Here’s another poser: an injured Richard Dawkins and a fellow traveler are the only survivors of a shipwreck on a desert island. There’s plenty of food there, but his companion finds his company exceedingly tedious, and decides to dump him in the ocean. Would Dawkins consider this behavior wrong? If so, why?
Here’s another poser: an injured Richard Dawkins and a fellow traveler are the only survivors of a shipwreck on a desert island. There’s plenty of food there, but his companion finds his company exceedingly tedious, and decides to dump him in the ocean. Would Dawkins consider this behavior wrong? If so, why?
_____________________________________________________________
Well done.
Dawkins position ? No
His fellow traveler certainly yes.
Flip the scenario and I bet Dawkins wished he had a gun.
The issue with human intelligence is we have the unique ability to argue our illogical positions with deep conviction. Dawkins is an obtuse know-it-all. Reminds me of a brilliant family member of mine who excells at what he does, but then thinks he knows just about everything about every subject in the world.
Here’s another poser: an injured Richard Dawkins and a fellow traveler are the only survivors of a shipwreck on a desert island. There’s plenty of food there, but his companion finds his company exceedingly tedious, and decides to dump him in the ocean. Would Dawkins consider this behavior wrong? If so, why?
Moral relativism would demand that Dawkins die ie. survival of the fittest...