[Paloma_55]

If morality is a human construct, then it is subject to human whim... in other words, one can change it to fit their circumstances.

In this case, the one who has the ability to take the food will win and the other will lose. Survival of the fittest.

[moog]

In this case, the one who has the ability to take the food will win and the other will lose. Survival of the fittest.


Sounds like you're referring to New Orleans.

[SeaLion]

If morality is a human construct, then it is subject to human whim

Neither Darwin nor evolution theory make any such claim. Please see my post #48, above; much more could be said, if you are interested

Cordially

[atlaw]

"If morality is a human construct, then it is subject to human whim... in other words, one can change it to fit their circumstances."

Fortunately, we've had a great deal of practice at this civilization thing. Consequently, the less desirable whims usually result in jail time.

[Alter Kaker]

If morality is a human construct, then it is subject to human whim... in other words, one can change it to fit their circumstances.

Go argue that with an atheist. I might quibble with the particular scenario at issue here, but I have never said that morality is a human construct. "Survival of the fittest" -- which by the way is not a phrase modern evolutionary theorists use -- isn't a moral statement, its simply an observation. Individuals that are able to survive to adulthood, find mates, and rear their offspring so that they can in turn pass on their genes are from an evolutionary perspective "succesful." How they do that -- whether its being a yeoman farmer or relying on handouts -- is up to them.