Are morals worth perfection?
 

I have this theory...I don't know how much worth there is to it, or how true it is, but I figired I would post it.

Ok here it goes.

I believe that as a race, we humans would be much better without morals. Think about it, Darwinism would rule.

Staving people in Africa? Not for much longer after we stop shipping food over there! They should not have overtaxed the land!

Disease ridden people? Not for long! Which in the end, makes the race "cleaner" because those weak genes are gone.

It's simple. It's cruel. But would it be worth it?


Now, by no means do I want to enact this system, because I do have morals. (though I am not to sure how i feel bout the starving people...) I was simply curious what you think?

You are talking about 'rule of the jungle'. Our ethical systems are a cental pillar of civilization. Without it, we become nothing more than rather weak animals with big heads.

have you considered that natural selection is occuring, but of ideas - memes - not genes.

citizenship and charity are memes that have proven themselves to be very successful at surviving and reproducing.

by contrast other memes - for example those relating to worshipping the sun - have been unsuccesful and died out.

the strongest ideas survive and pure selfishness, which you seem to propose, has proven itself to be quite weak. i suggest we let it die out.

I wasnt particularly suggesting anything. It's just that, as I sit through one boring class after another, I think about a lot of stuff. ANd this was one of em.

Lebell, to argue, by the theory I presented, It does not mean that we give up technology. In that case we would be rather weak animals with big heads, cunning, ingenuity, and firearms.

I don't know, it was just a thought, and this was the right board for it.


As far as the starving africans, in the end, Mother Nature would sort it all out, into a balance. But, since we keep aiding them, and they keep popping out kids, we make Mother Natures job that much harder.
Not that I personaly want to see babies starve, but it does stand to logic, that without them, the issue could be solved. I know its harsh.

Natural selection & cut-throat values went out years ago for a reason.

As civilization grew, it was found that the supposed "weaker" of the species
also had something of value to contribute, if given the chance.
This is a more individualistic value-structure, self-centered.
A more community oriented value-structure helps those in need.
So sooner or later, they will contribute to the community too.
This is not to say that it is exceptable for them to not try to contribute or support themselves.

Only those who are healthier, either physically or socially, except
this solution,
well it's amazing how fast their tune changes when
it is THEY who become the one who needs help.

It is the power of the community, and less vicious values,
that have allowed us to build what we have today.

Otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.

Yea, I can see that I suppose rogue, I just needed to throw it out there to see what others thought.

krwlz: i'm glad yer my buddy pal and this is a theory! if i knew you in real life as you stated thisi 'd probably knock the shit out of ya.

cut throat sucks. period.

what is the good of no more disease or hunger if we're all Dog Eat Dog and have no joy of one another.

geeeeeeez

Oh my. Lemme lay it out. Simply, Virtue and morals is all we have that separates us from the rest of the lust-feeling survivial-killer instinct animals. If you deny morals and drive towards a darwinist method you deny what gift has been given to us. Animals don't have the power to choose, we do, and the choice of morals underscores being human. Deny that, and consider yourself a fish.

I definitely agree with the fact that weaker people also have something to offer. Like the fact that those starving farmers in African, Asia and heck, even our own poor (but not yet starving) farmers contributed greatly to society when they overtaxed their lands so that richer and often whiter people could enjoy the food they produced.

That being said, too many people are arguing a single side of the issue here so I'm going to attempt to play the devil's advocate. Eliminating the weaker portion of society wouldn't necessarily reduce us to an animal state, but would rather transform our capitalistic world into more militaristic one. Think of our modern technologies when mixed with a Spartan mindset and you get a glimpse of the heights humanity could reach. Once this system was set in motion, the only thing left to do is keep the masses of humanity in a constant state of apathy or anarchy. We already live in a world where a mere fraction of the worlds population controls almost all of its resources, how hard would it really be to just go the whole way?

I believe that the system you suggest is still in place if it ever existed at all. The world(including the people on it) will not bend forever, no matter how much charity and moral value attempt to compensate. Limits will be reached and then there will be times of adjustment. But with the exception of total genocide, we will continue. One step forward, two steps back. It doesn't matter as long as you can still walk.

Z, honestly as I wrote this originaly I thought about you (your in the chair right?). It was more of a hypothetical situation, like would life be better or worse if it was like this...

Sorry if insulted anyone, it wasn't intended too...

Ah, well if we have these so called "morals" why in so many places such as jobs are people so cut throat for things and so I Against I. They do what they must to get where they want to go. THat doesn't sound like they care for many does it?

Doesn't mean you need to be like them, does it jimihaha? There is a lot to be said to rising above that crap.

As far as the bussiness world goes, one has to beat those cut throats at their own game....You don't have to like cutting throats, you just have to do it...