From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Fri Nov 19 1999 - 10:36:40 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote,
>You're making the further unstated assumption that the success of a
>population is good; i.e., you are defining moral worth as equivalent
>to success of the species.
Yes, and you would oppose this assumption? If the success of a species (or
segment of a species) does not correlate to its mores, this dysfunction places
it at a disadvantage in relation to less dysfunctional populations, don't you
think?
> That's as good a desire as any, but there's
>certainly nothing more fundamentally "right" about success than any
>other human desire.
Without fulfilling the desire for evolutionary success, (iow, unless a
population succeeds) a population cannot go on to other human desires. This
makes the desire for evolutionary success, reproductive success, sucess as a
species, or however one puts it, a "fundamental" desire (as you put it).
The extent to which ethical systems originate in our genes deserves, IMO, a
scientific review equal to or surpassing that given to Sokal's Experiments With
Cultural Studies.
Cheers,
--J. R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:48 MST