Moral conduct isn't a real thing, realities equivalent is behaviour.
Is the human species hard-wired for "moral" conduct
- Thread starter MatthewA
- Start date
Dr. Lou Natic,
It's quite a bold statement to state that so much of the behaviour of an individual is derived from genetics alone. You are basically implying that if you put one half of a new born twin in the middle of a bloody civil war and the other in blissful utopia, they would end up having exactly the same morals twenty years down the line, regardless of their completely opposite experiences. It does sound a bit unlikely, doesn't it?
It's quite a bold statement to state that so much of the behaviour of an individual is derived from genetics alone. You are basically implying that if you put one half of a new born twin in the middle of a bloody civil war and the other in blissful utopia, they would end up having exactly the same morals twenty years down the line, regardless of their completely opposite experiences. It does sound a bit unlikely, doesn't it?
Or in a similar situation, if one kitten from a litter is left out in the wilderness (or just not given a home in some urban area) and another is taken in as a pet, do you think that one could be swapped for the other half way through their lives without the owner of the pet realizing any difference in behavior?
Lou,
I believe Mystech is doing a good job so i will simply watch.
I believe Mystech is doing a good job so i will simply watch.
I believe I've done my job.
But I'll address the last point.
I never said life experience doesn't affect behaviour. But a whole lot of someones self is born into them. Tonnes of evidence today is suggesting people are born murderers and rapists for example, their upringing might stop them from actually murdering or raping someone though. But it is still inside them, a person with out these traits bred into them won't become a murderer or rapist regardless of their upbringing.
You can look into this stuff yourself to get the scientific explanations, thats not my forte but I'm sure someone here could cover it, I know its true.
But I'll address the last point.
I never said life experience doesn't affect behaviour. But a whole lot of someones self is born into them. Tonnes of evidence today is suggesting people are born murderers and rapists for example, their upringing might stop them from actually murdering or raping someone though. But it is still inside them, a person with out these traits bred into them won't become a murderer or rapist regardless of their upbringing.
You can look into this stuff yourself to get the scientific explanations, thats not my forte but I'm sure someone here could cover it, I know its true.
nope. i'm aware we're all talking about morals. so was i.
our natural morals are not all that holy. the high and mightiness some people claim is an invention.
What exactly are our "Natural morals"? Are these supposedly moral standards of behavior which are inherent to our species? Do you really think that such behavior exists, or are there simply some moral codes, as arbitrary as the rest, which can be rationalized on an appeal to man's primordial urges? Something like the "moral" action of reproducing or building a fire to cook food or the like.
Refraining from killing a family member would be an example of natural morals that are hardwired into social animals.
If you don't think animals have morals you are very ignorant of the natural world.
Just because you see them breaking the rules of our fake morals doesn't mean they don't have their own. Its just that killing a baby that isn't yours is fine in lion society. Killing your own baby isn't(for obvious reasons).
The quote in the original post was politely saying the morals we have now obviously aren't working. If they were no one would be in prison. If we want people to act a certain way we need to make them act that way through biological means. Just telling them "this is bad" doesn't work because they are just animals with their own hardwired moral standards. But unlike other animals these differ from person to person. As I've said this is due to humans abandoning natural selection.
It is time we as a species try to fix that instead of punishing the people that WE are creating. That is a pointless venture.
You wouldn't hit a greyhound for chasing rabbits. Why electrocute a man for killing 48 people? The mechanics behind why each animal is committing these "crimes" are exactly the same.
If you don't think animals have morals you are very ignorant of the natural world.
Just because you see them breaking the rules of our fake morals doesn't mean they don't have their own. Its just that killing a baby that isn't yours is fine in lion society. Killing your own baby isn't(for obvious reasons).
The quote in the original post was politely saying the morals we have now obviously aren't working. If they were no one would be in prison. If we want people to act a certain way we need to make them act that way through biological means. Just telling them "this is bad" doesn't work because they are just animals with their own hardwired moral standards. But unlike other animals these differ from person to person. As I've said this is due to humans abandoning natural selection.
It is time we as a species try to fix that instead of punishing the people that WE are creating. That is a pointless venture.
You wouldn't hit a greyhound for chasing rabbits. Why electrocute a man for killing 48 people? The mechanics behind why each animal is committing these "crimes" are exactly the same.
