Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Response 04

Go down

Response 04 Empty Response 04

Post  danielg Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:33 pm

>> JAMES: Anyone who tries to derive a model for social behaviour from a description of nature is indulging in a fundamental fallacy: getting ought from is.

I agree. This is part of the problem with justifying homosexuality based on it's possible genetic origins.

But with regard to evolution, the reason this assumption is made is that evolution has traditionally been seen as 'advancement' from our origins as primordial slime. So the 'ought' comes from the idea that we are getting more advanced and better, as opposed to the creationist view that we were created perfect, and have *degraded* over time, which seems to match what we see, rather than the anti-entropic evolutionary model (but that's another discussion Wink.

>> JAMES: Furthermore, eugenics doesn't follow from the idea of natural selection. The whole idea of natural selection is that nobody actually does anything with the intent of getting rid of "less fit" individuals.

Not true. It can, and has historically (before Hitler) been seen as an extension of medicine - science helping individuals and society live longer and healthier lives. Combined with the idea that 'the better of the many should be seen as more important than the betterment of the few", this seems perfectly logical.

>> JAMES: Eugenics comes from animal husbandry: the idea that you engage in selective breeding to get the features you desire. It is inherently intention driven -- which natural selection, by definition, is not.

And since Darwinism replaces the divine, made-in-God's-image view with the "man is jsut a higher animal" view, it makes perfect sense that, since man is no longer special but merely another animal, we should be able to apply the animal husbandry logic, unless we invoke some other value that says "man is special." And Darwinism itself contains no such corollary.

>> JAMES: If the Nazis genuinely believed in Darwin's theory -- the real theory, not some perversion of it -- they would have had to come to the conclusion that the Jews, Gypsies, etc, were indeed "fit", because, otherwise, they would have already died off;

Untrue. As Darwin himself admitted, the persistence of the more 'savage races' should be short lived, even though they existed in his time. So Nazi's were perfectly following his logic by moving the process along.

>> JAMES: The fact that one can misconstrue a scientific theory to bad ends has no implication on the validity of the theory.

I agree, see my point 12 above.


Posts : 5
Join date : 2009-10-23

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum