Can natures and social laws oppose each other?

K

Kumar

Registered Senior Member
Hello,

How nature's and social laws can oppose each other? Which is comparetively more justifed over other in true sense? Can natural initiations or perceived qualities cause voilation of social rule, still be considered as justified in real sense?

What is a sin--opposing a nature's law or opposing a social law?

Many critics of evolution argue that "survival of the fittest" is a justification for violence and cruelty by premising human "rights" on the perceived quality of an individual by an arbitrary measure of "fitness". Survival of the fittest implies that "might makes right" is a proper guide to behavior.

Better "Natural selection" may call for "survival of fittest" and "might is right", environmental and sexual selections, Mate to mate choice, male competiveness for dominence and reproduction etc.
 
As a complete non-expert I can tell you straight away that you're misintepreting the meaning of 'fittest' here. It simply means 'best adapted (to a particular environment)', and doesn't imply strength or superiority. I'm sure someone more versed in evolutionary studies can enlighten you further on this.
 
redarmy11 said:
As a complete non-expert I can tell you straight away that you're misintepreting the meaning of 'fittest' here. It simply means 'best adapted (to a particular environment)', and doesn't imply strength or superiority.
Click to expand...
i disagree.
if you are fitter to survive than another organism then you are more powerful or superior than the other organism
 
Yes but how "survival of fittest"(best adapted to a particular environment) could become possible? You treat a person, he surrvive and reproduce. Will it be survival of fittest?

Which player is fiittest--one who play or one who reach to final and win? :)
 
Fitness in an evolutionary context depends as much upon the environment as the individual, if not more so. Take a lion from the savannah and drop it into the middle of the sea. How will this streamlined killing machine compete for survival with even the tiniest fish? It's a slightly absurd example, I know, but it illustrates the point. Power isn't everything.
 
Last edited:
In your example fish is fittest than lion considering prevailing environment of sea. Still sea lions are also there."survival of fittest" is an evolutionary term but it can encorage us to carry over such things which can make our offsprings fittest.
 
What is a sin--opposing a nature's law or opposing a social law?
Click to expand...
Define "nature's law". If you mean something like gravity or mass having inertia then they're rather hard to oppose.
Define "sin". Breaking a social law (presumably you mean a law of society rather than, say, "laws" of social etiquette) is a crime. To varying degrees. Is double parking a "sin"?
AFAIK most of "nature's laws" are descriptive whereas the legal system is prescriptive. Large difference.
 
Many critics of evolution argue that "survival of the fittest" is a justification for violence and cruelty by premising human "rights" on the perceived quality of an individual by an arbitrary measure of "fitness". Survival of the fittest implies that "might makes right" is a proper guide to behavior.
Click to expand...
Reliable sources for this? I've never come across evolution as a justification for "might makes right", except maybe from wackos.
 
Many critics of evolution argue that "survival of the fittest" is a justification for violence and cruelty by premising human "rights" on the perceived quality of an individual by an arbitrary measure of "fitness".
Click to expand...
Straight from that Wiki article (which you failed to credit in your intial post).
Oh okay. CRITICS have SUGGESTED that it MAY be used as a justification - no proponent of evolution has suggested that it is or should be.
As a critic of hand-held torches (flashlights) I suggest they could be used as bludgeons - does that make me right? Do I have a valid point? Or am I I just looking for excuses to deny the production of torches on flimsy grounds because I have no real argument?
Take a wild guess, take two.
 
On the whole, humans have been very successful, but it's mostly things like invention and farming that gave us the edge (literally in the case of stone tools), not our fierceness or strength. This has only been going on for a short time compared to the history of the planet, so nature's laws will be the judge in the end.

Even if someone wanted to magnify their advantages, there is no certainty about the context. Our ecosystem can change rather quickly, and we are vulnerable to diseases, as well as the behavior of other people. Just being strong might prove to be your downfall if others find it a threat to their own survival.
 
How nature's and social laws can oppose each other?
Click to expand...

They can't. You can't circumvent nature's laws.

What is a sin--opposing a nature's law or opposing a social law?
Click to expand...

You can't oppose nature's laws.

Many critics of evolution argue that "survival of the fittest" is a justification for violence and cruelty by premising human "rights" on the perceived quality of an individual by an arbitrary measure of "fitness". Survival of the fittest implies that "might makes right" is a proper guide to behavior.
Click to expand...

That is a misreading of evolution. Evolution says nothing about how human beings should behave in a moral sense.
 
redarmy11 said:
As a complete non-expert I can tell you straight away that you're misintepreting the meaning of 'fittest' here. It simply means 'best adapted (to a particular environment)', and doesn't imply strength or superiority. I'm sure someone more versed in evolutionary studies can enlighten you further on this.
Click to expand...

