Ed,
Your "observation of reality" IS your "subjective value
judgment". You can no more claim they are separate than you can
credibly claim the fetus is a separate person. Your
"subjective-reality" favors the kinds of collective values used
by state tyrants for millennia to violate individual rights. Your
grand "purpose-of-life-in-general observation" (far from
accurate) is just an excuse for making collective conclusions.
You wrote:
"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."
Is that some kind of a strawman? It's certainly not my belief,
and I can't imagine that it is yours. The individual right to
pursue happiness is contingent on (not violating) other
individual rights.
You wrote:
"I can also absolutely guarantee you that your quest for
unlimited survival, if that is what you choose, is going to
fail."
"My quest for unlimited survival"?? Where are you coming up with
this stuff?
You wrote:
"I was not clear about the issue of survival to birth."
Of course you were. That is your position; to advocate said
survival and to argue against aborting the fetus ("before
birth").
You wrote:
"I would like to know your references with respect to your
position on species improvement. Of course, the term
'improvement' implies a value judgement".
Since you were the one promoting the "species improvement" claim,
the burden of proof/"references" would lie on YOU. I was only
disputing your claim. And since you now admit that your claim was
a "value judgment", I clearly have no "burden of disproof".
You wrote:
"As for 'artificial selection' there is no such thing. You are, I
expect, talking about selection by humans such as abortion."
No. I'm disputing your idea of "Natural Selection" in terms of
Darwinian Evolution.
Your arguments seem to be getting more and more fragmented.
----------------------
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$
