----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 2:32 AM Subject: Re: Religion based ethics
> Dan Minette wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? > > > > > > Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is. > > Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution: > success? In the same sense that the purpose of gravity is falling, but that's streatches the meaning of purpose. > The > > survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best. In particular, > > fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of > > the fittest can be somewhat random. > > But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are > actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? Then, its not really evolution. > An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that > adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately > recognize what and why it is successful and continue to build upon it. > > An animal is not aware of the social "laws" that guide its behavior, but > a human is not only able to see short term benefits of social behaviors, > but he is able to 1) compare those behaviors with those of other groups > and 2) compare those behaviors with past behaviors. Aberrant behaviors > may have short term success, but as in your Native American example, > eventually end in failure. Every behavior by the Native Americans ended in failure. The Euroepeans simply took the land as they willed. The result was a vast and powerful European country in the Americas. It became the super power of the world. As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriquois allowed them the greatest power for the greatest time with respect to the Europeans of any native group. The 6 nations were afforded some respect by the Europeans because of their power. >In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to > be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before > they succeeded. Evolution. That only works if you are taking a snapshot of about 50 years of history and calling it the culmination of history. The US is somewhat unique in that morality is actually the third priority of foreign policy (after national security and economic self interest). The US winning the Cold War was not a certainty. What you appear to be saying is that the system that ends up the dominant system is, by definition, moral. If totalitarian systems had won, or eventually win, will that make individual freedom immoral? If your worst nightmares come true, and a US theocracy is formed, will that make you immoral if you are not Christian. Does might make right? The argument given above indicates that this is true. My argument is, that some things are immoral, even if they prove successful. It was wrong to treat the Native Americans as we did, even though the power of our country is at least partially founded on that immoral behavior. Would you argue, by definition, it was right? Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
