance "Behaviour X is good (moral claim), because God exists (empirical claim), because the night sky is beautiful (feeling)". Just cut out the middle part.

No, quite the opposite. They are asking the question, "how do I know X to be wrong?" with the answer that their conscience tells them so. This isn't an empirical observation. It's not even an argument through reason. They are arguing that conscience helps them make moral decisions.

Evolution and memetics can explain why certain people held certain beliefs at certain times. "They just made it up" can't. There are only few Overmen with a sui causa morality.

I'd argue that this is a weakness of both. You can't reconcile 2 with 3. The solution is therefore 1, because it explains this problem.