How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[Archbob]

Sorry, I was a bit lax in the evaluation of my terminology.

I'm equating "fair" and "right" as "right". Do you say that the Caste System is not necessarily "wrong" from a social perspective, and to say it's wrong is a political view?

Do you believe that certain positions being given to members of society by basis of birth and not merit - is not necessarily wrong, and that viewing it as wrong is a "political view"?

Yes, all these are views Defiant. You'd find a wide variety of answers to your questions from different parts of the world. You, like me, have been westernized and therefore we can't really put an objective view on what is "right".

"Right" and "Morality" are completely human-constructed concepts and no one person's concept is better than any other.

If you do not believe in a supreme being who has absolute say on whats "right" or "wrong", then your view and my view is no better than the views of a radical militant Islamic Jihad-ist.

 

[Defiant47]

Yes, all these are views Defiant. You'd find a wide variety of answers to your questions from different parts of the world. You, like me, have been westernized and therefore we can't really put an objective view on what is "right".

Likewise

A: "[insert race or religion here] should have equality of opportunity and be provided the same rights and freedoms as other citizens"

is simply a "political view" and not necessarily right or wrong. Ditto the opposite.

"Right" and "Morality" are completely human-constructed concepts and no one person's concept is better than any other.

Do you believe there is an objective moral truth or are you a moral relativist?

 

[ParkCungHee]

As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

Oh! Like people who can wiggle their ears!
Yes. We should put a great deal of research into whether people who can wiggle their ears are better at sports.

 

[Newbunkle]

And seriously with your appeal to nature argument.

What is so inherently moral about making 2 unequal people equal?

There's no moral basis for that.

People don't just fail or succeed because of their own actions or abilities. Plenty of people who suffer have the capacity to do impressive things, but never get the chance because of their circumstances or bad luck. If anything, supporting each other is a benefit to our evolution, because it stops potentially awesome genes from dying out before they've had the chance to shine.

 

[Archbob]

Likewise

A: "[insert race or religion here] should have equality of opportunity and be provided the same rights and freedoms as other citizens"

is simply a "political view" and not necessarily right or wrong. Ditto the opposite.



Do you believe there is an objective moral truth or are you a moral relativist?

First off, I'm Christian, since I believe in a God, I believe his word is absolute.

But before I converted, yes, I believed morals were relative.

People don't just fail or succeed because of their own actions or abilities. Plenty of people who suffer have the capacity to do impressive things, but never get the chance because of their circumstances or bad luck. If anything, supporting each other is a benefit to our evolution, because it stops potentially awesome genes from dying out before they've had the chance to shine.

You social condition obviously has some to do with it but it doesn't explain social mobility. If two kids are born into middle-class families and have similar living conditions. One goes to join the elite and the other fails out of school and joins the ranks of the poor, your social conditions fail to explain that. Also within the same social class, people who has superior talents usually do better than those that don't. Within a few generations, those who have superior talents move up while those that have inferior talents move down. More than half the people that at the top right now were not born into it.

 

[Defiant47]

First off, I'm Christian, since I believe in a God, I believe his word is absolute.

But before I converted, yes, I believed morals were relative.

Moral relativism offers no stance. There's no point to it.

That's like saying all good things are right but so are all evil things.

What discussion can be had from a belief that all morals are subjective and everyone's right? If everyone's right, no-one's right. The nazi is right in killing the jew, but the soldier is right in killing the nazi and saving the jew. What does it mean to be right anymore?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, actually Chimps and Bonobos are equally as close and out society more resembles chimps than Bonobos. Much like chimps out society is male-dominated.

Regardless, the point is that the societies of the other Great Apes are no basis for declaring absolutes of human society; certainly the Common Chimpanzee is no closer a relative than the Bonobo, and so no firmer a model. And even if it was, human society has only limited similarities to Chimpanzee patriarchy, the latter being not just sexually non-monogamous but highly promiscuous (and so reflective two very different forms of patriarchy, despite your simplistic equivalences), and lacks the sort of consistent, universally recognised hierarchies which you suggest of human societies. Furthermore, their society follows what is known as the "fission-fusion" model, while human societies are generally far more tightly knit, as is demanded by the hierarchies you propose.

 

[Archbob]

Moral relativism offers no stance. There's no point to it.

