Spirituality
23 Nov 06
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by LemonJello...there is no possible way to argue logically from any set of purely descriptive claims (such as those that comprise evolutionary theory) to any single normative claim regarding eugenics or any other topic for that matter.
You're a very smart guy, Halitose, so you know that there is no possible way to argue logically from any set of purely descriptive claims (such as those that comprise evolutionary theory) to any single normative claim regarding eugenics or any other topic for that matter.
I'm not familiar with the article you cite; but I don't see anything in what you ...[text shortened]... ng here about persuasion towards a normative outlook against eugenics, isn't he?
Agreed. Eugenics (as a normative proposition) cannot be derived from evolution by any form of rigorous deductive reasoning. That, however, is not my point; and herein lies the rub: eugenics is perfectly consistent with a materialistic evolutionary perspective. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the prejudice produced by the Nazi Aktion T4 program, I suggest it would sit quite nicely with the liberal academia. The problem is not that the naturalistic fallacy is invoked to reach the conclusion of eugenics, but that breeding and the selection of useful traits is integral to evolutionary theory.
(As an aside: my hero and defender of mankind, Peter Singer, advocates that HIV research would be better served experimenting on brain-dead humans than on chimps*. I've alluded to a slippery slope previously, so I'll keep that one for later. Screw the Nuremberg Code.)
I'm not familiar with the article you cite;
Sorry. Forgot to site my source: http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php
...but I don't see anything in what you have quoted showing that Dawkins explicitly "supports" this sort of eugenics.
You sure? Unless the title is some subtle sarcasm, it's a dead giveaway. Except if by "sort" you mean "T4-style" eugenics??
He's talking here about persuasion towards a normative outlook against eugenics, isn't he?
Hmmmm... I couldn't say for sure; he seems a little vague. 🙂
* http://www.evolutionpublishing.com.au/sxnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=40
23 Nov 06
Hal: The problem is not that the naturalistic fallacy is invoked to reach the conclusion of eugenics, but that breeding and the selection of useful traits is integral to evolutionary theory.
How's that a "problem"? And which one of Dawkins' examples "mathematical, musical, athletic" is a "useful" trait according to evolutionary theory?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHow's that a "problem"?
Hal: The problem is not that the naturalistic fallacy is invoked to reach the conclusion of eugenics, but that breeding and the selection of useful traits is integral to evolutionary theory.
How's that a "problem"? And which one of Dawkins' examples "mathematical, musical, athletic" is a "useful" trait according to evolutionary theory?
Uhm... well... From a purely evolutionary perspective (without a superior framework of morals to override or restrict), eugenics is a forgone conclusion.
And which one of Dawkins' examples "mathematical, musical, athletic" is a "useful" trait according to evolutionary theory?
All three could possibly be useful traits depending on the given environment. The athletic one is the classical example: run faster... avoid predators... catch prey, etc.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI wonder what eugenics has to do with "spirituality". The issue should be in the "Debates" forum.
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used tha ...[text shortened]... stop being frightened even to put the question?"
What say the Dawkinians?
23 Nov 06
4 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseHalititose: "(As an aside: my hero and defender of mankind, Peter Singer, advocates that HIV research would be better served experimenting on brain-dead humans than on chimps*.
[b]...there is no possible way to argue logically from any set of purely descriptive claims (such as those that comprise evolutionary theory) to any single normative claim regarding eugenics or any other topic for that matter.
Agreed. Eugenics (as a normative proposition) cannot be derived from evolution by any form of rigorous deductive reasoning. T npublishing.com.au/sxnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=40[/b]
Peter Singer is your hero ? The one who does't mind killing unborn ànd born handicapped children who are non-persons á la Singer ?
Defender of mankind ? I guess the handicapped people have different feelings about your "hero".
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI was being sarcastic; I have a profound dislike for Singer's views.
Halititose: "(As an aside: my hero and defender of mankind, Peter Singer, advocates that HIV research would be better served experimenting on brain-dead humans than on chimps*.
Peter Singer is your hero ? The one who does't mind killing unborn ànd born handicapped children who are non-persons á la Singer ?
Defender of mankind ? I guess the handicapped people have different feelings about your "hero".