mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/23/85)
In article <632@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> If you are willing to back off to "it's advantageous to species survival", >> and drop the moral imperative, then I think you can construct a consistent >> position. >Eeek! I never said anything like that! And neither does evolutionary >theory. Natural selection can occur on several levels: in humans the >primary levels (recently) seem to have been individuals and tribal-size >units. Sorry. I wrote that in the middle of an SF con, with consequent disasterous effects upon clear thinking. All right. Take out "species" and substitute "gene". I still think the statement stands. >> But its authority is quite >> different in character, and requires assent. On thing that characterizes >> moral principles is that they hold whether or not you agree with them. >Evolution and natural selection don't require assent: they happen >willy-nilly (be sure to look that word up to see all the definitions.) Not with humans; at least, it has not been demonstrated with humans. The one thing about this species that is really characteristically different as far as evolution is concerned is that we attempt to control our future development; at this time I don't think you can successfully argue one way orh the other as to whether this in itself is genetically determined. There's a feedback loop with humans which is absent in all but perhaps a few species; one could look upon this in terms of *behavior patterns* which are trying to perpetuate themselves, but the problem here is that people have to agree to behave that way. Hence, the claim that moral behavior requires assent. >> Mike's position, however, requires assent to the notion that the tendency >> to desire continuation of the species should not be fought. But then, >> it isn't really proper to try to persuade others of the resulting ethical >> system. It ceases to have anything but personal proscriptive power. >I haven't tried (here) to derive a moral system, but rather to explain how >moral systems are a natural evolutionary phenomenon with adaptive power. >A system that discourages persuading others of that system (all others, >including children) would be as adaptive as a gene for sterility, >because adaptation is not measured in individual survival, but in >transmission of genes (or memes) to the following generation(s). >A system that is only passed to children might be more adaptive than a >system that is freely passed to anyone. And in a different environment >(or niche) it might not. Conceded. But again, transmission has moved over into realms where the question of will becomes very important. One can consciously refuse to transmit, or to change the form of the code. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Do you know what this means? It menas this damn thing doesn't work at all!"