RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Ibanez]

27 pages. Bravo!! Well done boys


Sent from my iPhone.

Not so fast my friend. Looks more like 22.

Yeah, 27 pages when viewed on the Iphone. I'm forward thinking. Join me.

[D1B]

Deny it all you want, christians, but we're fucking animals. Perhaps the worst animals.

The core of ethics runs deep in our species and is common to human beings everywhere. It survives the most appalling hardships and the most ruthless attempts to deprive human beings of their humanity. Nevertheless, some people resist the idea that this core has a biological basis which we have inherited from our pre-human ancestors. One ground for resistance is that we like to think of our own actions as radically different from the behavior of animals, no matter how altruistic those animals may be. Animals act instinctively; humans are rational, self-conscious beings. We can reflect on the rightness or wrongness of our actions. Animals cannot. We can follow moral rules. We can see what is good, and choose it. Animals cannot. Or so many people think.

Attempts to draw sharp lines between ourselves and other animals have always failed. We thought we were the only beings capable of language, until we discovered that chimpanzees and gorillas can learn more than a hundred words in sign language, and use them in combinations of their own devising. Scientists are now laboriously discovering what many dog owners have long accepted; we are not the only animals that reason. As Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man: "The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." It is a mistake to think of all animals as doing by blind instinct what we do by conscious deliberation. Both human and nonhuman animals have innate tendencies toward behaving in particular ways. Some of these tendencies rigidly prescribe a particular kind of behavior--like the fly, so set on going in one direction that it buzzes repeatedly into the glass, instead of trying different directions until it comes to the part of the window that is open. Other innate tendencies merely set a goal which leaves room for a diversity of strategies--like the fox that "instinctively" wants a hen and, as those who keep hens learn to their cost, can think of dozens of different ways to get it. The "instincts" of the social mammals are mostly of this more open sort. In this sense human beings have "instincts" too: think about how hard it is for parents to hear their baby cry without picking it up, or for adolescent and older humans to avoid taking an interest in sex.

utilitarian.net



Floating plastic island in the Pacific, twice the size of Texas. Fuck me.

[JoltinJoe]

Deny it all you want, christians, but we're **** animals. Perhaps the worst animals.

The core of ethics runs deep in our species and is common to human beings everywhere. It survives the most appalling hardships and the most ruthless attempts to deprive human beings of their humanity. Nevertheless, some people resist the idea that this core has a biological basis which we have inherited from our pre-human ancestors. One ground for resistance is that we like to think of our own actions as radically different from the behavior of animals, no matter how altruistic those animals may be. Animals act instinctively; humans are rational, self-conscious beings. We can reflect on the rightness or wrongness of our actions. Animals cannot. We can follow moral rules. We can see what is good, and choose it. Animals cannot. Or so many people think.

Attempts to draw sharp lines between ourselves and other animals have always failed. We thought we were the only beings capable of language, until we discovered that chimpanzees and gorillas can learn more than a hundred words in sign language, and use them in combinations of their own devising. Scientists are now laboriously discovering what many dog owners have long accepted; we are not the only animals that reason. As Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man: "The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." It is a mistake to think of all animals as doing by blind instinct what we do by conscious deliberation. Both human and nonhuman animals have innate tendencies toward behaving in particular ways. Some of these tendencies rigidly prescribe a particular kind of behavior--like the fly, so set on going in one direction that it buzzes repeatedly into the glass, instead of trying different directions until it comes to the part of the window that is open. Other innate tendencies merely set a goal which leaves room for a diversity of strategies--like the fox that "instinctively" wants a hen and, as those who keep hens learn to their cost, can think of dozens of different ways to get it. The "instincts" of the social mammals are mostly of this more open sort. In this sense human beings have "instincts" too: think about how hard it is for parents to hear their baby cry without picking it up, or for adolescent and older humans to avoid taking an interest in sex.

utilitarian.net



Floating plastic island in the Pacific, twice the size of Texas. **** me.

I'm glad you posted this so as to make clear to our young friend YT where each of our outlooks lead. Thank you.