That's like saying all good things are right but so are all evil things.

What discussion can be had from a belief that all morals are subjective and everyone's right? If everyone's right, no-one's right. The nazi is right in killing the jew, but the soldier is right in killing the nazi and saving the jew. What does it mean to be right anymore?

Because without an divine absolute being, you can't claim anything is really right or wrong. Its really the morals of the society you live in that determines how you have to act. History has displayed that.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

So I got a question for everyone who believes in the first but not the second?

Do you really think that evolution just stopped with humans or is it because your social agenda will not allow you to believe in this seemingly cruel concept? Scientifically, human are no different from any other species. Some members of the species are simply superior to others -- there's little argument that can be made against that.

It is actually quite hypocritical to believe in the theory of evolution and believe that all men are born equal -- because according to evolution, they are not.

If the species adapts to form a collective where some are skilled in some areas, and others are skilled in other areas, some are immune to some diseases and some are immune to others, it is difficult to say which is superior. It depends on the situation.

What you're talking about is allowing the poor or unwanted to die off simply because of economic, national, or political differences which are imaginary human constructs. That has nothing to do with adaptation of species.

Also the so called unwanted or undesirable people are mating just fine, their numbers are growing.

I ask you.... what if they violently overthrow governments and become militant nations demanding concessions? Will the minority at the top survive their wrath?

Would that be social darwinism too?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Because without an divine absolute being, you can't claim anything is really right or wrong.

That's just plain bull feces.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because without an divine absolute being, you can't claim anything is really right or wrong.

Perhaps, in the sense that a man who is not wearing a fair of blue shorts cannot fly. That doesn't suggest that the blue shorts would make a difference, though.

 

[Defiant47]

Because without an divine absolute being, you can't claim anything is really right or wrong.

Yes you can. You can claim there exists an objective morality. It's just hard to go about finding out exactly what it is.

In my opinion, we can find what is moral and what isn't, and are slowly approaching this objective morality.

Its really the morals of the society you live in that determines how you have to act. History has displayed that.

"How you have to act" to achieve what? Survive? No relevance to morality. Excel? No relevance to morality.

Do good and do "right" things? Not necessarily, since society's morals frequently change. Laws are sometimes overturned. You can't say one thing is both right and wrong - right when the law says it's right, and wrong similarly.

Again, moral relativity offers no stance or discussion. No sense either.

 

[Archbob]

Regardless, the point is that the societies of the other Great Apes are no basis for declaring absolutes of human society; certainly the Common Chimpanzee is no closer a relative than the Bonobo. Among other things, human patriarchy is not meaningfully similar to Chimpanzee patriarchy, the latter being not just non-monogamous but highly promiscuous, and lacks the sort of consistent, universally recognised hierarchies which you suggest of human societies. Their society follows what is known as the "fission-fusion" model, while human societies are generally far more tightly knit.

Bonobos are just as promiscuous as chimps. They do whats known as "GG rubbing" before they engage is any kind of social activity. Human are also extremely promiscuous by nature. Its only our laws that prevent us from doing so(and half the time that doesn't work). Humans have been document to attempt sex not only with others in our species but have attempted sex with other species like elephants, cows, mules, and in the case of a particular candidate for governor of Georgia, a melon.

Human patriarchy is not that similar to Chimp patriarchy but is a lot closer to it than Bonobo society.

And it does help to compare our society with those of our closest relatives because we descend from the same line and exhibit many of the same natural instincts and characterics(that and our DNA is 98.3% the same).

Basically all scientific research as shown that as soon as we could stratify, we did. It is a lot more in our basic nature to establish rank and hierarchy than it is to be egalitarian. Both scientific research and history point to that.

 

[Archbob]

Yes you can. You can claim there exists an objective morality. It's just hard to go about finding out exactly what it is.

In my opinion, we can find what is moral and what isn't, and are slowly approaching this objective morality.



"How you have to act" to achieve what? Survive? No relevance to morality. Excel? No relevance to morality.

Do good and do "right" things? Not necessarily, since society's morals frequently change. Laws are sometimes overturned. You can't say one thing is both right and wrong - right when the law says it's right, and wrong similarly.

Again, moral relativity offers no stance or discussion. No sense either.

