The God Delusion

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, we're not, we're talking about net evolutionary benefit, unless you want to shift things around. Read what you posted. What has net personal gain got to do with anything?

Are you arguing that "survival of the fittest" is a communal rather than individual phenomenon?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes. I have a sense that I am falling; I don't need to refer to Newton to know I'm going to hit the ground.

Moral law?

Originally posted by Halitose
I've just given you examples where there were contrary "instincts". Are they decided by democratic vote?

No, in the case of the fire it's a question of whether the instinct for altruism is outweighed by the instinct for self-preservation. Everyone knows saving the person from the flames is the right thing to do, but not everyone is brave enough to do the right thing. That's why fire-fighters are heroes!

Originally posted by Halitose
Are you arguing that "survival of the fittest" is a communal rather than individual phenomenon?

"Survival of the fittest" is a journalistic catch-phrase, as you well know.

I'm no expert, but natural selection appears to work at individual and communal level.

Originally posted by Halitose
Moral law?

Yes, built in just like gravity. How handy of the universe to provide it, despite it's tendency to break down.

I'd like to think the universe is naturally moral...

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Franky, that was the wrong thing to do.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Franky, that was the wrong thing to do.

How does one go about signing up his mobile number to premium rate text services?

D

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, built in just like gravity. How handy of the universe to provide it, despite it's tendency to break down.

I'd like to think the universe is naturally moral...

Yes, built in just like gravity. How handy of the universe to provide it, despite it's tendency to break down.

How can morality, a sense of "aughtness", be the equivalent of a physical force? Surely the latter is physical, while the former is metaphysical.

Originally posted by Halitose
We're talking about "nett personal benefit"...

Edit: Another example. You jump into a burning building to rescue a total stranger with the distinct possibility that you'd die trying.

A community in which members assist each other even at their own personal risk (where that personal risk is not too excessive) is more likely to survive. In your HIV orphan case, the knowledge that the child will almost certainly not survive to reproductive age is not instinctual and will probably be over ridden by the instinct of assisting. However in this particular case it is actually false that all children with HIV will not reproduce.
The individual that does not take risks when assisting others is more likely to survive in the group, but if too many of them use that strategy then the whole group may die out. As I said before it is a balance between two strategies. As I think Bosse de Nage said, it has been demonstrated in game theory.

Originally posted by Halitose
Are you arguing that "survival of the fittest" is a communal rather than individual phenomenon?

It is both a communal and individual phenomena and those are the two tendencies that we have been talking about all along. Altruism (fitter community) and selfishness (fitter individual).
This is core evolutionary theory and I find it surprising that you would not know all about it.

Originally posted by Halitose
Hitler/Manson/Stalin's instinct disagreed with yours/twhiteheads. Do you have any logical grounds to prefer yours above theirs?

No, I don't. Again, I just have a 'sense' that I should follow my own instincts not theirs.
However I disagree that the mentioned individuals thought that what they were doing was morally right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A community in which members assist each other even at their own personal risk (where that personal risk is not too excessive) is more likely to survive. In your HIV orphan case, the knowledge that the child will almost certainly not survive to reproductive age is not instinctual and will probably be over ridden by the instinct of assisting. However in th ...[text shortened]... between two strategies. As I think Bosse de Nage said, it has been demonstrated in game theory.

Is this a form of "group consciousness" where some but not all of the individuals within the group exhibit altruistic intent? It sounds fabulous. How do you sustain such a hypothesis without the "catch-all" phrase of it being supplied by evolution?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is both a communal and individual phenomena and those are the two tendencies that we have been talking about all along. Altruism (fitter community) and selfishness (fitter individual).
This is core evolutionary theory and I find it surprising that you would not know all about it.

This is core evolutionary theory and I find it surprising that you would not know all about it.

I'm well aware of this as hypothetical conjecture. What I'm more interested in is the mechanics, the nitty-gritty as it were, of this social metaphysic.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Yes, built in just like gravity. How handy of the universe to provide it, despite it's tendency to break down.

How can morality, a sense of "aughtness", be the equivalent of a physical force? Surely the latter is physical, while the former is metaphysical.[/b]

The moral law is equivalent to the law of gravity in that it is a law. I asserted no other equivalence...Still, the moral law has an obviously physical effect, or no actions could be identified as being moral. (Incidentally, my thinking about what I ought to be doing instead of posting on this forum is a physical process...I don't find the distinction between physical and metaphysical particularly accurate, since "immaterial" thought is not so immaterial after all).