An Interview With A Moralist

[RCSaunders]

... it is immoral to cull the weak ...

So morality is in defiance of nature and evolution which both operate by culling the weak. Is that right?

Nature is amoral; your objection is groundless.
It's not even wrong; it's incoherent.

Of course nature is amoral. I didn't imply otherwise. I'm simply pointing out to certain individuals who appeal to evolution or nature as the basis of the their moral views that nature does not observe anyone's ideas of what is moral, and if they really want to use nature as a guide it will contradict all the moral niceties they believe in.

[commonsense]

Morality is what distinguishes the human species from others. Humankind is also a conscious species. Nature and evolution are biological but mindless.

It is appropriate that morality be an immediate guide to behavior, whereas genetics represents only tendencies as to what behavior is likely to be expressed.

[Impenitent]

if nature is amoral, the mask wearing raccoons cannot be immoral...

-Imp

[Sculptor]

Whether Dr. Onat Binker is real or not, there are real 'sick' people who share his views.

Sick people tend to die and or fail to reproduce.
They just get the Darwin awards

Your are hard man to agree with. That's exactly my point.

But as cultural humans we have long transcended the viccicitues of the environment and the brute necessities of suvival, and that is why the ficticious Dr Binker is anathema. We prefer to protect and nourish people who are not "fit", be they Steven Hawking or the less intellectually fortunate. We live in a world of plenty, only mitigated by greed and stupidity.

[RCSaunders]

But as cultural humans we have long transcended the vicissitudes of the environment and the brute necessities of survival, ...

I'm not sure who the, "we," is that you refer to, but all the human beings I know must learn how to use this world and work to produce or earn the water, food, clothing, shelter, medicine and all their other needs, both physical and psychological to maintain their life; except, of course, for the parasites and predators who live on the productive effort of others.

Anyone who fails to produce will starve to death, unless they steal someone else's food.

We prefer to protect and nourish people who are not "fit", ...

Who decides who is and who is not fit? Does just anyone who claims to be unfit get to be fed and protected? What if everyone claims to be unfit?

As far as I know, there is nothing preventing anyone who chooses to from protecting and nourishing others they choose to help. Realistically, you are not going to help them all. How do you decide which to help and which to let die?

[Veritas Aequitas]

... it is immoral to cull the weak ...

So morality is in defiance of nature and evolution which both operate by culling the weak. Is that right?

It is evolution itself that has driven the emergence of the inherent moral function within all humans [on average] after the emergence of the functions of seeking more knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, rationality, the impulse for conscious continuous improvement, cognition and other advancing faculties.

The reality is, there has been and there are existing potential threats which humans were ignorant of in the past and new threats that could exterminate the human species.
The human species could be extinct with a possible and potentially more stronger virus than the Covid19 virus.
Overpopulation via unmanaged birth is a threat to the human species.
Weapons of Mass Destruction [nuclear and biological] used with evilness could also destroyed the human species.
Another is a galactical [cosmological] threat from large rogue asteriod and meteors coming from no where and heading Earth's direction which could break up Earth into pieces.
The other threat is climate change and there are many other threats to the human species.

With the emergence of the drive to seek knowledge and thus Science, humans [as the exception] have broken away from natural culling of the weak. [still exists in primitive tribes not too long ago and even now in rarity].
With the higher capability to acquire knowledge, humans are made aware of the above potential threats.

Other than the very fatal cosmological threats, there is the potential threat from WMDs and other emerging from advances in knowledge in the hands of evil laden people.

It is on the basis of the above, that evolution triggers the emergence of the moral function within all humans and to some degrees [minute semblance] within the higher primates.
The moral function will highlight the above evil potentials and provide a moral framework and system to deal with the moral aspects of it efficiently especially intra-species co-operation as a team humanity.

Thus morality is not defiance of nature and evolution but rather it is spontaneously emerging in alignment with nature and evolution.

As I had stated many times, your knowledge is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic, else you would have taken into the above knowledge I mentioned above & others into consideration.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What a joy you are. You are exactly the kind of audience that makes the kind of work I and my friends, J. Swift, F. Arouet, C. Dodgson, S. Clemens, and I labor so assiduously to accomplish, worth the effort.

Whatever your sarcasm and condemnation, it is very evident from your posts,
as I had stated above,
your knowledge is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic, else you would have taken into the above knowledge I mentioned above & others into consideration.

[Skepdick]

Nature is amoral; your objection if groundless.

But you are part of nature. Therefore you are amoral?

Oh. Deja vu!

[Skepdick]

Anyone who fails to produce will starve to death, unless they steal someone else's food.