So if you hold that people have ingrained "hardwired" morals, but these supposed morals differ from person to person, then what, in your opinion, is the best way to determine which morals should be kept and witch should be bred out, as it were? That is to say, what objective criteria make some of these "hardwired morals" good, and what makes others bad?
I firmly maintain that we are not born with morals, and anyone with the slightest experience with psychology can attest to this, I'm certain. Morality is a learned set of behaviors. Animals do not display it.
How has man abandoned natural selection? Could he even do so if he tried? Last I checked things still work in such a way that those who are suited to their environment continue to live, while those who are not don't. The only difference is that man changes his environment be more hospitable, and to make it easier for him to survive. Would you have us return to the wilderness? Is this "natural" state of being somehow superior to the world we have built for ourselves?
Originally posted by Mystech
So if you hold that people have ingrained "hardwired" morals, but these supposed morals differ from person to person, then what, in your opinion, is the best way to determine which morals should be kept and witch should be bred out, as it were? That is to say, what objective criteria make some of these "hardwired morals" good, and what makes others bad?
That would depend what you want the human species to be. There is no objective good or bad. There is an objective "right set" for each species that evolved naturally through trial and error. Humans had a set perfect for hunter and gatherer humans. They would have kept this unchanged untill civilisation arose. The natural selection stopped so it hasn't been trial and error, its been trial and success for every variation, this is why we see such a diverse range of "interesting" humans around. I'll go into more detail when explaining how humans have abandoned traditional natural selection.
I firmly maintain that we are not born with morals, and anyone with the slightest experience with psychology can attest to this, I'm certain. Morality is a learned set of behaviors. Animals do not display it.
For all animals a certain amount of instincts are set in the egg or womb. This is enough for sharks to get by on. Mammals are more complex and so the instincts continue to be established after they are born. The parent's instincts tell them how to mould their young's instincts to a set that will be beneficial to their youngs survival. We are clean slates in some aspects at birth, but oh so many aspects got locked in inside the womb as well. This is just how mammals work, its still just as hard wired as sharks, the only difference is some of the cable is still getting layed after mammals are born and while they grow up.
You'll find serious psychologists agree with this actually. A good psychologist is well read in animal behaviour. That should be the first step to becoming a psychologist. Every animal out there is our distant cousin, it makes sense to look to them to learn about ourselves, why you assume humans are some seperate entity I don't know.
When did you decide animals don't display behaviour? After looking at still pictures in a national geographic magazine?
If you read the "trials of life" my job would be alot easier, or even watched the dvd. Animals display so much more than you know. Even if your prerequisite for morals is that they be a learned set of behaviours you'll find thousands of animals displaying sets every bit as complex as yours.
How has man abandoned natural selection? Could he even do so if he tried? Last I checked things still work in such a way that those who are suited to their environment continue to live, while those who are not don't. The only difference is that man changes his environment be more hospitable, and to make it easier for him to survive. Would you have us return to the wilderness? Is this "natural" state of being somehow superior to the world we have built for ourselves?
Natural selection is a system that ensures only those perfectly suited to the conditions they live in breed, resulting in the betterment of the species over time.
Nuff said. Humans clearly are not controlled by such a system anymore.
Congrats guys, you've "done" well but its time to stop celebrating our "victory" and realise we aren't going anywhere but in a steep downward spiral.
No we shouldn't return to the wild, we should never have left, or at least waited untill we were more mature as a species.
Now that we have there's no point crying over spilt milk, but we can and should reflect on the spilling of the milk and learn from it.
The reason we've become so lousy is because we weren't experienced enough to be in control of ourselves. We are like an awkward teen in more ways than one. Wild animals have a certain innocence and dignity, an advanced civilisation could be something wise and great, but we think we know everything, we're arrogant and devoid of humility when in reality we don't know shit. Most people don't even think about why they want to have sex. We aren't as far away from the animals as we like to think or act. We're wearing make up and giving big boys head jobs but we're still very much children in adults clothing.
Even the world leaders are totally out of touch with reality. The ONLY people with any handle on all this are scientists like EO wilson but how many people know about EO wilson? He understands the very nature of the planet earth, the closest to deciphiring a meaning to life and how much power does he have?
We have archaic primal politics akin to wild animals. Logic escapes the human race replaced by tradition, law and order based on our ancient ancestors knowledge.
