Epos Nix on 11/4/2008 at 21:11
Quote:
And yet, science has directly shown what morals are good and what are bad. Natural Selection has eliminated those cultures that had moral systems that hurt the society.
Where are you getting this stuff from??
If you have any backing at all for this statement, please by all means share. Until then though I'm gonna call BS on the basis that mankind as a whole has a dubious grasp on morality and no moral code has ever conceived of a 'perfect' society, so there is nothing to test that idea against.
Ben Gunn on 11/4/2008 at 21:41
Quote Posted by catbarf
And yet, science has directly shown what morals are good and what are bad. Natural Selection has eliminated those cultures that had moral systems that hurt the society.
Great! Now I know that evolution has reached its final conclusion and that we are finaly living in a society which is as close to utopiah as scientificaly possible. I can relax at last- capitalism is the most moralistic social system since the dawn of mankind.
I wonder if the Chinese know they are only a tool in the hand of the benign natural selection to weed out that terrible terrible Tibetian culture.
And thank god (...sorry- natural selection) for the elimination of those tyranic cultures of the native americans and all the other barbarians around the world, through out history.
I really cant help NOT "strawmanning" when you folks compress so much shit in just two sentences.
Ill make one last effort before I tag you also as a lost cause. (It's not a personal attack, I dont think you (nor jay) are dumb- it just means that something in our line of communication is broken and I dont see any way of fixing it)
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem) The is-ought problem: You cant make what-ought-to-be arguments (morals) based on what is (science) without making a leap that has no logical validity.
Closely related but a bit different- (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) The Naturalistic fallacy
Quote:
An example of a naturalistic fallacy.... would be to conclude Social Darwinism from the theory of evolution by natural selection, and of the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false.
catbarf on 11/4/2008 at 22:32
Great! Now I know that evolution has reached its final conclusion and we are finally a species as close to perfect as scientifically possible. I can relax at last- humans as they are now are the best species that will ever exist.
Use your brain. Natural selection doesn't mean that every individual (or society) which dies was inferior to the others, nor does it preclude an advanced individual (or society) from dying. And the idea that natural selection would imply that our current system is the best possible is just idiocy.
D'Juhn Keep on 11/4/2008 at 22:34
Quote Posted by catbarf
Natural Selection has eliminated those cultures that had moral systems that hurt the society.
Quote Posted by catbarf
Great! Now I know that evolution has reached its final conclusion and we are finally a species as close to perfect as scientifically possible. I can relax at last- humans as they are now are the best species that will ever exist.
Use your brain.
He's got a point, this is a ridiculous thing to say
EDITY EDIT
Your ninja edit clears up your point of view but you have to ask why you didn't say that, and why your latest post seems to do a U-turn on what you said. "Natural Selection has eliminated those cultures that had moral systems that hurt the society." is a silly thing to say!
Ben Gunn on 11/4/2008 at 22:55
Quote Posted by catbarf
Great! Now I know that evolution has reached its final conclusion and we are finally a species as close to perfect as scientifically possible. I can relax at last- humans as they are now are the best species that will ever exist.
Use your brain. Natural selection doesn't mean that every individual (or society) which dies was inferior to the others, nor does it preclude an advanced individual (or society) from dying. And the idea that natural selection would imply that our current system is the best possible is just idiocy.
Thats your second flic-flac in a row. Logic gymnastics are not always good you know.
And are you taking those view as if
I claimed them? I
said I was straw-manning, do I need to spell it for you?
Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist...
I give up. Happy?
jay pettitt on 11/4/2008 at 23:17
It would appear that Is-Ought works just as well for (and against) me as it does for you. Doesn't it. Certainly I have already alluded to severing (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1720961#post1720961) is and ought and I doubt I'm the only one here with a take on it. It's both a goal and an own goal and a nil-nil draw each and by all accounts we are back where we were. Thanks for the diversion though - I happen to have a bizarre fondness 18C stuff - especially tunics.
Quote:
I really cant help NOT "strawmanning" when you folks compress so much shit in just two sentences.
Uh-huh. Shit or otherwise, only one person wrote those two sentences. You are at fault to ascribe them to the general TTLG readership and writership and deluded to draw conculsions from such.
--edit--
For gawds sake this is tiresome. You're clearly paying attention at school which is more than I ever did. Hows abouts you go away and apply your brain to constructing an argument that doesn't require all this posturing to prop it up?
Ben Gunn on 11/4/2008 at 23:27
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It would appear that Is-Ought works just as well for (and against) me as it does for you.
I know it's against your nature but please explain yourself. Just tell me what is exactly my stand on this debate and how does I-O works against it.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Uh-huh. Shit or otherwise, only one person wrote those two sentences. You are at fault to ascribe them to the general TTLG readership and writership and deluded to draw conculsions from such.
I didnt ascribe them to no-one but him- I used plural for the sake of my past alleged strawmanning. Dont U understand nothing on your own?
jay pettitt on 11/4/2008 at 23:44
Not for the first time: yeah whatever...
Ben Gunn on 11/4/2008 at 23:59
So now Im the glass-eyed dorky teacher's pet while you are the cool girl with the bubble-gum who rolls her eyes and sais wa evah? :D
Thanks, jay, you made me lol. :thumb:
Next time we'll discuss tunics, I promise.
catbarf on 12/4/2008 at 00:39
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
And are you taking those view as if
I claimed them? I
said I was straw-manning, do I need to spell it for you?
You use a straw-man argument, and it's absolutely flawless. I take the
same exact argument as what you used in your straw-man, and apply it to an
extremely similar concept to show how ridiculous, inaccurate, and meaningless your straw-man is, and suddenly my argument is null and void. Woe is me.
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Your ninja edit clears up your point of view but you have to ask why you didn't say that, and why your latest post seems to do a U-turn on what you said. "Natural Selection has eliminated those cultures that had moral systems that hurt the society." is a silly thing to say!
It was meant more in a figurative manner, that a society that fostered anti-societal beliefs in its people would be less likely to survive, leading to the fact that most modern societies encourage some degree of pacifism and substantial responsibility to society rather than violence and other destructive behaviors. Just using it as an example of using science to develop morals- that science and morals are not mutually exclusive, and by looking to history to see which societies died out as a result of their moral code, we can infer which are 'better' from a completely scientific perspective.
