----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:13 PM Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
> On Aug 24, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > I disagree; I think you can look at effects of behavior and base ethics > on those observations. For instance if I strangle an infant I'm likely > to (at least) be shunned by my peers, since that's the kind of thing > which is, in most cases, contrasurvival (specieswise). Since I don't > want to be shunned, I shouldn't strangle infants. I don't have an > "ought" there -- I'm just looking at likely outcomes of given actions > and choosing what is justifiably the preferable behavior. Ah, ethical actions are those self serving actions one can get away with. > > The same is true for human actions. Both rape and self sacrifice for > > one's > > kin occur. Both can be evolutionarily favored. One is immoral; one is > > moral. > > I'm not sure how rape can be evolutionarily favored, actually; can you > provide an example? Sure. Raping conqured women is obviously evolutionarily favored. One can look at the fact that a significant fraction (is it one third?) of Asian men have genetic markers that trace back to one man: who is probably Genghis Kahn. Indeed, just a brief review should make is clear that castrating conquered men and taking their women must be favored evolutionarily. >And if one is a selfish brute who's essentially > frittered one's life away, is it truly a favorable thing for one of > one's kin to be self-sacrificing in *any* way on one's behalf? That is, > is it possible for one to be such a burden that one is no longer worth > the trouble? I'm talking about what's genetically favored. If one sacrifices for one's tribe, then genes close to one's own are more likely to continue. Think about gene space. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