Well we know so much more now, clearly a panel of the worlds best scientists should make up "earth's government". They could tear down the very foundation of society and start over making one based on the knowledge we now possess. It would be drastically different and way more efficient. I'm sure todays society worked for the greeks 2000 years ago but its kind of laughably pathetic today.
Rather than lawyers and courtrooms and prisons the problems could be stopped before they started. Which is what the original quote was saying. We have the knowledge, well some of us, the vast majority doesn't. That makes me sick, utopia should be strived for at all costs.
But we keep on creating criminals and punishing them. Its such a moronic waste of time.
So if you hold that people have ingrained "hardwired" morals, but these supposed morals differ from person to person, then what, in your opinion, is the best way to determine which morals should be kept and witch should be bred out, as it were? That is to say, what objective criteria make some of these "hardwired morals" good, and what makes others bad?
That would depend what you want the human species to be. There is no objective good or bad. There is an objective "right set" for each species that evolved naturally through trial and error. Humans had a set perfect for hunter and gatherer humans. They would have kept this unchanged untill civilisation arose. The natural selection stopped so it hasn't been trial and error, its been trial and success for every variation, this is why we see such a diverse range of "interesting" humans around. I'll go into more detail when explaining how humans have abandoned traditional natural selection.
I firmly maintain that we are not born with morals, and anyone with the slightest experience with psychology can attest to this, I'm certain. Morality is a learned set of behaviors. Animals do not display it.
For all animals a certain amount of instincts are set in the egg or womb. This is enough for sharks to get by on. Mammals are more complex and so the instincts continue to be established after they are born. The parent's instincts tell them how to mould their young's instincts to a set that will be beneficial to their youngs survival. We are clean slates in some aspects at birth, but oh so many aspects got locked in inside the womb as well. This is just how mammals work, its still just as hard wired as sharks, the only difference is some of the cable is still getting layed after mammals are born and while they grow up.
You'll find serious psychologists agree with this actually. A good psychologist is well read in animal behaviour. That should be the first step to becoming a psychologist. Every animal out there is our distant cousin, it makes sense to look to them to learn about ourselves, why you assume humans are some seperate entity I don't know.
When did you decide animals don't display behaviour? After looking at still pictures in a national geographic magazine?
If you read the "trials of life" my job would be alot easier, or even watched the dvd. Animals display so much more than you know. Even if your prerequisite for morals is that they be a learned set of behaviours you'll find thousands of animals displaying sets every bit as complex as yours.
How has man abandoned natural selection? Could he even do so if he tried? Last I checked things still work in such a way that those who are suited to their environment continue to live, while those who are not don't. The only difference is that man changes his environment be more hospitable, and to make it easier for him to survive. Would you have us return to the wilderness? Is this "natural" state of being somehow superior to the world we have built for ourselves?
Natural selection is a system that ensures only those perfectly suited to the conditions they live in breed, resulting in the betterment of the species over time.
Nuff said. Humans clearly are not controlled by such a system anymore.
Congrats guys, you've "done" well
but its time to stop celebrating our "victory" and realise we aren't going anywhere but in a steep downward spiral. No we shouldn't return to the wild, we should never have left, or at least waited untill we were more mature as a species.
Now that we have there's no point crying over spilt milk, but we can and should reflect on the spilling of the milk and learn from it.
The reason we've become so lousy is because we weren't experienced enough to be in control of ourselves. We are like an awkward teen in more ways than one. Wild animals have a certain innocence and dignity, an advanced civilisation could be something wise and great, but we think we know everything, we're arrogant and devoid of humility when in reality we don't know shit. Most people don't even think about why they want to have sex. We aren't as far away from the animals as we like to think or act. We're wearing make up and giving big boys head jobs but we're still very much children in adults clothing.
Even the world leaders are totally out of touch with reality. The ONLY people with any handle on all this are scientists like EO wilson but how many people know about EO wilson? He understands the very nature of the planet earth, the closest to deciphiring a meaning to life and how much power does he have?
We have archaic primal politics akin to wild animals. Logic escapes the human race replaced by tradition, law and order based on our ancient ancestors knowledge.
Well we know so much more now, clearly a panel of the worlds best scientists should make up "earth's government". They could tear down the very foundation of society and start over making one based on the knowledge we now possess. It would be drastically different and way more efficient. I'm sure todays society worked for the greeks 2000 years ago but its kind of laughably pathetic today.
