Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist

Post Reply New Topic

I don't; what I deny is the idea that the 'races' are different enough for it to matter in the long run. Biologically, mixing and matching genes from previously isolated populations is a *good* thing for both a species and individuals; it leads not only to high heterozygosity in the F1 offspring (and thus, in general, greater fitness in those offspring), but to novel combinations of genes that can be adaptive for the species as a whole if they propagate. In addition, we no longer survive and thrive on the level of families or tribes; cooperation amongst nations and the increasing economic prosperity that it brings is good for our own offspring as well as those of the nations we cooperate with. Cooperation within a nation, regardless of 'race,' also increases the chances of our offspring b/c not all foreign nations are friendly.

I agree that much of morality is based on social contracts, but some of it at the more primitive levels it *is* hard-wired: for example, take number5's post above. Pretty much every culture across the planet views caring for children as moral and good; given that our brains are hard-wired to recognize and coo over large heads and big eyes (regardless of the species - see cuteoverload.com), and that we are flooded with oxytocin when we cuddle a child, it's pretty likely that this 'morality' is based on the structure of our brains as well as social contract. How we *interpret* that caring varies from culture to culture - whether or not to cut off various pieces of male or female genetalia, for example, is a cultural 'moral' question and is a hot-button issue because it touches on the hard-wired morality of caring for children.

It's a good thing for the species for the reasons you describe. However, it's not necessarily a good thing for the individual. Heterozygosity is not uniformly adaptive; it does have positive effects like "hybrid vigor" but it also has negative effects associated with the breaking up of adaptive suites of genes.

^this is true, but the net effect is almost always positive (especially in a species like humans, which shows evidence of having been bottlenecked at some point in the last few tens of thousands of years).

Halle Berry
Keanu Reeves
Barack Obama
etc

What you are describing is not a moral decision. Morality is rationalised, not instinctive. The instinct to protect a baby is a necessary instinct as they cannot fend for themselves. Procreation would be pointless if we let our offspring die from neglect.



I'm not quite sure what you refer to here. Do you mean circumcision?

Morality is rationalised, but the input can come from instinct, as with the case of a baby.

LKL's referring to cultural practice of removing exterior genetalia from both males AND females. I remember learning about this many years ago. The idea is to remove any possible pleasure from the act of sex, at least in the case of the female. I don't remember which culture(s) practice this. It's really quite disturbing.

Wherever the input comes from, morality is still a conscious measure of intention and conduct.



I'm unfamiliar with this. Anyone shed any light on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Interesting. Thanks.

There was a major genetic bottle neck following the eruption of the super volcano Mt. Toba about 75,000 years ago (that was prior to the last great ice age). This disaster came close to rendering our species extinct. The survivors of this explosion were a subset of the genetic variety that existed before. There was just enough genetic variation in the surviving breeding population (only a few thousand at most) to make survival of the subsequent ice age possible. Between Mt. Toba and the ice age which followed our species, homo sapien sapien was put through the wringer. Who knows what effect it had on the Neanderthals who also survived.

ruveyn

Once again you are inferring something from the argument from fine tuning that it does not make.



Say things that are not false and you can have all the last words you want.


I can only assume that you do not understand the basic tenents of evolutionary psychology. If a behaivor is detrimental to the survival of one's offspring and/or one's great offspring, evolutionarily determined hardwiring will tend to discourage that behavior b/c those that naturally avoid it will have greater reproductive success. The fact that incest has both real-world negative consequences and is aversive across almost all human cultures is pretty good evidence that the moral feeling of disgust when contemplating incest is hard-wired due to evolution.[/quote]

Your argument is based on two assumptions that did not address my point.

1) That the feeling of disgust is hard wired due to evolution. There is no way this could be proven scientifically.

2) That these hard wired traits can be the basis of a moral judgement.

How then would you argue that this moral standard is objectively true?

Why should I hold that just because I have an evolutionary imperative to do something that I should?



Yes but your argument falls apart when you have to tell the community to respect some of its minorities. I.e. Aspies

Which part - that the universe is 'designed' for all life (the claim that you made), or the part where I extrapolate out that a universe designed for life would have a morality applicable to all life? Because if you assume that the morality is uniquely for humans, you imply a special treatment of humans by the creator, which we do not see when we observe the actual universe.



Stop assuming that your unprovable religious view is 'fact,' and I'll let you have the last word.


You appear not to understand the basic tenants of science. Nothing can be 'proven' scientifically, but logical and coherent models can have evidence (even reams of it) that support them. In this case, the fact that disgust over incest is nearly universal across human cultures (and, for that matter, that incest is avoided even in many non-human species) strongly supports the hypothesis that disgust for incest is hard-wired; the fact that incest has known and demonstrable negative consequences in fitness provides a mechanism for the evolution of that hard-wiring.


That depends on what you mean by 'objectively true.' No morality is universally true; just like the vast majority of the universe is inimical to life, so is the vast majority of the universe indifferent to human life and human morality. If you mean 'objectively true' within humanity, the fact that it has negative consequences for children (the protection of which is possibly the strongest 'moral' urge humans have) would make it true across individuals and across cultures - ie, not subjective to individuals.


You should not. You should evaluate your morals in the light of logic and modern society, because our cultures have evolved faster than our hard-wiring has.


No, it just takes longer. The last several hundred years of human history have been a story of relentless progress in including one formerly marginalized group after another into the acceptance and general workings of society. Thankfully, we are humans and a logical idea can eventually grow to be seen as a moral one by society at large. In another hundred years, we might all be multi-neurotype-accepting vegans and think what evil barbarians the people of today were.

Wrt removal of bits of genetalia: I was referring both to male circumcision and female genital cutting, both of which practices are regarded as morally necessary in some groups and morally repugnant in others.

@adifferentname, it is arguable whether hard-wired instincts can be 'moral' in the sense that they are not freely chosen, but if you go far enough none of us have free will about anything and all morality is an illusion. For the purpose of this discussion, I was using 'moral' in the sense that people in general see and action as 'good' and benevolent as opposed to 'evil.' In addition, poor caretaking of children (whether due to faulty circuitry or to poor training of the parent) occurs frequently enough, and good parents work hard enough, that good parenting can be seen as a choice by the public at large.

You can't have it both ways. Either we over-complicate matters and argue that free will is an illusion, and that cause and effect has dictated every single ever taken on a microscopic scale, or we use simple human terms of 'good' and 'evil' as you allude to.

I don't believe in absolutes where morality is concerned, but if we're going to go with the cut-down, over-simplified understanding of morality then instinct, biology, etc do not come into it. It is neither moral nor immoral to follow ones instincts. Morality enters the fray when you either justify or condemn behaviour based on reasoning.

Good and Evil are not inherent traits, they are human constructs which reflect an aspect of morality in our subjective views of what is right and wrong. If one has 'faulty circuitry' which leads one to do that which is viewed as 'wrong' or 'evil', on closer inspection the act is devoid of moral value because the hardware is at fault, not the software.

^ I think that's a false dichotomy, and the argument exists somewhere between the two. I am honestly unsure whether free will actually exists, but that does not preclude a discussion on what our experience of morality is in this life or of where that morality comes from.

I have placed my response your post in AG's thread on Christianity

However please learn the difference between the moral argument for God and the one from fine tuning.

dude, you're the one who brought the fine tuning argument up; while they are different arguments, either has inescapable implications for the other.
edit: which of AG's threads on xianity? he has several.