Posted on 11/06/2003 7:34:45 PM PST by Heartlander
Because he's a confused luddite on a "holy war" against science.
Well, we're the ones who are able to think in terms of principles. I don't think you could even talk about a "code" of behavior for a cat, for example. A cat doesn't seem to think about the future at all, so they could never decide on a principle to follow. (An instinct doesn't count.)
The author's point is, there's no way for you to prove that you're not just making those principles up. And you're merely assuming that "thinking about the future" is somehow morally important. Sure, it's a useful survival technique; in fact, we see bears, squirrels, bees, and ants acting on those principles every summer and fall. And yet those are animals which use violence and force....
I think a "code" has to be consistent by definition. Why else would we even care about this? We hope, presumably, that society adopts & keeps to a moral code that's close to our moral codes. (Which I assume are similar to each other in many ways since we're both Freepers.) A moral code is inherently a set of principles.
I suppose so -- but again you're assuming a whole raft of things. You surely recognize that "Might Makes Right" is a logically consistent moral code in its own right; is fully in line with "survival of the fittest" (and hence empirically observable); and has worked effectively for individual humans, which precisely what an evolution-based morality should do. The fact that we are (rightly, IMHO) horrified by such behavior has no bearing on whether or not it's moral, in any scientifically provable sense of the term.
Perhaps you recall that story a year or so ago, where a genetic study found that "Might Makes Right" practitioner Ghengis Khan's family tree extended across -- was it millions? -- of living humans. Surely that's a moral triumph, if you want to define morality in terms of scientifically-observable evolutionary behavior.
It's quite true that you and I share the same sort of moral code. Unfortunately, the precepts of that code actually run counter to what we can easily observe in nature and history (Ghengis Khan again). From a purely materialistic perspective, it means that, at best, ours would be a relative morality, and that there are other moral choices besides our own.
Our shared morality would probably label Ghengis Khan as an evil man. But to make the charge stick, we'd have to be able to point to a set of absolute standards, and absolute consequences for breaking them. But Ghengis Khan died old, rich, happy, and left behind an enormous family tree -- on what rational, empirical basis would you call him evil, when he was so obviously successful?
I meant in the sense of killing an innocent person, as in murder. Killing in self-defense is certainly justifiable when the threat warrants it.
Ghengis Khan made a living by killing innocent people, and was very well rewarded for it. Was he wrong?
It doesn't provide me with an automatic, precise answer to the question of borderline-justifiable coups, but I suspect neither would the Bible, for instance.
When you bring the Bible into this discussion, you bring in God, and His will. God's will is, in fact, a logical necessity for the sort of moral code we espouse. Lacking God, we lack any reason to condemn Ghengis Khan; indeed, we can only admire him.
We do still have to draw upon experience (history) as well as theory & speculation. Didn't the frequent palace coups in Imperial Rome help speed up the downfall of that society?
I think the frequent coups were more a symptom than a cause. Both the Roman people and their rulers had fallen into a decadence driven by a desire for "the comfortable and fun," rather than the difficult and often painful martial virtues which had made Rome great in the first place. On that note, it's interesting that libertarianism tends to encourage and defend the sorts of behavior characteristic of declining Rome -- it's why I'm not a libertarian.
I see the trend towards modern democracies & the kinds of societies that nurture them as an evolution towards systems that are successful because they do their jobs of promoting freedom & security well - and are self-sustaining because they're harder to overthrow because they have the support of an informed populace.
I think the trend toward democracy comes as a result of the success of it in Western culture -- it's attractive because it's successful. But it's important to note how very narrow is the margin between liberty and chaos, on one side; or between liberty and tyranny on the other. The only way that balance is kept, is if the people in the society are profoundly moral; and, what's more, moral in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term.
Thus, we see chaos in African "democracies," because the people have no foundation. And we saw tyranny in Kaiser- and Fuhrer-led Germany, because the Germans were instilled with a love for it.
And that's really the key: we're where we are because of the supernatural (specifically, Christian beliefs), not because of some set of mysterious physical laws that are not observable anywhere in nature.
I think his point is that there are atheists out there making claims that they cannot logically defend, without invoking the very God they claim does not exist.
The reason evolution comes into it, is because once you've dispensed with God, there's nothing but evolution (or something like it) left. If a materialist is going to make moral claims, the unpleasant fact is that evolution runs counter to what is held (in Western society, anyway) to be right and wrong.
(blushing)
Christian virtures, hard work, honesty and the Golden Rule, underlie Western Civilization and make democracy possible. To the extent that the virtues fail, democracy fails.
Layered upon Christian virtues is, ideally, a system of laws that is just and equally applicable to all within which property rights are respected, even sanctified.
As our mores have failed, the have-nots and those who would exploit democracy have voted to take from the haves, the laws are increasingly unequally applied (group rights, discrimination against white males etc.) and respect for property has declined (asset forfeiture laws).
Hans-Herman Hoppe has explored this in some depth in Democracy: The God That Failed.
I also agree with you with regard to Libertarianism.
Our protean pleasure, and a special boon for those who are a touch above the rest and know how to play.
Then the article really ought to be addressing atheism, shouldn't it?
If a materialist is going to make moral claims, the unpleasant fact is that evolution runs counter to what is held (in Western society, anyway) to be right and wrong.
I realize that's a fairly common assessment, but the reality is that, like all scientific theories, evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is entirely silent on the matter of how we should live our lives, or should behave towards others, or should function as a society. It simply doesn't involve such constructs, any more than the theory of gravity does. And anyone who claims that the theory of evolution, in and of itself, either justifies or proscribes some behavior is committing a category error of the first degree, just the same as they would be if they used the theory of gravity to justify some action. The theory of gravity tells you what will happen if you throw a baby out a window, but that does not mean that it is therefore okay to throw babies out of windows.
Until interrupted by speech.
That's pretty much the idea - if you're planning to use the theory of evolution to promote or justify bad things, don't do that. Or good things, for that matter - shovels aren't innately good, either.
And don't let the shovel do it either.
The theory of evolution is unlikely to visit you during the night, unbidden and with malice in its heart ;)
Unlikely because "it" is where the scientiae go and return with grand pronouncements: "it doesn't . . . it does." Perhaps it can do all these things without a shovel and in plain daylight. "It" is silent until speech interrupts.
If not, what is innately evil?
It's the actor, not whatever handy thing he happens to grab hold of. Remember, we blame the bad guys who misuse guns, not the guns themselves.
Is a shovel used to ‘define’ evil?
I don't think you can use an inanimate object to define "evil" at all. Or an inanimate idea.
The laws of physics will tell you what is likely to happen if you drive down an icy road at eighty miles an hour in a car with bald tires. But it's up to you to decide whether those consequences are good or bad - the inexorable laws themselves know not, nor do they care.
"It" doesn't think; humans do.
Precisely. "It" also doesn't act to create an immoral world, while we're at it; humans do.
General-le speaking, what do you believe?
A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.