You have precisely zero justification for this position.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:51 pmI find little to disagree with in your post, except perhaps the statement that there is nothing to mandate specific rules of morality. This statement is true due only to the present-day circumstance where it is believed that morality is something bestowed from above. The only rational basis for morality is our common carbon-based biology. Morality should be based upon its subject, which is biological well-being, and biological security, any other approach is irrational.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 amThere are no anomalies, since there is no goal except survival and persistence of the genes.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 11:34 pm
The power brokers of the industrial revolution were social Darwinists, a complete violation of his intended message, something he would have found horrific as you said. The philosopher Herbert Spenser was the one who coined the term survival of the fittest. He was at least in part responsible for the growth of social Darwinism. I agree the psychopath is a very successful anomaly as he/her could be termed a nature man/woman matching what some would call the indifference of nature to the survival of the individual caring only for species. However, even these terms are anthropomorphic and nature is simply unaware in the sense of the lack of consciousness to have a concern. To my understanding though the psychopath is not an emotional blank he/she is just not capable of empathy, I think power is the more striking characteristic of the psychopath certainly innate to the general population to a lesser degree. Moral theory is a product of societies/groups, this again is where the psychopath is out of the game morality to the psychopath is just an annoyance.
This is how we have psychopaths in our midst.
Yes Darwin was not in favour of "social darwinism" and feared its appearance.
He always believed in the progress of the individual through education and worked with the emancipation movement.
There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; but there is nothing to mandate specific rules in morality, according to the theory. There is nothing objective about morality except that fact that we are moralistic beings. But the existence of psychopathy is evidence that traits have variability, as do all features of humanity. Can we call a psychopath a human, yes. Would everyone say they were moral, no. Their idea of moral good seems to be directed to themselves. and who they can manipulate.
This view is just as culturally conditioned as any other "objectively" claimed set of moral positions.
And is as easily brushed away by rejecting its premise.
Your claim is that "carbon based biology" is a "good". There is no objective basis for that claim, and is as transparently self interested as "goodness is godliness".
Even if your morality is true or objective, what are the conclusions and consequences for the persistence of human life, against the life of, say the survival of malaria or typhus?Rules, laws institutions and morality are biological extensions of said biology, expressions of human nature, the tendency to create morality around supernatural beings devaluing this earthly existence for an imaginary one is as Nietzsche stated the first nihilistic philosophies. Science, it is obvious to me, can serve the purposes of biological well-being/morality much better than poor mysticism of touch with reality.
Surely the toxicara worm, or other parasite is "carbon based". Where so they fir into the scheme of moral worth?