Rather than lawyers and courtrooms and prisons the problems could be stopped before they started. Which is what the original quote was saying. We have the knowledge, well some of us, the vast majority doesn't. That makes me sick, utopia should be strived for at all costs.
But we keep on creating criminals and punishing them. Its such a moronic waste of time.
Well thats the big question isn't it.
The answer? Humans are arrogant and retarded. Thats what I've been trying to say, thanks for the help jendawg
.... oh wait... aren't you friends with jesus? Why are you helping my argument?
To show how circular it is. Either natural evolution is natural, and morality falls within that natural process. Then morality is natural and intrinsic, and crime will disappear through the evolutionary process - there is no need to "enforce" moral values, since that would be like forcing people to fly before they developed wings. People can only be moral as far as they have evolved into moral people, and it is unethical for people with higher morals to require those with no morals to adapt "against their nature".
Or morality and immorality did not evolve, since people have developed no natural affinity to them. Like the appreciation of beauty and truth, they are learned over and above evolutionary conditioning. They are instilled through parenting, teaching and lawmaking. Then reason and morality are "supernatural", artificial elements imposed upon nature. If its rightful place is outside nature, but it is evident that the rules have to be imposed to sustain the quality of nature, then morality has authority over nature, and the more universal and overriding a moral is, the more valid and praiseworthy it is. It becomes a law to judge others by.
Are people only "arrogant and retarded" if they reject your system of values, or arrogant and retarded because you think you are yourself?
Jaron Lanier: 'There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.' ["Evolution made me do it"]
Richard Dawkins: 'All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth.'
Evolution: The dissent of Darwin', Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.
Or morality and immorality did not evolve, since people have developed no natural affinity to them. Like the appreciation of beauty and truth, they are learned over and above evolutionary conditioning. They are instilled through parenting, teaching and lawmaking. Then reason and morality are "supernatural", artificial elements imposed upon nature. If its rightful place is outside nature, but it is evident that the rules have to be imposed to sustain the quality of nature, then morality has authority over nature, and the more universal and overriding a moral is, the more valid and praiseworthy it is. It becomes a law to judge others by.
Are people only "arrogant and retarded" if they reject your system of values, or arrogant and retarded because you think you are yourself?
Jaron Lanier: 'There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.' ["Evolution made me do it"]
Richard Dawkins: 'All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth.'
Evolution: The dissent of Darwin', Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jenyar
Are people only "arrogant and retarded" if they reject your system of values, or arrogant and retarded because you think you are yourself?
Where do my system of values come into it?
Flagrantly abandoning the sytem that made them what they are and creating a haphazard half-assed system without covering all the aspects needed for a species to thrive was a mistake. A wiser species would have learned the lessons nature taught it and kept ordered selection in their breeding patterns to compensate for the transition, but we didn't. Man thought he was smart enough to figure it all out by himself, he was ignorant of the world around him, he never noticed systems, he noticed the dirt under his feet and his own personal survival, the order to nature was invisible to him and is still invisible to many people despite science(aka reality) unveiling natures complexity for us.
I'm not refferring to any man when I say the human species is arrogant and retarded, and it isn't really meant to offend. Its a mistake you would expect a species with a skewed power to knowledge ratio to make. Knowledge is catching up which is a good thing but we need to let it in. Right now we aren't, the most powerful man in the world believes in a primitive superstitious religion. Clearly this is a problem. How can he be in control of a planet he knows nothing about?
Jaron Lanier: 'There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.' ["Evolution made me do it"]
Richard Dawkins: 'All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth.'
Evolution: The dissent of Darwin', Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.
Thats an awesome quote.
Is this supposed to make me rethink my position for some reason?
I don't understand, do I quote something I don't agree with like the bible or satre or something now?
Seems like a wierd form of debate.
Right where you made a judgement. By what standards are you able to make such a statement?
That's like blaming humanity for becoming self-aware. If we remained instinctive, we would have been unable to judge wars for being right or wrong, and Hitler would not have committed suicide. Treaties would not be broken, or in fact, even created - since who is to say where a peace treaty is either fair or unfair? By the way, Hitler did believe in evolution. The "Arian" race was the superior one, and it was their evolutionary right to take over the world. It was only natural. Jews were eugenically inferior, and therefore no more than animals - Hitler had a strict breeding programme to "compensate for the tradition". Hitler certainly thought he had all his bases covered. I can imagine that his surprise that the rest of the world didn't agree was much like yours.
