But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?
Then, its not really evolution.
So once we become aware we are evolving, we stop evolving?
As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriquois allowed them the greatest power for the greatest time with respect to the Europeans of any native group. The 6 nations were afforded some respect by the Europeans because of their power.
But, as someone else pointed out, their behavior put them in a poor position to compete with the Europeans.
In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before they succeeded. Evolution.
That only works if you are taking a snapshot of about 50 years of history and calling it the culmination of history. The US is somewhat unique in that morality is actually the third priority of foreign policy (after national security and economic self interest). The US winning the Cold War was not a certainty.
I was thinking of stuff like the emergence of a form of democracy in ancient Greece...
What you appear to be saying is that the system that ends up the dominant
system is, by definition, moral. If totalitarian systems had won, or
eventually win, will that make individual freedom immoral?
But that's a non sequitur because that type of system, though it continues to emerge, continues to fail. It's like saying in biological evolution, if, under normal circumstances, a clearly inferior design had "won" over an inferior one.
This isn't to say that there are extraordinary cases where a less moral system has advantages over a more moral one - suspending rights during (a real) war might be an example, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.
If your worst
nightmares come true, and a US theocracy is formed, will that make you immoral if you are not Christian. Does might make right?
You see, you are trying to foist moral relativism on me and that isn't what this argument is about. Looking at one particular system that may or may not be dominant at any given time doesn't determine what is moral and what is not. It is the trend over time _what_works_ that determines our morals.
The argument given above indicates that this is true. My argument is, that some things are immoral, even if they prove successful. It was wrong to treat the Native Americans as we did, even though the power of our country is at least partially founded on that immoral behavior. Would you argue, by definition, it was right?
You aren't looking at the big picture. I don't think that you would argue that any successful system in our past was free of immoral elements would you? What I see and you apparently don't is that the morals of a thousand years ago and the systems that used them are clearly inferior to those of today.
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