YT, I'm impressed with your willingness to think and reason, and let that take you to a lifetime of happiness.

Oh, and BTW, D1B, since you are insistent on the requirement of "proof," prove that morality is biologically based.

[JohnStOnge]

Again, you're not listening, you can't refute one of the premises without infringing on another, eugenics would be harmful in a social setting if it was done against the will of those being tested. The same could be said about mass murder.

Both of the premises you're talking about are simply false. There are scenarios in which harming others would benefit our species biologically in the long run and there are scenarios in which harming others can benefit an individual in the short run. I listened to you (or, rather, read what you wrote). It's OK if I "infringe" upon either of the premises because both are false.

[JohnStOnge]

Because it contradicts our basic instincts and nature, read what I post.

I read what you posted. Now:

What is innately "bad" about contradicting our basic instincts and nature?

So our species goes extinct. Let's say it goes extinct because an asteroid collides with Earth. The universe goes on. It is neither good nor bad. Just another thing that happens.

You or I may not like contemplating it. But that doesn't make it innately "bad."

[kalm]

Because it contradicts our basic instincts and nature, read what I post.

I read what you posted. Now:

What is innately "bad" about contradicting our basic instincts and nature?

So our species goes extinct. Let's say it goes extinct because an asteroid collides with Earth. The universe goes on. It is neither good nor bad. Just another thing that happens.

You or I may not like contemplating it. But that doesn't make it innately "bad."

Who would create such a vicious uncaring universe?

[grizzaholic]

I read what you posted. Now:

What is innately "bad" about contradicting our basic instincts and nature?

So our species goes extinct. Let's say it goes extinct because an asteroid collides with Earth. The universe goes on. It is neither good nor bad. Just another thing that happens.

You or I may not like contemplating it. But that doesn't make it innately "bad."

Who would create such a vicious uncaring universe?

Can anyone answer this question or is it just for the Big Dogs?

[JohnStOnge]

In terms of absolute innate answers, I have none, because there are none. But from the view of the homo sapiens, it's "bad for them". Not existing is bad for the human race, just like mass murder, just like theft is bad for homo sapiens. It's bad because it contradicts the nature of the human race in that it halts our evolution and infringes upon our survival. Every creature evolves, and thus partaking in efforts to deny that evolution is unnatural and thus immoral. We exist to survive. Everything everyone does on a daily basis is to survive and evolve, that's a universal theme, of all creatures. Humanity's nonexistence may not be objectively good or bad, but that doesn't matter, it contradicts the interests of every individual and of the species. This is a really easy concept that you just don't understand.

None of that provides a basis for some innate code of "good" and "bad." People can and do engage in "imoral" activities without suffering consequences. People can and do find it in their interests to do so. And there is a "survival of the fittest" element to evolution. Also an element of "proliferation of the fittest."

I've already been through it but this thing about thinking that the drive to survive and pass genetic material on provides a basis for what we think of as morality is complete nonsense.

To repeat an example: When a male lion takes over a pride, it normally kills all the cubs. The widely accepted conclusion as to why he does that is that it is in his biological interests to do so. Here is one version of the explanation (from http://www.brighthub.com/environment/sc ... 60010.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Female lions have a reproductive timespan of at least ten years. Male lions typically have less than five years during the time they are in a pride. Female lions with cubs don't come back into heat until their cubs have either matured, which can take up to two years, or they have died.

It's to the advantage of the male lion to kill all of his predecessor's cubs so that the females will become available to him as soon as possible, so that he will have at least one opportunity to reproduce before another male lion comes along, and his own cubs will have a greater chance of surviving to adulthood. It's less of a disaster for a female lion to lose a given litter of cubs, because she will have opportunities to produce more.

An example, from soft and fuzzy Mother Nature, of how it can be in an individual's interest to harm others.