It doesn't help blaming the system for our weaknesses, either. The weakness is one of rejecting morals, not creating them. The denial of God and any objective moral authority who can ultimately hold us accoutable, or enforce, a law of love, has gone a long way to promote this weakness. Humanism, Evolution and relativity are going the extra mile to deny the validity of any authorive values. Confirming only the individual's moral authority makes no provision for common law, and proposing only a secular judgement system makes no provision for the intention (the "genetic tendency") to do crime within a person.
We don't live in an inherently peaceful world. We have to build one. We can't build it on natural instincts. I'm not proposing that belief in God is the only way of achieving it. But disregarding the validity of a religious system that advocates a universal moral standard doesn't help either. If you want to point fingers at Christians, Muslims or any particular group, then ask yourself what the link is between breaking judicial law, and breaking moral law. Rather point them to their own laws, than abolishing their freedom in favour of yours.
If a people do not have a moral code that advocates love, peace and tolerance, then they are either obeying an authority that has none of these characteristic, or they don't see the use of them.
Knowledge is like electricity. You can use it for a light bulb or for an electric chair. Read my point above about religious/moral vs. secular (state/country/people's) law. Being told something is wrong, or even knowing something is wrong usually isn't enough of a reason not to do it. What compels anybody not to commit murder? Surely it isn't a natural aversion? People who believe in the might of the individual have no allegiance to the "survival of his species". We don't have a group-mentality anymore, at least when it comes to post-modern culture. When we choose a pair of jeans, then by all means, go with the flow. But with "primitive superstitions" like a religion or God who demands accountability, it's everyone for himself, right? Pop culture may have replaced religion, but has not replaced gods.
If you believe Bush has a skewed moral law, by what standards to you judge it? If you believe his country has a skewed foreign policy, why should he be "in control of the planet"? If he truly believes God is in control of the planet, he will advocate love as a law. Tell me, what would a person who had no fear of a moral authority, have done differently than Bush? "Defend" peace rather than fight for it? How do you know whether he does right or wrong? Why is is "clearly a problem"?
You reject Bush for having a religious group-mentality based on a moral law that should - if practised universally - ensure the survival of not just the species, but peace and prosperity for the whole planet. Yet you condemn any decision that would seem natural and evolutionarily acceptable by your own definition.
You say you draw no lines yourself, but it is clear you do - and rather hypocritical ones. You a content to be a parasite of other people's decisions, because you think you can have no convictions by which to decide what is right or wrong.
Last edited:
Man, Hitler sure didn't help selective breeding win any popularity contests did he?
Anyway, I'm not "blaming" humanity for anything. It was an honest mistake, but it definately was a mistake. Not enough thought was put into the transition to civilisation. Too many of the laws of nature were disregarded.
They tried to compensate with religion and law and maybe in the beginning this worked. People would get killed for blasphemy so I guess they were subconsciously compensating for natural selection. But the long term result has been distastrous. Today we keep the societal structure from those times, without any form of ordered selection whatsoever, all while we know so much about the natural world, its incredibly foolish.
If you think all worked perfectly you simply don't know the facts. The planet is in a terrible state all thanks to human beings. All because a species had more power than it could responsibly handle.
Is this where I'm making a judgement? I would have thought I was stating the obvious, if this is me voicing my moral standards then that is depressing. Depressing because if people can't see this we are in more trouble than I imagined.
"It doesn't help blaming the system for our weaknesses"
What do you blame? What do you blame when a building starts to fall apart? The planks of wood or the builder?
Of course people are going to reject morals written in stone. You are one of the lucky organisms who by chance of evolution happens to agree with those morals. Others clearly don't happen to feel the same way you do. Blame them all you want, but who's passing judgement now? At least I know people are what they are, whether this was born into them, taught to them throughout life or a mixture of that, either way they can't help it.
Whats the point of blaming these people for being born and poorly raised by people who instinctively only know how to raise poorly? If theres a problem stop it from happening. Employ a new builder. Or curse and kick at the planks of wood, but don't blame me when I call you insane.
