4thTimeLucky

sapiens: thanks for the response.

On the biological front I do find myself mostly agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to say that we can/will control our own 'evolution', but was instead trying to convey the extent to which we now have control over our own actions and the fate of our species. We are no longer at the whim of evolution in the way that, say, a giraffe is.

Maybe there is a disctinction I need to better draw here between the development of the 'raw human' and the development of humans in the social context.

A brief few comments on my the "rap up" (doh!):

Structure:
There will be a structure. But only in the sense that all life follows internal rules and patterns. For example, the ants life has a structure which we can go a long way to being able to grasp and model (eat, sleep, build, protect etc.). But if that is the best structure we have then (a) because our structures are so complex we will find it hard to explain (and sometimes predict) our actions and (b) even if we can explain them, it looks like we are going to be describing our own actions in the third person (we lose the agency) and it may become deterministic (a whole new kettle of fish!)

Okay, so you finish this discussion and walk the dog. You see an old man being mugged, run over to help and fend of the attacker whilst suffering a broken nose. A passer by then asks you "Why did you do that?". To which you must reply "it felt right". "Why?". "It just did."
What you cannot say is "That mugger was doing a bad thing".
[I note that you concede this point, so I won;t labour it.]

However a person with a moral structure could explain his actions. Furthermore could answer the follow-up question "Why?". "Because that old man has rights" , or, "Because we have a duty to respect our elders", or, "Because that mugging would have made the world a worse place (created more disutility than utility)."

But this is the central crux of morality, which I'm sure you and most of the readers here are aware of. Is it objective or is it a case of 'to each his own'. Neither route is easy.

Power and reason:
It's tempting to say that you must conclude "might is right", but that's wrong. Nothing is "right", you can only hope that either (a) you are on the side with the might, or (b) the mighty sides reasoning is better than everyone elses.

Richard Dawkins:
A complete prejudice and pet hate on my part. It stems from my preception of him being arrogant, supported by a number of television appearances he has made and articles he has written. Oh, and he's an Oxford man and I'm at Cambridge. Enough said.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!