Ethics And Evolutionary Strategy

[firstfloor]

But I'm not a materialist FF. There is nothing to overcome if materialism is correct - we are just animals doing what animals do.

I think what you are saying is that your view of materialism in incompatible with your view of the nature of human beings. Part of the difficulty is that the processes by which emergent phenomena like consciousness arise are not well understood. We are certain that they are emergent properties because the full list of moving parts for the relevant energy scale, are known. The fact that materialism it is not yet properly understood does not mean that Dualism or something like it must be correct. Dualism is discussed at a philosophical level but to get answers to philosophical questions you have to do science.

[rogue06]

No I'm not. I'm saying that the only this that matters, in the end, is survival.

I think your confusion may stem from a severe misunderstanding of what "survival of the fittest" entails.

[seer]

I think your confusion may stem from a severe misunderstanding of what "survival of the fittest" entails.

Then what is more important than survival?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ggression.html

all of its adult males

Here you had one group of males destroy another group of males. The males that survive pass on their genes and the ones who didn't don't, at least from that point on. So as far as an evolutionary strategy, where survival is key, the northern males win.

[seer]

I think what you are saying is that your view of materialism in incompatible with your view of the nature of human beings. Part of the difficulty is that the processes by which emergent phenomena like consciousness arise are not well understood. We are certain that they are emergent properties because the full list of moving parts for the relevant energy scale, are known. The fact that materialism it is not yet properly understood does not mean that Dualism or something like it must be correct. Dualism is discussed at a philosophical level but to get answers to philosophical questions you have to do science.

Wrong FF, it is about what man is by nature. I know some very intelligent Christians who are materialists like Dr. Peter van Inwagen. So whether dualism is correct or not has no bearing on the question. But Dr. van Inwagen, like me, believes that human beings were created for a purpose and are image bearers of God. We are not biological accidents with no inherent worth.

[shunyadragon]

But I'm not a materialist FF. There is nothing to overcome if materialism is correct - we are just animals doing what animals do.

Animals do what animals do, including humans, regardless of the many varied philosophical views from materialism, theism, agnosticism, Deism or whatever. The sciences of evolution, and other behavioral or biological disciplines are simply descriptive of the natural nature of life.

[seer]

Evolutionary speaking - neither. Evolution has no perspective, any more than rainfall has a perspective. Both are natural processes.

From a human perspective, bad for the group that was wiped out, good for the group that did the wiping out. From the perspective of both groups, evolutionary advantageous if they had both cooperated?

There may have been no advantage in cooperation, perhaps there was just not enough feeding ground for both groups, perhaps resources were limited. But from an evolutionary stand point the northern males win, and get to pass on their genes - and that is all that matters in the end - correct?

[shunyadragon]

There may have been no advantage in cooperation, perhaps there was just not enough feeding ground for both groups, perhaps resources were limited. But from an evolutionary stand point the northern males win, and get to pass on their genes - and that is all that matters in the end - correct?

No that is not all that matters, cooperation in many higher species, in fact most species even down to microrganism, in many forms is directly found essential to survival of different species.

[Wally]

Your central error is conflating "good" and "successful"

Your next error is anthropomorphizing a natural process.

[shunyadragon]

Then what is more important than survival?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ggression.html



Here you had one group of males destroy another group of males. The males that survive pass on their genes and the ones who didn't don't, at least from that point on. So as far as an evolutionary strategy, where survival is key, the northern males win.

What is the point here? This a matter of fact observed behavior in humans and other species of life. Cooperation as well is found essential throughout life in most species.

[firstfloor]

Wrong FF, it is about what man is by nature. I know some very intelligent Christians who are materialists like Dr. Peter van Inwagen. So whether dualism is correct or not has no bearing on the question. But Dr. van Inwagen, like me, believes that human beings were created for a purpose and are image bearers of God. We are not biological accidents with no inherent worth.

[Roy]

Then what is more important than survival?

Reproduction.

Roy

[seer]

Reproduction.

Roy

Well yes, because that is needed for survival of the species.

[seer]

Your central error is conflating "good" and "successful"

What is the difference from an evolutionary stand point?

[seer]

When I say accident I mean there was no overriding plan or purpose for humankind. No one intended our existence. Biological life on this earth was an accident, no intention was involved.

Science tells us that all life is temporary and the Universe will eventually grow cold and dark but in the meantime we should enjoy what we have and decide for ourselves what our purpose is because we are the one animal that that has the power to control its own environment. In short, we create the creator both in fact and fantasy. It is a very responsible position to hold - are we up to the challenge?

Oh please...

[Wally]

What is the difference from an evolutionary stand point?

"Good" has nothing to do with evolution, it's an entirely subjective human judgement.

"Successful" is the unambiguous result of a process.

The males of our species have a primal urge to nail every available female that's available. That's a "successful" strategy to disseminate our genes, but we, as a cooperative society have made the subjective judgment, that it is not a "good" thing to do.