I'll admit it, I think your set of morals doesn't work for homo-sapiens. Why? On what grounds? On precedent. Its been used, your set is the problem. Thats the one builder who we know sucks at building.
Its trial and error, and its time to trial something new, not necesarrily MY set of values, just something different, because christian values errored big time.
Using the knowledge scientists now possess accurate predictions and estimations could be made and through selective breeding the human race could be pushed in a direction that has been well thought out and has a good chance of working well.
It wouldn't be based on race, hitler obviously had a primitive understanding of all this, I'm sure he thought what he was doing was right just like you and me, but now scientific knowledge is indicating that something similar to hitler's idea without the nastiness is in order. If there never was a hitler I'm sure this would have been voiced to the public by now, he ruined it for everyone.
A logical program would not take race into consideration, there would be a test designed by the worlds top scientists. You would go and "try to get your breeding permit" and it would be an accepted part of life. It would also be accepted that most don't pass.
Oh well, people will get over it, and eventually more people would start passing because they would be the offspring of what scientists considered desirable for the betterment of mankind. Whatever that betterment may be, I don't know, I'm sure if enough funding was put into the study scientists would figure it out.
No one gets gassed or thrown into a pit, you simply don't have children if you don't pass a test, big deal.
How is this evil? How is it not a fantastic and inspirational idea? I see holding back the human race just to slightly please a selfish crowd as evil, and almost forehead-slappingly stupid.
On bush, I am not bush bashing, i'm politics bashing. I don't care that bush starts wars or whatever. Big deal.
I care that he is not a competent world leader. In fact no politician in history is a competent world leader.
Politicians spend their life studying an archaic art with no real meaning. To rule a world that simply doesn't work the way politics does, only politics work like politics, it should be a game for old people to play, not something to be taken seriously.
A leader of humans should have human betterment as the top priority. Actually, no, because humans rule the earth, a leader of humans should have the well being of earth and everything on it as the top priority(keep in mind "well being" doesn't mean not dying, quite the opposite, it means maintaining the health of all the species which actually requires death, at the very least it requires selective breeding)
Does that not make sense? The leader of earth should have the earth as his top priority, not the damn budget or any of that arbitrary crap, not foreign policy, foreign police men can take care of that the leader of earth maintains order on earth and keeps earth spinning smoothly, he shouldn't start a war with iraq for no reason, he should force japan to stop overfishing and brazil to stop clearing forests.
Makes sense to me.
Politics, now thats something that makes no sense at all and has no place in todays society, the world politicians shouldn't be people that studied politics, they should be people that studied biology, ecology, physics, psychology, zoology, philosophy, history and natural history, they should be scientists. This is a planet we are living on, not a pile of money and missiles.
Anyway, I'm not "blaming" humanity for anything. It was an honest mistake, but it definately was a mistake. Not enough thought was put into the transition to civilisation. Too many of the laws of nature were disregarded.
They tried to compensate with religion and law and maybe in the beginning this worked. People would get killed for blasphemy so I guess they were subconsciously compensating for natural selection. But the long term result has been distastrous. Today we keep the societal structure from those times, without any form of ordered selection whatsoever, all while we know so much about the natural world, its incredibly foolish.
If you think all worked perfectly you simply don't know the facts. The planet is in a terrible state all thanks to human beings. All because a species had more power than it could responsibly handle.
Is this where I'm making a judgement? I would have thought I was stating the obvious, if this is me voicing my moral standards then that is depressing. Depressing because if people can't see this we are in more trouble than I imagined.
"It doesn't help blaming the system for our weaknesses"
What do you blame? What do you blame when a building starts to fall apart? The planks of wood or the builder?
Of course people are going to reject morals written in stone. You are one of the lucky organisms who by chance of evolution happens to agree with those morals. Others clearly don't happen to feel the same way you do. Blame them all you want, but who's passing judgement now? At least I know people are what they are, whether this was born into them, taught to them throughout life or a mixture of that, either way they can't help it.
Whats the point of blaming these people for being born and poorly raised by people who instinctively only know how to raise poorly? If theres a problem stop it from happening. Employ a new builder. Or curse and kick at the planks of wood, but don't blame me when I call you insane.
I'll admit it, I think your set of morals doesn't work for homo-sapiens. Why? On what grounds? On precedent. Its been used, your set is the problem. Thats the one builder who we know sucks at building.
