I will readily concede that my position is, at least in part, a subjective value judgement. At least mine, though, is backed up by observation of reality. If you observe any living organism, except, perhaps, for humans, it's behaviors exhibit two purposes, survival and reproduction. Since I do not accept the existence of a god or supreme being or creator, whatever you wish to call it, then I have to conclude that, to the extent a purpose for life exists it has to include survival and reproduction. I'm not talking about the purpose of an individual life but that of life in general. In reality, though, purpose can only be given by an individual so my terminology was a bit misleading.
I'm also willing to concede that each individual has the right to establish his own purpose. If you think that your purpose is to maximize your own happiness and survival at the expense of every other life on earth you have every right to do so. Remember, though, that this right extends to every other individual and their reactions to you are as legitimate as yours is to them. I can also absolutely guarantee you that your quest for unlimited survival, if that is what you choose, is going to fail. You are going to die. Indeed, as you grow older and older you will find that your desire to survive will almost certainly wane or pass away altogether. Ultimately, the only existence you will ever have is your progeny and what you pass on to future generations. I choose to try to at least strike a balance between my immediate happiness and what I leave to the future. I would like to know your references with respect to your position on species improvement. Of course, the term "improvement" implies a value judgement and these are always subjective or, at least, refer to some goal (which is subjectively chosen). I was not clear about the issue of survival to birth. Clearly, the survival of a child to birth may not be desirable (there's that subjective value judgement thing again). That's why children naturally abort. Some die young. Some, even though in an almost physically helpless state, survive quite a long time and accomplish wonderful things (Steven Hawking). My point is that natural selection depends greatly on chance. The more chances or trials in a random process, the more likely a very desirable result. That's what it's all about. As for "artificial selection" there is no such thing. You are, I expect, talking about selection by humans such as abortion. Your mistake is thinking that this is not "natural". It is as natural as any other. It is just more efficient, probably (maybe). It is not clear, though, that it is more desirable or that the results are better. In fact, I could argue the contrary. We'll just have to see about that. Ed$ --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonb...@...> wrote: > > Ed, > > I believe you just cancelled out your own position by unknowingly > calling it a "SUBJECTIVE individual value judgement". While you > initially claimed to be making an objective judgment about the > purpose of life (implying an irrefutable judgment), your own > later elaboration explained that it could be nothing more than a > "SUBJECTIVE individual value judgement". (You apparently forgot > that you are an individual.) > > But still, let's look at some of your other points. > > Your "final analysis" about short life-spans of individuals > supporting reproduction as the "purpose of life" is actually only > a "single analysis". How do you know that the reverse could not > be a "better analysis"? How do you know that reproduction isn't > only a "process" to another grand purpose; the individual? How do > you know that the species is not merely a mechanism for the > INDIVIDUAL? I'm afraid we are back to seeing your preference to > prioritize the collective (species) over the individual unit > (person) as nothing more than a "SUBJECTIVE individual value > judgement". > > Regarding what you don't understand, including Natural Selection: > It was you who claimed that one of the main purposes of life was > species improvement. While much evidence disproves your > "improvement" argument, even MORE evidence disproves your > argument that insuring the survival-to-birth of all fetuses > supports species "improvement". I think the only kind of "species > improvement" ever recognized by evolutionists was the kind that > came from Natural Selection. We have advanced beyond the stage of > Natural Selection into one more aptly called "artificial > selection". NS was a terrible stage of our development. The only > mechanism of NS was DEATH (only the strongest survived long > enough to reproduce, and the weaker were "weeded out"). Therefore > it is certain that artificially insuring the survival of all > fetuses would NOT serve to "improve the species". > > ------------------------ > > > As I said, the issue of abortion is complicated and positions > cannot be expressed in one-liners, short emails, or even longer > ones. I just didn't (and don't) have the time to work up a > complete explanation and cover all issues in a simple response. > At least, though there is a basis for discussion and, as opposed > to Rand and her Randroids, I'm willing to discuss and alter my > opinions. > > So, eating and defecating are not purposes but processes. > > I do not deny individual instincts. I claim that individual human > instincts and conscious decisions to action clearly exist and > motivate individuals. My claim is that the only OBJECTIVE purpose > that I can discover for "life" is reproduction and improvement of > the species. This is demonstrated by looking OBJECTIVELY at the > actions of all living things and trying to deduce a purpose > behind them. Clearly, actions of individuals may have, and do > demonstrate, other purposes but these are not OBJECTIVE purposes > but SUBJECTIVE. In other words, the purpose is determined by > individual value judgements. > > In the final analysis, the individual instinct to survive is > inevitably a short term purpose. No one survives forever. That is > an objective fact that cannot be denied. Therefore, the "meaning > of life" or it's "purpose" cannot be the individual instinct to > survive as that is OBJECTIVELY impossible. > > I don't understand your second paragraph. You say, "the only real > way to said "improvement" basically went out with Natural > Selection". I do not eliminate natural selection. Indeed, I do > not say that the state should prevent abortions. I just say that > the MORAL choice is to protect one's child. This is a general > statement and subject to exceptions based on situations. Indeed, > one could argue that it is natural to select for survival those > progeny whose parents ARE willing to make greater sacrifices for > their survival. > > I completely disagree that "survival-to-parturition of all > pregnancies generally serves to WEAKEN the species". Natural > selection and evolution work best when there are a LOT of choices > to be made. It is a process of chance, NOT one of determinism. > Your statement to the contrary is "neither logical nor > BIOlogical." You clearly do not understand what natural > selection, the basis of evolution, is. > > Ed$ >