[kalm]

In terms of absolute innate answers, I have none, because there are none. But from the view of the homo sapiens, it's "bad for them". Not existing is bad for the human race, just like mass murder, just like theft is bad for homo sapiens. It's bad because it contradicts the nature of the human race in that it halts our evolution and infringes upon our survival. Every creature evolves, and thus partaking in efforts to deny that evolution is unnatural and thus immoral. We exist to survive. Everything everyone does on a daily basis is to survive and evolve, that's a universal theme, of all creatures. Humanity's nonexistence may not be objectively good or bad, but that doesn't matter, it contradicts the interests of every individual and of the species. This is a really easy concept that you just don't understand.

None of that provides a basis for some innate code of "good" and "bad." People can and do engage in "imoral" activities without suffering consequences. People can and do find it in their interests to do so. And there is a "survival of the fittest" element to evolution. Also an element of "proliferation of the fittest."

I've already been through it but this thing about thinking that the drive to survive and pass genetic material on provides a basis for what we think of as morality is complete nonsense.

To repeat an example: When a male lion takes over a pride, it normally kills all the cubs. The widely accepted conclusion as to why he does that is that it is in his biological interests to do so. Here is one version of the explanation (from http://www.brighthub.com/environment/sc ... 60010.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Female lions have a reproductive timespan of at least ten years. Male lions typically have less than five years during the time they are in a pride. Female lions with cubs don't come back into heat until their cubs have either matured, which can take up to two years, or they have died.

It's to the advantage of the male lion to kill all of his predecessor's cubs so that the females will become available to him as soon as possible, so that he will have at least one opportunity to reproduce before another male lion comes along, and his own cubs will have a greater chance of surviving to adulthood. It's less of a disaster for a female lion to lose a given litter of cubs, because she will have opportunities to produce more.

An example, from soft and fuzzy Mother Nature, of how it can be in an individual's interest to harm others.

And yet the same force that created that tendency in lions also provides moral behavior in humans.

[JohnStOnge]

I"ll go ahead and post this from the article about the lions I used (http://www.brighthub.com/environment/sc ... 60010.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Some people think that survival of the species is a driving goal of evolution. It makes a certain intuitive sense, doesn't it? Species want to survive, therefore the individuals of that species should act in ways to ensure that it does. This seems especially true to us humans, because we have the mental faculties to contemplate how our actions as a species affect the world we live in, and all the possible consequences.

But that's not how evolution actually works. A species is not in and of itself motivated to do things. Individuals have motivations - and what motivates the individuals is their own reproductive success. The rest of the species, it turns out, is irrelevant.

That, well written, is the bottom line. I'll add this: I think it turns out that such "selfish" motivation is good for a species in most cases. The strong and most successful survive and reproduce. They are more represented in the gene pool than the weak and unsuccessful.

[kalm]

I"ll go ahead and post this from the article about the lions I used (http://www.brighthub.com/environment/sc ... 60010.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Some people think that survival of the species is a driving goal of evolution. It makes a certain intuitive sense, doesn't it? Species want to survive, therefore the individuals of that species should act in ways to ensure that it does. This seems especially true to us humans, because we have the mental faculties to contemplate how our actions as a species affect the world we live in, and all the possible consequences.

But that's not how evolution actually works. A species is not in and of itself motivated to do things. Individuals have motivations - and what motivates the individuals is their own reproductive success. The rest of the species, it turns out, is irrelevant.

That, well written, is the bottom line. I'll add this: I think it turns out that such "selfish" motivation is good for a species in most cases. The strong and most successful survive and reproduce. They are more represented in the gene pool than the weak and unsuccessful.

So you're now applying objectivism to the wild which (i think it was you but perhaps someone else) already suggested is beneath human morality. Next you're going to tell us how the male lion's infanticide is actually heroic behavior. I think this type of thought occurs when you combine Ayn Rand with some really good weed.

[JohnStOnge]

And yet the same force that created that tendency in lions also provides moral behavior in humans.

You know, regardless of whether a theist or an atheist view is correct, I think you're right about that.

Our species is interesting to think about because we have largely eliminated selective pressure. At least we have in the more advanced societies. We try as hard as we can to make sure everyone survives and has a chance to reproduce (provided they are fertile).