Its trial and error, and its time to trial something new, not necesarrily MY set of values, just something different, because christian values errored big time.
Using the knowledge scientists now possess accurate predictions and estimations could be made and through selective breeding the human race could be pushed in a direction that has been well thought out and has a good chance of working well.
It wouldn't be based on race, hitler obviously had a primitive understanding of all this, I'm sure he thought what he was doing was right just like you and me, but now scientific knowledge is indicating that something similar to hitler's idea without the nastiness is in order. If there never was a hitler I'm sure this would have been voiced to the public by now, he ruined it for everyone.
A logical program would not take race into consideration, there would be a test designed by the worlds top scientists. You would go and "try to get your breeding permit" and it would be an accepted part of life. It would also be accepted that most don't pass.
Oh well, people will get over it, and eventually more people would start passing because they would be the offspring of what scientists considered desirable for the betterment of mankind. Whatever that betterment may be, I don't know, I'm sure if enough funding was put into the study scientists would figure it out.
No one gets gassed or thrown into a pit, you simply don't have children if you don't pass a test, big deal.
How is this evil? How is it not a fantastic and inspirational idea? I see holding back the human race just to slightly please a selfish crowd as evil, and almost forehead-slappingly stupid.
On bush, I am not bush bashing, i'm politics bashing. I don't care that bush starts wars or whatever. Big deal.
I care that he is not a competent world leader. In fact no politician in history is a competent world leader.
Politicians spend their life studying an archaic art with no real meaning. To rule a world that simply doesn't work the way politics does, only politics work like politics, it should be a game for old people to play, not something to be taken seriously.
A leader of humans should have human betterment as the top priority. Actually, no, because humans rule the earth, a leader of humans should have the well being of earth and everything on it as the top priority(keep in mind "well being" doesn't mean not dying, quite the opposite, it means maintaining the health of all the species which actually requires death, at the very least it requires selective breeding)
Does that not make sense? The leader of earth should have the earth as his top priority, not the damn budget or any of that arbitrary crap, not foreign policy, foreign police men can take care of that
the leader of earth maintains order on earth and keeps earth spinning smoothly, he shouldn't start a war with iraq for no reason, he should force japan to stop overfishing and brazil to stop clearing forests. Makes sense to me.
Politics, now thats something that makes no sense at all and has no place in todays society, the world politicians shouldn't be people that studied politics, they should be people that studied biology, ecology, physics, psychology, zoology, philosophy, history and natural history, they should be scientists. This is a planet we are living on, not a pile of money and missiles.
Last edited:
Have you ever seen the movie Gattaca? What you propose is a series of judgement calls that would subject the human race to the limitations of scientific knowledge. What if, after a thousand years of breeding, scientist discover that that "defective gene" actually had an important purpose, and it would take another thousand years to breed it back in. In the mean two thousand years, people will just have to live with bleeding from their eyes or whatever the consequence was.
You can't banish ethics and morality from any human system. It is innately human to make decisions, and morality is only the label put on those decisions. It is not a strength or a weakness by itself.
I would eye any person who claims the authority and knowledge to be able to "trial and error" on humans "for the greatr good of mankind". You have indicated yourself that we have not displayed any ability to make such decisions.
The law of love is mankind's only hope. When it ceases to be a law, it ceases to be a hope. Christian values did not err, the people who were supposed to live by them did, and still do. No selective breeding programme will create the perfect Christian, or a peaceful human.
Proposing a eugenics programme is no different than declaring war on the "inferior". I hope you can see that.
This is obvious. Yet you propose we "take over" the situation - isn't that like a military coop over the established power, because you think it is lacking, ineffective and insufficient?
Like what happened with Noah's flood?
For someone who doesn't believe in morality you make some pretty moral statements: should vs. shouldn't.
Picture for a moment if God was that authority, with earth, life itself, as His top priority. Where America is in no better bposition to judge Iraq, than Saddam himself, but where America is right by fighting for peace, while Saddam is wrong by fighting for power? Why do you think God's laws don't promote such a life?That some people die and some live in the process is part of the process, but it is not for us to judge but for us to choose.
When our choices are based on power struggles and human authority, they will always fail. You eugenics programme will fail, because it puts one person above another - one gets to choose, and another doesn't. And it is because they do not keep the laws of their creator, who created everybody from one man.
