rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu (Ray Trent) (09/09/86)
In article <608@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >[...]That's the remarkable thing >about natural selection. It doesn't select features that are "Right," >just features that perpetuate themselves. [...] Exactly -- so, why bother talking about it (here, in this newsgroup, rather than net.origins)? what you need, Paul Torek, not necessarily reflecting the views of: rat@tybalt.caltech.edu
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (09/11/86)
In <963@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu (Ray Trent) says: > In article <608@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >[...]That's the remarkable thing > >about natural selection. It doesn't select features that are "Right," > >just features that perpetuate themselves. [...] > > Exactly -- so, why bother talking about it (here, in this newsgroup, > rather than net.origins)? Because given a choice between a policy that's "Right" in some abstract sense, and a policy that's likely to perpetuate the species or the society, the individual, or some combination of the two, I tend toward the pragmatic choice. Being abstractly "Right" may be irrelevant because my own view, that survival of the group is a primary "good," may itself be a result of natural selection. Subspecies or cultures in which people have that belief are more likely to survive than those in which the survival of the individual is the primary "good." I am probably the product of such a culture. I guess I wandered somewhat far afield by indulging in iconoclasm. My main point has to do with making choices based on tangible value. I speculated that much of our ethics today evolved by means of that criterion. Specifically, I suggest that a society that holds human life "sacred" survives because it thus establishes "not killing" as a policy, and this leads to success because the people we don't kill are useful to us. But a fetus is not useful, and sacrificing tangible values to preserve a fetus is not conducive to success. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) (09/16/86)
In article <houem.614> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > [...] >Specifically, I suggest that a society that holds human life "sacred" >survives because it thus establishes "not killing" as a policy, and >this leads to success because the people we don't kill are useful to >us. But a fetus is not useful, and sacrificing tangible values to >preserve a fetus is not conducive to success. Hmmm... Interesting thought. How about if we refine that a little. How about if we make it our policy to "not kill only those who are useful to us". Therefore if a majority (after all this is a democracy) agrees that the citizens of a certain unfriendly nation are not useful to us but their real estate is, we have a certain moral right - nay, obligation - to exterminate them and purloin their property. I suppose that this could be extended even to citizens of this country. Now that would be an effective method of controlling unemployment, poverty and the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security, not to mention crime and the nation's drug problem. Capital punnishment for being useless! As for fetuses being useless? Well, all the greatest people in this world (at least that I know of) were all fetuses at one time or another. That seems to me to suggest that perhaps a fetus is not quite as useless as was previously suggested. -- Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad
marty1@houem.UUCP (10/02/86)
In <1093@ogcvax.UUCP>, pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) quotes me as saying >>... But a fetus is not useful, and sacrificing tangible values to >>preserve a fetus is not conducive to success. By the way, his maunderings along the lines of >Therefore if a majority (after all this is a democracy) agrees that the >citizens of a certain unfriendly nation are not useful to us but their real >estate is, we have a certain moral right - nay, obligation - to exterminate >them and purloin their property. are of course accurate descriptions of how some wars really start. Then he says >As for fetuses being useless? Well, all the greatest people in this world >(at least that I know of) were all fetuses at one time or another. That seems >to me to suggest that perhaps a fetus is not quite as useless as was previously >suggested. which is supposed to carry the implication that if nobody thought fetuses were useful, nobody would ever be born. I submit that most people decide to have children because they would _like_ to have children, not because they _need_ children. I would say that goes for me and my wife and why we had our three children. Fetuses, and even children, are not expected to be useful. Of course, that supports the idea that the parents, and especially the mother, should decide whether a fetus should become a child. The state has no great interest in the matter. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1