Another wierd thing in our species is that we have success in certain material terms that is separate and distinct from succcess in biological terms. Like we may think of highly intelligent people who do well...become Doctors and Scientists and Engineers and such...as successful. But in our society they produce less offspring than people we think of as less successful do.

One thing I read in the Bell Curve that I've never seen refuted is that, on average, lower IQ people are, to put it in the terms we're using here, more biologically successful than higher IQ people are. On average they have more children. Also, on average, they start having children younger. So they have more children per generation plus they have more generations.

All on average of course. But I don't think the "rules" that normally govern evolution apply to us right now. Don't know what that means for the long term. But I don't think they do. We are not in "survival of the fittest" and "reproduction of the fittest" mode.

[JohnStOnge]

So you're now applying objectivism to the wild which (i think it was you but perhaps someone else) already suggested is beneath human morality. Next you're going to tell us how the male lion's infanticide is actually heroic behavior. I think this type of thought occurs when you combine Ayn Rand with some really good weed.

I didn't say it's heroic behavior. I just used it as an example of how things are. People have been appealing to biology as a basis for what we think of as morality; saying things like it's not in an individual's own biological or social interest to harm others.

It's the same reason I posted the video where one group of chimps attacks another one, grabs a juvenile, and eats it. There's a lot of "selfishness" in nature. Individuals harm members of their own species all the time and we conclude that it's because it's in their biological interest to do so. And I think we're right in concluding that.

[JohnStOnge]

Nevertheless, some people resist the idea that this core has a biological basis which we have inherited from our pre-human ancestors. One ground for resistance is that we like to think of our own actions as radically different from the behavior of animals, no matter how altruistic those animals may be. Animals act instinctively; humans are rational, self-conscious beings. We can reflect on the rightness or wrongness of our actions. Animals cannot. We can follow moral rules. We can see what is good, and choose it. Animals cannot. Or so many people think.

Attempts to draw sharp lines between ourselves and other animals have always failed. We thought we were the only beings capable of language, until we discovered that chimpanzees and gorillas can learn more than a hundred words in sign language, and use them in combinations of their own devising.

Animals? Here is another quote from that lion article I linked (http://www.brighthub.com/environment/sc ... 60010.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Evolution Is Driven By Individual Reproductive Success
The male African lion is mainly concerned with his own reproductive success, and his behavior towards others of his species reflects that. The success of his mates doesn't matter, except insofar as they bear and nurture his cubs, because he will kill their other, unrelated cubs. The success of other unrelated male lions definitely doesn't matter. Strong male lions who can take and hold a pride for a longer period of time will reproduce more than weaker males, and males who kill their predecessor's cubs will reproduce more than those who don't. In short, other members of his species are to be eliminated, not preserved, if they're in the way of his own offspring's success.

Evolution is driven not by species survival, but by individual reproductive success.

Whoever wrote that stuff above for the utilitarians has a very distorted, romanticized view of animals. Non human animals in general and non human social animals in particular are most certainly NOT utilitarian.

[youngterrier]

Again, you're not listening, you can't refute one of the premises without infringing on another, eugenics would be harmful in a social setting if it was done against the will of those being tested. The same could be said about mass murder.

Both of the premises you're talking about are simply false. There are scenarios in which harming others would benefit our species biologically in the long run and there are scenarios in which harming others can benefit an individual in the short run. I listened to you (or, rather, read what you wrote). It's OK if I "infringe" upon either of the premises because both are false.

but there aren't any scenarios in which harming others would benefit you socially AND biologically. Name some.

[youngterrier]

Because it contradicts our basic instincts and nature, read what I post.

I read what you posted. Now:

What is innately "bad" about contradicting our basic instincts and nature?

So our species goes extinct. Let's say it goes extinct because an asteroid collides with Earth. The universe goes on. It is neither good nor bad. Just another thing that happens.

You or I may not like contemplating it. But that doesn't make it innately "bad."

our nonexistence is against our interests and our natural programming, thus it is bad for us. There is no objective right and wrong, only what's objectively right and wrong for our species exists.

