On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:36 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.
Even the golden rule is rooted in selfishness, despite its highfalutin language.
Ultimately most, possibly all, actions are self-serving. If I do something for someone else, it's for one of two reasons: Either I hope I'll be rewarded tit-for-tat, or it's to benefit another member of my species, which might not be good for me specifically but should advance the cause of the gene pool.
If I believe in an absolute truth and a deity, and with it the ideas of good and evil (as defined by that deity), I align to the deity's edicts (such as "be good to other people") so I can be rewarded with life in some magical place after death.
Either rationale is selfish; but ethics is more sensible, I think, because it doesn't rely on fear to work. There's no carrot -- or stick -- out there goading toward decisions; actions are based, ideally, on a sensible and rational analysis of the situation and the likely consequences of given actions.
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.
I still don't follow. While diffusing one individual's genes across a wide population is good for that individual's genes, I don's see how that connects to rape being evolutionarily favored.
Dissemination (!) of DNA does not in itself constitute evolution; rather, that is fecundity. So while rape can definitely enhance fecundity, I don't think you've convinced me yet that it's favored by the balances of evolution.
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.
But I can't and neither can you, because (as Dawkins points out) we are not simply genetic messengers. We carry social ideas as well, and if a social idea proves to be a bad one it will be eradicated as surely as a genetic sport.
Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no clear sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as bacteria or tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of "I", things change.
-- WthmO
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
