Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Xerxes · 10-04-2003, 01:49 PM

mr. sticky; I must say that I'm afraid that you're making a horrible mistake in assuming that "good" is a religious term. "Good" was originally a Platonic concept. So, you could just assume that "good" is a form-- an independent idea that commands conformity through reason, or something of that nature.
Further, it seems like you have a real problem distinguishing between the percieved and the in-its-self (the noumenal). This world-as-it-is cannot be the same as the world of experience (because we percieve things that are not primary qualities-- that is to say qualities that only exist in our head-- like color (in the real world there is only wavelength-- which is different than color)). So, it is at least possible to assume that there is a natural order to the noumenal world-- thus doing anything against this nature might be the absolute measure of "wrong"-- which is noticiably different from Christian moral theory.
It is important to remember that the method and motivation behind a moral system does not have to look anything like contemporary Christian moral theory. In fact, most people don't follow a Christian conception of morality in the US. Things are much more along the lines of emotive-morality (ethical non-cognitivism), whereby peole don't have a system, but our emotions serve as a day-by-day guide to the moral weight of a given situation.
One last point: if there were no such thing as morality in darwinism-- or to say that morality is not needed in Darwinism, then you could argue that the fittest being could do whatever they want. If, for example, I was the fittest being on earth, and my only goal or satisfaction was in destroying other creatures-- eventually I would be the only creature left. No more world. I think this actually belies a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory on your part-- Darwin's theory was also about systems. Creatures who are effiecent are the ones who survive. Part of that efficientcy might just be love, and caring for others in our society-- as a method of perpetuating ourselves; the selfish gene, if you will.

Signed,

Your freindly neighborhood philosophy major.

10-04-2003, 01:49 PM	#52 (permalink)
Xerxes Upright Location: Gambier, OH	mr. sticky; I must say that I'm afraid that you're making a horrible mistake in assuming that "good" is a religious term. "Good" was originally a Platonic concept. So, you could just assume that "good" is a form-- an independent idea that commands conformity through reason, or something of that nature. Further, it seems like you have a real problem distinguishing between the percieved and the in-its-self (the noumenal). This world-as-it-is cannot be the same as the world of experience (because we percieve things that are not primary qualities-- that is to say qualities that only exist in our head-- like color (in the real world there is only wavelength-- which is different than color)). So, it is at least possible to assume that there is a natural order to the noumenal world-- thus doing anything against this nature might be the absolute measure of "wrong"-- which is noticiably different from Christian moral theory. It is important to remember that the method and motivation behind a moral system does not have to look anything like contemporary Christian moral theory. In fact, most people don't follow a Christian conception of morality in the US. Things are much more along the lines of emotive-morality (ethical non-cognitivism), whereby peole don't have a system, but our emotions serve as a day-by-day guide to the moral weight of a given situation. One last point: if there were no such thing as morality in darwinism-- or to say that morality is not needed in Darwinism, then you could argue that the fittest being could do whatever they want. If, for example, I was the fittest being on earth, and my only goal or satisfaction was in destroying other creatures-- eventually I would be the only creature left. No more world. I think this actually belies a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory on your part-- Darwin's theory was also about systems. Creatures who are effiecent are the ones who survive. Part of that efficientcy might just be love, and caring for others in our society-- as a method of perpetuating ourselves; the selfish gene, if you will. Signed, Your freindly neighborhood philosophy major.