[youngterrier]

In terms of absolute innate answers, I have none, because there are none. But from the view of the homo sapiens, it's "bad for them". Not existing is bad for the human race, just like mass murder, just like theft is bad for homo sapiens. It's bad because it contradicts the nature of the human race in that it halts our evolution and infringes upon our survival. Every creature evolves, and thus partaking in efforts to deny that evolution is unnatural and thus immoral. We exist to survive. Everything everyone does on a daily basis is to survive and evolve, that's a universal theme, of all creatures. Humanity's nonexistence may not be objectively good or bad, but that doesn't matter, it contradicts the interests of every individual and of the species. This is a really easy concept that you just don't understand.

None of that provides a basis for some innate code of "good" and "bad." People can and do engage in "imoral" activities without suffering consequences. People can and do find it in their interests to do so. And there is a "survival of the fittest" element to evolution. Also an element of "proliferation of the fittest."

I've already been through it but this thing about thinking that the drive to survive and pass genetic material on provides a basis for what we think of as morality is complete nonsense.

To repeat an example: When a male lion takes over a pride, it normally kills all the cubs. The widely accepted conclusion as to why he does that is that it is in his biological interests to do so. Here is one version of the explanation (from http://www.brighthub.com/environment/sc ... 60010.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Female lions have a reproductive timespan of at least ten years. Male lions typically have less than five years during the time they are in a pride. Female lions with cubs don't come back into heat until their cubs have either matured, which can take up to two years, or they have died.

It's to the advantage of the male lion to kill all of his predecessor's cubs so that the females will become available to him as soon as possible, so that he will have at least one opportunity to reproduce before another male lion comes along, and his own cubs will have a greater chance of surviving to adulthood. It's less of a disaster for a female lion to lose a given litter of cubs, because she will have opportunities to produce more.

An example, from soft and fuzzy Mother Nature, of how it can be in an individual's interest to harm others.

You're an idiot. Characteristics such as empathy are common in many species in primates for one. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) Secondly, we've evolved and become more rational as a result of evolution. We condemn the actions of Stalin, etc because rationally what they did was not best for humanity.

The philosophers Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc concluded that virtuous behavior was the best way to excel. It is in human nature to wish to excel, it is within human nature to be rational, thus one can only conclude that virtuous behavior is the only way to fill one's natural desires.

Rational people are more moral than irrational people, that's a given. Rationality is the only way to obtain morality, not blind obedience. Because rationality is a natural result of evolution, not using rationality would be devolution. It is in human nature to evolve, therefore not using rationality is unnatural. That also means that being immoral is not natural once rationality is introduced

[youngterrier]

And yet the same force that created that tendency in lions also provides moral behavior in humans.

You know, regardless of whether a theist or an atheist view is correct, I think you're right about that.

Our species is interesting to think about because we have largely eliminated selective pressure. At least we have in the more advanced societies. We try as hard as we can to make sure everyone survives and has a chance to reproduce (provided they are fertile).

Another wierd thing in our species is that we have success in certain material terms that is separate and distinct from succcess in biological terms. Like we may think of highly intelligent people who do well...become Doctors and Scientists and Engineers and such...as successful. But in our society they produce less offspring than people we think of as less successful do.

One thing I read in the Bell Curve that I've never seen refuted is that, on average, lower IQ people are, to put it in the terms we're using here, more biologically successful than higher IQ people are. On average they have more children. Also, on average, they start having children younger. So they have more children per generation plus they have more generations.

All on average of course. But I don't think the "rules" that normally govern evolution apply to us right now. Don't know what that means for the long term. But I don't think they do. We are not in "survival of the fittest" and "reproduction of the fittest" mode.

This is an absolutely pointless post.

[youngterrier]

So you're now applying objectivism to the wild which (i think it was you but perhaps someone else) already suggested is beneath human morality. Next you're going to tell us how the male lion's infanticide is actually heroic behavior. I think this type of thought occurs when you combine Ayn Rand with some really good weed.

I didn't say it's heroic behavior. I just used it as an example of how things are. People have been appealing to biology as a basis for what we think of as morality; saying things like it's not in an individual's own biological or social interest to harm others.