Oh! So you must be a farmer then. When last did you produce your food?

[Skepdick]

Of course nature is amoral. I didn't imply otherwise.

Why do dualists keep making this error? if nature is amoral then you can't say anything coherent about morality or immorality without special pleading.

You are part of nature. Everything you do must be amoral, unless you artificially invent the concept of "morality". And so the same usual questions arise. Why would you even bother inventing morality? What do you need morality for?

I'm simply pointing out to certain individuals who appeal to evolution or nature as the basis of the their moral views that nature does not observe anyone's ideas of what is moral, and if they really want to use nature as a guide it will contradict all the moral niceties they believe in.

Yeah, but we are observing nature and all the ways in which it kills us and otherwise does things to us that we don't like. And so if murder is immoral then natural death is also immoral.

And then we figure out all the ways in which nature "selects us out" and we put mechanisms in place to render nature's little tricks ineffective. And when you put enough of these safety nets in place they add up to doubling human life expectancy and immensely improving quality of life.

And if you think that's contradictory, explain to us how it is that you are still alive well past your natural shelf life of 35.

[Sculptor]

But as cultural humans we have long transcended the vicissitudes of the environment and the brute necessities of survival, ...

I'm not sure who the, "we," is that you refer to, but all the human beings I know must learn how to use this world and work to produce or earn the water, food, clothing, shelter, medicine and all their other needs, both physical and psychological to maintain their life; except, of course, for the parasites and predators who live on the productive effort of others.

Anyone who fails to produce will starve to death, unless they steal someone else's food.

Sorry. But it seems to have escaped your notice but we are not living in the Palaeolithic.

We prefer to protect and nourish people who are not "fit", ...

Who decides who is and who is not fit? Does just anyone who claims to be unfit get to be fed and protected? What if everyone claims to be unfit?

[/quote]
Meaningless response.

As far as I know, there is nothing preventing anyone who chooses to from protecting and nourishing others they choose to help. Realistically, you are not going to help them all. How do you decide which to help and which to let die?

People and societies make their own choices in the matter.

[RCSaunders]

Nature is amoral; your objection if groundless.

But you are part of nature. Therefore you are amoral?

Oh. Deja vu!

Oui!

[RCSaunders]

Anyone who fails to produce will starve to death, unless they steal someone else's food.

Oh! So you must be a farmer then. When last did you produce your food?

Take a deep breath and I'll explain.

To produce means to use one's own mind and effort to make a product or perform a service that someone else is willing to trade a product or service they produce in exchange for. To facilitate such exchanges human beings used the medium of exchange, money.

Anything anyone acquires using money (which represents the value of whatever product or service they have produced) is considered, "produced," because it is the indirect product of their own effort. It is the opposite of acquiring things without exchanging the product of one's own productive effort, which is called theft.

If you drive a car, eat food, take medicine, or wear clothes you have not personally made or assembled but have acquired them with money you have earned, you have, "produced," them, indirectly. Otherwise, you are a thief.

[Sculptor]

Nature is amoral; your objection if groundless.

But you are part of nature. Therefore you are amoral?

Oh. Deja vu!

Oui!

Duh.
Educated people understand perfectly the difference between nature and culture.

[RCSaunders]

Of course nature is amoral. I didn't imply otherwise.

Why do dualists keep making this error? if nature is amoral then you can't say anything coherent about morality or immorality without special pleading.

I agree. I have no use for what is popuarly or philosophically called, "moral," or, "ethical." Why do you think I'm a dualist? I believe in only one material existence and reject all forms of mysticism or the supernatural.

You are part of nature. Everything you do must be amoral, unless you artificially invent the concept of "morality". And so the same usual questions arise. Why would you even bother inventing morality? What do you need morality for?

Exactly. That's my question: What is the objective of ethical principles? You made one comment there so you should know my position by now, but apparently did not understand the point.

I'm simply pointing out to certain individuals who appeal to evolution or nature as the basis of the their moral views that nature does not observe anyone's ideas of what is moral, and if they really want to use nature as a guide it will contradict all the moral niceties they believe in.

Yeah, but we are observing nature and all the ways in which it kills us and otherwise does things to us that we don't like. And so if murder is immoral then natural death is also immoral.

And then we figure out all the ways in which nature "selects us out" and we put mechanisms in place to render nature's little tricks ineffective. And when you put enough of these safety nets in place they add up to doubling human life expectancy and immensely improving quality of life.

And if you think that's contradictory, explain to us how it is that you are still alive well past your natural shelf life of 35.

I really think you have me confused with someone else. I never said or implied any of the nonsense you are addressing.