Actually it means most able to reproduce. If an adpatation makes you more successful at surviving but reduces your chance of procreation then it will dwindle out over time in face of other adaptations.
 
James R said:
They can't. You can't circumvent nature's laws.
Click to expand...

But can't we have social laws that contradict natural laws? But it is subtle so most people do not catch it.
 
The problem with applying "natural law" is that we sometimes don't know what the value of an action or idea is in relation to nature. Additionally, circumstance seems to make those values variable. Homophobic bigots say being gay "goes against nature"; to the other, homosexual behavior is present in nature. Additionally, gays don't add nearly as much to overpopulation. The religious (e.g. social) laws against homosexuality have diverse justifications. Old Testament? Well, come on: if you're wandering in the desert with poor sanitation for forty years, sticking a penis into a rectum may not be the best idea. Of course, taking a crap also made you unclean, but at least God didn't hate that. Wasted seed among a threatened species or group is a much greater loss than, say, the average American wanking it every night or twice a day or even until they can't wank it anymore without a rest.

In the end, it is hard to know what constitutes natural law because interpretations of natural law depend on diverse assessments of the circumstances and goals of nature's ways, and fluctuating values of various actions in relation to any given sense of natural law.

The whole thing makes moral assignation ridiculously difficult.

"Natural law", as such, is not the problem, but rather human limitation of perception and understanding. We are finite creatures, imperfect by any means except to say that we are what we are. We're going to be wrong about the big picture, be it "God" or "Nature", more often than not. It would seem, then, that social laws frequently conflict with natural law, but that's part of the adventure of being human. Do we really want to be ants or bees? Who here would want to live according to such stringent organization? We're humans. We invented "liberty". Trying to figure out where that fits in with nature is a bit like trying to figure out how to make a cigarette out of feces: it is inadvisable as a casual pursuit, or in the name of God.
 
Society keeps the specie form evolving. We take away selective breeding, seen in all animals, by "giving everyone a fair chance." This prevents the strongest reproducing and the weakest from dying off. In most animals, the stronger are those who carry on the speices.By this process, the "strong" genes are the only ones which make it to the next generation.The easiest animal to indentify this process is the lion. Each generation is more fit to the evironment than the last. Thus natural selection occurs. Societies halt this process.
 
James R said:
They can't. You can't circumvent nature's laws.
Click to expand...

Driving a car or using airconditions or restricting childern or putting restrictions on food snatching, probaby restricting free sex...can be opposing nature's law.



You can't oppose nature's laws.
Click to expand...

Social bindings and practices can do that. Global warming is not natural aspect.



That is a misreading of evolution. Evolution says nothing about how human beings should behave in a moral sense.
Click to expand...

Evolutions will be natural when environment is also natural. Today we have created unnatural modern environmet around us. I don't know, how our next generations will get suitable "natural selection" adjusting modern introductions in view of instant and regular modern interventions/treatments.

Do we get some natural initiations as our percieved and uncontrolable qualities, which may oppose social laws? Probably it may be voilance in sex, selecting mate, snatching food, fighting for dominance, survival or reproduction etc.?
 
Oniw17 said:
Society keeps the specie form evolving. We take away selective breeding, seen in all animals, by "giving everyone a fair chance." This prevents the strongest reproducing and the weakest from dying off. In most animals, the stronger are those who carry on the speices.By this process, the "strong" genes are the only ones which make it to the next generation.The easiest animal to indentify this process is the lion. Each generation is more fit to the evironment than the last. Thus natural selection occurs. Societies halt this process.
Click to expand...

Nature kept our speci survived for so many years. Yes, "good/suitable breeding" often happen naturally by natural selection of fittest provided we expose ourselves to prevalent environment without much interventions. I don't know how our offsprings will be suitably selected to moern environment in view of instant and regular modern intervention/treatments. One can't expect that we can make our children resistant to increased temperature, if we use airconditioning, regularily. :confused:
 
Driving a car or using airconditions or restricting childern or putting restrictions on food snatching, probaby restricting free sex...can be opposing nature's law.
Click to expand...

As a physicist, I have a fairly strict idea of what a "law" of nature is. As Mr Scott said, "Ye canna break the laws of physics!"
 
James R said:
As a physicist, I have a fairly strict idea of what a "law" of nature is. As Mr Scott said, "Ye canna break the laws of physics!"
Click to expand...

Whether nature suggest you to move in a car then compensating physical activities by exercising or use airconditions or restrict child bearings or putting restrictions on food snatching or on anything done for basic need, restricting free sex, treatments by others, competitions and voilance for mate selection/reproduction/dominance, using clothes at the cost of losing coat etc.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top