It's the same reason I posted the video where one group of chimps attacks another one, grabs a juvenile, and eats it. There's a lot of "selfishness" in nature. Individuals harm members of their own species all the time and we conclude that it's because it's in their biological interest to do so. And I think we're right in concluding that.

Again, you're an idiot.

Point 1:
1)evolution is natural
2)rationality is the result of human evolution of the brain
3) thus rationality (or the ability to be rational) is natural, seeded in biology

Point 2
1) To be virtuous is the most rational course of action to evolve and thrive as a human being (unless you want to argue with the likes of Aristotle, Seneca, and Socrates)
2) Rationality is natural, seeded in biology
3) It is within human nature to evolve and thrive
4) therefore, it is natural for humans to be virtuous, to not be so would be irrational (and thus cause one to devolve)and thus betray one's interests to evolve and thrive and thus be an unnatural event.

NOW, with that being said, that does not mean that all humans are rational and moral. We're in the process of evolving and rationality is becoming more prominent than it was, even 100 years ago. It's very clear that as we become more rational and less emotional we are less immoral. What separates humans from other animals is our rationality, so comparing us to Lions or shit like that is irrelevant. Furthermore there are primates who display empathy naturally and we can conclude that we are one of those animals as well, and to not act on those feeling would betray our natural tendencies. I still maintain that you cannot name a perceived immoral act that is beneficial for yourself biologically and socially.

What's stupid is that you think that there's an absolute right or absolute wrong to everything, when in actually it all comes down to perspective. It is the rational approach that decides what is right. For instance, you maintain that humans don't possess a natural sense of right and wrong and that we have to be threatened with eternal hell fire to do what is "absolutely right." That's flawed. That asserts that doing what's in one's best interest is bad and ultimately not helpful in evolution. It doesn't come into your mind at all that perhaps, through our evolution, we are able to distinguish what action is best for our personal evolution. Perhaps one of the reasons we're more evolved than other animals is because a vast majority of our species possesses the natural feeling of what is right and wrong for our species. Those who don't possess that feeling are either autocratic leaders who are serving their own interest or sociopaths with mental problems.

[youngterrier]

in other words John, you're saying morality isn't natural, yet absolute right and wrong is. You're saying that we have to be told what they are because we can't figure out any of them on our own. Take away the concept of a creator and there is no right or wrong nor morality.

I disagree with that because, honestly, I think it's more rational to not believe in the "creators" that have been put before us. So that would mean there is no absolute right, wrong, and morality. I can accept that fact, but at the same time I can't go out and murder, rape, or steal from someone because I would have no peace of mind, I possess empathy, and it wouldn't benefit me socially. This would be true if there was a God or not, whether I was an atheist Christian, or believer of another creed, so there must be an alternative to the solution you bring forward. If there was no morality, I wouldn't have a second thought about being immoral, yet I do. I can only conclude that it is rational to be moral and natural as a human to possess empathy and virtue.

[JohnStOnge]

1) To be virtuous is the most rational course of action to evolve and thrive as a human being (unless you want to argue with the likes of Aristotle, Seneca, and Socrates)

If it is true that Aristotle, Seneca, and Socrates thought that to be virtuous is necessarily the most rational course of action to evolve and thrive as a human being then, yes, I would argue with them.

If you live your life simply by calculating what is best for your own interest, playing the odds, etc., it is very likely that you will at time calculate that it is in your interest not to be what most would describe as "virtuous." Are you prepared to deny that there are people who are not virtuous but nevertheless live successful lives in terms of what they think of as success?

You mention "evolve...as a human being." But "evolution" is usually used in the context of evolution as a species or evolution leading to speciatiion. One central mechanism postulated by evolutionary theory is natural selection. Individuals that are more successful and/or that exhibit traits that enhance their survival and reproduction have their genes expressed more in each generation. It is a "selfish" system.

Yes, if it is a social animal, one characteristsic that is beneficial is being able to survive and flourish within a "society." But that does not mean there are never advantages to harming the interests of others in the same society.

[JohnStOnge]

in other words John, you're saying morality isn't natural, yet absolute right and wrong is.

