The statement, "whatever's selected is selected" is a meaningless tautology.
And do you not see the impassable gap between "whatever’s selected is selected, and what’s morally bad.."?
I would like to see you validly derive a moral "ought" merely from what "is". Go ahead. Give your best shot. Otherwise you don't get to presuppose or smuggle in any "morality".
Cordially,
“And do you not see the impassable gap between ‘whatever’s selected is selected, and what’s morally bad..’?”
Do you lack the reading comprehension skills to see that I was making the same Hume’s Guillotine argument as you? Or was I merely the nearest convenient straw man available in your rush to beat the dead is/ought horse? Seek elswhere.
It was the previous poster who implied a moral import to evolution by suggesting natural selection isn’t anymore in operation because the “lower” outbreed the “educated” and “successful” classes. I took the opposite position.
“I would like to see you validly derive a moral ‘ought’ merely from what “is”. Go ahead. Give your best shot.”
There’s at least one. We call it “might makes right.” Though I admit it really is a sort of anti-morality.
“The statement, ‘whatever’s selected is selected’ is a meaningless tautology”
Tautological, yes, but not meaningless, especially rhetorically