Our selfishness and greed are the real reasons for our degeneration; the absence of moral conduct, not the presence of it.
What if selfishness and greed could be bred out of the human species? Isn't that something worth trying to accomplish? I'm pretty sure it could be done in a few generations.
Who are you blaming for selfishness and greed? I think its obvious these are traits ingrained into the human species. If I believed in god I'd be blaming god.
You say it as though you wish humans would just decide to stop being selfish and greedy, how can they do this when this is the animal they are right now? Its like asking a lion to stop chasing zebras, you can't do it. But you could selectively breed lions to the point where they are without their prey drive. It would take a while but it could be done.
The free will argument can only go so far.
So a guy murders someone, we can say he should have used his better judgement and should have known better blah blah blah, but at the end of the day the guy did it, he did it because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. End of story. What are you expecting from this guy? What if these same expectations were put on you? Yeah its easy for you to refrain from murder, but thats you, it wasn't for this guy so lets find something thats equally difficult for YOU to not do, hmmm, can you not believe in god please? Thanks. Yeah just.... don't... ya know? Use that god given freewill of yours and stop believing.
Was that easy? What you kept believing?!
You monster! Don't you have ANY control over yourself?
People, for one reason or another, aren't living by the morals of "god", what is your explanation for that? Maybe they are deciding not to, but do they have any control over what they decide?
Whats the difference between you and them jenyar? Are you a better person just because you happen to believe in god and everything he stands for?
I can honestly say, and I'm being as sincere as I have ever been here, I CAN NOT believe in god, I can try, I can try to accept jesus into my heart for hours on end and he will always be denied entry by something I have no control over. Am I the spawn of satan? What do jesus and god have against me? Nothing I can do can put me where you are, just like nothing you could do could stop you from believing. You can't just decide to stop believing and I can't decide to believe. This goes for everything about us, murderers can't not murder. A guy might come close to murder and back out and it might seem like he used his freewill, but its just the same thing happening, only this time he COULDN'T murder. He had no control over his decision to not murder.
A pro murder observer would say he should have used his free will and murdered.
True free will does not exist because you are basing your decisions off the person you are, and the person you are is not something you designed using your freewill. The person you are is a product of evolution. You had nothing to do with that.
Do you at least understand even if you don't agree?
Who are you blaming for selfishness and greed? I think its obvious these are traits ingrained into the human species. If I believed in god I'd be blaming god.
You say it as though you wish humans would just decide to stop being selfish and greedy, how can they do this when this is the animal they are right now? Its like asking a lion to stop chasing zebras, you can't do it. But you could selectively breed lions to the point where they are without their prey drive. It would take a while but it could be done.
The free will argument can only go so far.
So a guy murders someone, we can say he should have used his better judgement and should have known better blah blah blah, but at the end of the day the guy did it, he did it because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. End of story. What are you expecting from this guy? What if these same expectations were put on you? Yeah its easy for you to refrain from murder, but thats you, it wasn't for this guy so lets find something thats equally difficult for YOU to not do, hmmm, can you not believe in god please? Thanks. Yeah just.... don't... ya know? Use that god given freewill of yours and stop believing.
Was that easy? What you kept believing?!
You monster! Don't you have ANY control over yourself?
People, for one reason or another, aren't living by the morals of "god", what is your explanation for that? Maybe they are deciding not to, but do they have any control over what they decide?
Whats the difference between you and them jenyar? Are you a better person just because you happen to believe in god and everything he stands for?
I can honestly say, and I'm being as sincere as I have ever been here, I CAN NOT believe in god, I can try, I can try to accept jesus into my heart for hours on end and he will always be denied entry by something I have no control over. Am I the spawn of satan? What do jesus and god have against me? Nothing I can do can put me where you are, just like nothing you could do could stop you from believing. You can't just decide to stop believing and I can't decide to believe. This goes for everything about us, murderers can't not murder. A guy might come close to murder and back out and it might seem like he used his freewill, but its just the same thing happening, only this time he COULDN'T murder. He had no control over his decision to not murder.
A pro murder observer would say he should have used his free will and murdered.
True free will does not exist because you are basing your decisions off the person you are, and the person you are is not something you designed using your freewill. The person you are is a product of evolution. You had nothing to do with that.
Do you at least understand even if you don't agree?