No. I'm saying that instrinsic right and wrong are not natural. The existence of intrinsic right and wrong would require the supernatural. That is not an argument for the existence of the supernatural. It's just saying that, if there is no supernatural, there is no intrinsic right and wrong.

[JohnStOnge]

This is an absolutely pointless post.

It does not bear upon the central question under discussion. It is a side bar. But the fact is that, assuming evolutionary theory is correct (and I do personally subscribe to evolutionary theory), natural selection is a primary mechanism. Natural selection means that individuals that are "stronger" and/or "more successful" tend to express their genetic material in the next generation more than other individuals. That impacts characteristics of the species. There are many, many individuals in human society who survive and/or reproduce only because we allow them to do so by "artificial" means. We have greatly impacted natural selection.

Related to that thought is an examination of which individuals are being "most successful" in terms of expressing their genetic material in the next generation. And it is arguable that the "less intelligent" are the "most successful" in those terms. That raises some interesting questions.

That might lead us into discussion of things like an upward drift in IQ in recent history. And then we can discuss how advances in nutrition and medical care can impact IQ just as they impact such things as height.

But the point is that we could actually be "evolving" as a species towards being somewhat less intelligent on average in terms of genetic potential.

Has nothing to do with morality. But interesting to think about.

[youngterrier]

1) To be virtuous is the most rational course of action to evolve and thrive as a human being (unless you want to argue with the likes of Aristotle, Seneca, and Socrates)

If it is true that Aristotle, Seneca, and Socrates thought that to be virtuous is necessarily the most rational course of action to evolve and thrive as a human being then, yes, I would argue with them.

If you live your life simply by calculating what is best for your own interest, playing the odds, etc., it is very likely that you will at time calculate that it is in your interest not to be what most would describe as "virtuous." Are you prepared to deny that there are people who are not virtuous but nevertheless live successful lives in terms of what they think of as success?

You mention "evolve...as a human being." But "evolution" is usually used in the context of evolution as a species or evolution leading to speciatiion. One central mechanism postulated by evolutionary theory is natural selection. Individuals that are more successful and/or that exhibit traits that enhance their survival and reproduction have their genes expressed more in each generation. It is a "selfish" system.

Yes, if it is a social animal, one characteristsic that is beneficial is being able to survive and flourish within a "society." But that does not mean there are never advantages to harming the interests of others in the same society.

evolution is a natural discourse of biology, we don't choose to evolve, it just happens. Choosing not to use rationality would reverse that, and ultimately it really isn't possible without some sort of outside force contributing upon (other topic all together). Regardless, we are the only animals capable of rational thought because of evolution. It comes with the territory.

The fact that you argue with the consensus on here, in which greater minds than you were able to find consensus on that fact doesn't show that you're independent as much as you are stubborn and stupid and irrational.

Certainly there are dictators and the like who live their lives immorally, but that's a minority, and an exception, not a rebuttal. Name one example, in which doing harm upon another for you own advancement is beneficial for someone socially. Rational Society condemns those actions as immoral whether they're punished or not. The same way many dictators have been assassinated or died (such as Stalin), the same will happen to all totalitarian governments. Not existing will not benefit them biologically. And for the ones who aren't killed, their legacy is tarnished and their behavior is still condemned as immoral. Once you're at the top of the world with unlimited power, one could be immoral, but one must be perceived as moral to get there, and few do. The ones who do are condemned either in the realms of public opinion or they seal their own fate with an assassination that they brought upon themselves.

[youngterrier]

in other words John, you're saying morality isn't natural, yet absolute right and wrong is.

No. I'm saying that instrinsic right and wrong are not natural. The existence of intrinsic right and wrong would require the supernatural. That is not an argument for the existence of the supernatural. It's just saying that, if there is no supernatural, there is no intrinsic right and wrong.

and I'm saying instrinsic right and wrong doesn't exist.....and it doesn't have to be for morality to exist. Morality is the product of human evolution, it used to based on authority (religion), now it's based on reason (government and law)

The goal of all of which is to thrive as a society and through society each individual thrives