No, basically without a God, the ruling government decides what right or wrong. If if another government conquers that one, they get to decided. Realistically in human history, whoever has power dictates whats right or wrong. Human history has been a history of "might makes right".

You can claim there exists an objective morality.

You can claim it all you want. It still does not make you any more right than me.

 

[Newbunkle]

You social condition obviously has some to do with it but it doesn't explain social mobility. If two kids are born into middle-class families and have similar living conditions. One goes to join the elite and the other fails out of school and joins the ranks of the poor, your social conditions fail to explain that.

Not necessarily. How do you know that person hasn't had some kind of undetected mental illness, or been under stress for other reasons? What if one made the right friends and had better contacts which landed them a cushy job? Or what if a drunk driver knocks them down and they become brain damaged?

Also within the same social class, people who has superior talents usually do better than those that don't. Within a few generations, those who have superior talents move up while those that have inferior talents move down. More than half the people that at the top right now were not born into it.

No, too many of our abilities are learned and not inherited. There's no reason a child born to a poor family couldn't outperform one born to a rich one, if their circumstances were equalized.

 

[Defiant47]

No, basically without a God, the ruling government decides what right or wrong. If if another government conquers that one, they get to decided. Realistically in human history, whoever has power dictates whats right or wrong. Human history has been a history of "might makes right".

Incorrect. The ruling government claims what is right or wrong. That doesn't make them correct. Might does not (necessarily) make right, even if it does come out on top; and simply being a ruling government does not impart the capacity to see or create the true morals.

You can claim it all you want. It still does not make you any more right than me.

I can claim it based on the fact that its converse - moral relativity - makes no sense.

 

[cardgame]

Yes, but if enough people become convinced of a certain frame of mind when it comes to morality, then that is the new morality.

For example, tolerance is quite big nowadays, and that definitely wasn't the case 200 years ago.

 

[Defiant47]

Yes, but if enough people become convinced of a certain frame of mind when it comes to morality, then that is the new morality.

For example, tolerance is quite big nowadays, and that definitely wasn't the case 200 years ago.

Not in the idea of objective morality. This idea is that there exists a true objective morality. We just don't necessarily know what it is.

Popular dictum does not define morality, because morality cannot change. The reason why tolerance is big nowadays is because, I believe, we're getting closer and closer to achieving the moral truth. (Though I don't believe we'll ever get it 100%)


I mean, you can't say racism is morally correct when everyone's racist, and morally incorrect when no-one is. That doesn't make any sense. What does "morally correct" mean anymore?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

subjective opinion does not triumph over objective reality, ever.

 

[Traitorfish]

Bonobos are just as promiscuous as chimps. They do whats known as "GG rubbing" before they engage is any kind of social activity.

Irrelevant.

Human are also extremely promiscuous by nature. Its only our laws that prevent us from doing so(and half the time that doesn't work). Humans have been document to attempt sex not only with others in our species but have attempted sex with other species like elephants, cows, mules, and in the case of a particular candidate for governor of Georgia, a melon

Human society seems to tend towards monogamy, while individual humans vary greatly in their tendency towards either monogamy, polygamy or promiscuity. The bold declaration which you make here certainly doesn't hold true- it's not as if any "law" demands monogamy in contemporary Western society, and yet most human relationships primarily monogamous.
Human sexuality is far too complex to reduce down to simplistic declarations of "Everyone is X".

Human patriarchy is not that similar to Chimp patriarchy but is a lot closer to it than Bonobo society.

So what? Neither represent an effective illustration of human society.

And it does help to compare our society with those of our closest relatives because we descend from the same line and exhibit many of the same natural instincts and characterics(that and our DNA is 98.3% the same).

And you assume that the two million years of evolution since we went our separate ways have played no part in shaping us? It certainly seemed to render the Bonobos and the Common Chimpanzees somewhat distinct.

Basically all scientific research as shown that as soon as we could stratify, we did. It is a lot more in our basic nature to establish rank and hierarchy than it is to be egalitarian. Both scientific research and history point to that.

What on earth does "basic nature" mean? Surely, you're not so ideologically blinkered as to go down the absurd path of biological essentialism? Certainly, if you wish to pursue that, you'd have to actually demonstrate such claims, rather than just, well, repeatedly re-state them.