Originally posted by kevcvs57Which happens more often than not (failing to pass on genes).
Without the innate objective of survival an organism will not get to pass on it's genes.
Try telling yourself the instinct for survival does not exist the next time you see a car hurtling towards you; I'm guessing that like me you will do your utmost to obtain the objective.
I never said there was no instinct for survival. I said there is no such innate objective. There is a significant difference between the two.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot really the instinct is the mechanism by which the objective is reached; try not to get the two confused.
Which happens more often than not (failing to pass on genes).
[b]Try telling yourself the instinct for survival does not exist the next time you see a car hurtling towards you; I'm guessing that like me you will do your utmost to obtain the objective.
I never said there was no instinct for survival. I said there is no such innate objective. There is a significant difference between the two.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by kevcvs57Do amoebas have a survival instinct?
Not really the instinct is the mechanism by which the objective is reached; try not to get the two confused.
Do amoebas have objectives?
Evolution is blind, it has no objectives.
Just as water doesn't have an objective when it flows downhill to the sea.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadInteresting hypothetical. Yet, it is an impossible hypothetical that my genes will always be in power and not the minority in a human animal society. Society is too transient. I always got a comforting feeling at the idea of standing up for the Jews when the Nazis came knocking, or standing up for the blacks during slavery and Jim Crow, etc. Never know when you may be in the minority or in such a negative predicament.
So I ask again: if you are clearly in a situation where this is not the case, then is it morally OK to have slaves or otherwise exploit others? For example, if you were white in the US during slavery, there was no chance of you become a slave, so would slavery then be OK?
Plus, it is ok to have human morals and there is an evolutionary-basis for intra-species fairness and altruism.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadMore of a species thing. Though I do think it generally prudent to learn from other animals having significant intelligience.
What if one of those other animals was equal to or better than humans in intelligence? Is it a species thing, or an intelligence thing?
If I were to consider and incorporate mental attributes of other animals into a moral structure with regard to the human animal, I would consider their ability to show empathy toward and be loyal to the human animal, more than their raw technical intelligience.
That is what is fascinating about dolphins is that they are one of the most intelligent non-human animals and also demonstrate empathy toward the human animal.
Also, in reverse, I do agree it is easier for the human animal to feel empathy toward other intelligent animals, unless of course they became a threat.
Originally posted by googlefudgeSounds a bit too reductionist for me. Are you saying that water has something to gain from flowing downhill? because even flowers turn towards the light so that photosynthesis can be accommodated but like evolution they are blind. not quite sure what you think evolution has to do with the individual organisms innate instincts; evolution is our way of describing the results.
Do amoebas have a survival instinct?
Do amoebas have objectives?
Evolution is blind, it has no objectives.
Just as water doesn't have an objective when it flows downhill to the sea.
Originally posted by moon1969But does standing up for the Jews or the slaves really benefit your descendants? If society is transient as you say, then will behaving morally now, significantly influence those who might take advantage of your descendants later?
Interesting hypothetical. Yet, it is an impossible hypothetical that my genes will always be in power and not the minority in a human animal society. Society is too transient. I always got a comforting feeling at the idea of standing up for the Jews when the Nazis came knocking, or standing up for the blacks during slavery and Jim Crow, etc. Never know when you may be in the minority or in such a negative predicament.
Originally posted by moon1969I am thinking more along the lines of say an intelligent alien race (equal in intelligence to humans) shows up on earth. They cannot breed with humans. Do we grant them human rights? Do we treat them morally, or do we treat them like animals? Do we expect them to treat us morally?
More of a species thing. Though I do think it generally prudent to learn from other animals having significant intelligience.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell for me it is you that is making the extraordinary claim that the instinct for survival serves no purpose/objective for the individual organism. You seem to think that your some kind of school master that us plebs have go to in order to get our books marked; dream on.
It is you that is making the extraordinary claim. It is you that must justify such a claim. Simply stating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe same as us; survival and passing on the selfish gene that is the objective in a nut shell. Water rolls downhill as a result of gravity, the amoeba locomotes in order to feed. Unless you think food is nothing?
Amoebas have nothing to gain either. Passing on your genes does not benefit you.
Originally posted by kevcvs57It remains you making the claim. It is not something obvious. It is therefore an extraordinary claim. If you cant even explain why you think it is true, but instead just keep repeating it, then it should be obvious to you that you need to rethink your position.
Well for me it is you that is making the extraordinary claim that the instinct for survival serves no purpose/objective for the individual organism. You seem to think that your some kind of school master that us plebs have go to in order to get our books marked; dream on.
Originally posted by kevcvs57So do you think water has as an objective, the need to get to the ocean? The fact that something happens does not mean the expected outcome is an objective.
The same as us; survival and passing on the selfish gene that is the objective in a nut shell. Water rolls downhill as a result of gravity, the amoeba locomotes in order to feed. Unless you think food is nothing?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo and you can waffle all you like this time constantly saying that it is an extraordinary claim does not make it so. you know your wrong take it on the chin and move on.
It remains you making the claim. It is not something obvious. It is therefore an extraordinary claim. If you cant even explain why you think it is true, but instead just keep repeating it, then it should be obvious to you that you need to rethink your position.