|
Yasir wrote:
"I think that since altruism and sexual selection have been successfully explained in the light of advancements in sociobiology and the destruction of nazism and other so-called 'darwin socialist' philosophies"
Please forgive what may sound argumentive but is instead a terse giving of words .
What does "successfully explained" mean but that
anyone may say they are satisfied with the explanation? Human beings are unique in nature in using formal systems, external memory storage,
and "the drawing board" for making mistakes in and correcting them on paper, in advance of implementing some of the mistakes.
Models of nature are very helpful but by themselves are inadequate for good management of society.
Darwin, by the way, was extremely well educated by world standards and came from a wealthy family of liberal Christians. This is the opposite of Nazism in some ways, since they claimed to be the Aryan race (anciently from northern India), were led by persons of very modest or poor education, and certainly were anti-liberal. Furthermore, Darwin did not advocate depriving persons of their human rights. He was observing what apparently was a trend in nature...You could argue with Darwin without fear of personal danger...and so many, many did that. Ruthlessness was ripe before Darwin came along, because major advances in technology had been made and population was exploding in developing countries. Darwin's useful scientific thoughts are not to blame for misdeeds who used him as an excuse.Nazism used poor biological theory in their policies. They were ignorant of DNA and did not like to have their ideas criticized on scientific grounds. So please don't convict that good, honest man for things for which he is innocent. If he has said some "races" are probably not going to make it, may we not forgive, for it was not an endorsement of their demise?
Yasir wrote:
"Morality, to me, is a naturally selected behaviour but it does need new definitions."
I wonder if you really mean that morality is
all only settled by who lives, procreates and survives. By this, insects are more moral, since their survival is more certain than humans.
Nazis used this very justification. They said,
The winners will write the history and justify anything we do. But they lost.
If they had won, we would be saying they were moral, because they would be determining morality. Unlike with the liberal tradition, they did not allow counter-arguments. Liberals
allow themir country to be criticized. It is dangerous to be a liberal country, but it is more dangerous for the world if we do not have them.
Thank you.
|
