Music Banter - View Single Post - Ethics

garbanzo · 03-01-2009, 11:04 PM

i am in absolute disagreement with the notion that ethics are selfless. in order to deem something to be selfless or selfish, you have to first define 'self', then outline its motives.

humans are animals, and animals (in fact all organisms) are nothing more than complex mechanisms which have evolved to ensure the duplication of DNA molecules. life began as an inorganic, self-replicating molecule, and has evolved by means of a mindless, mechanistic, algorithmic process to the myriad forms we see today. but no living thing is any more than a DNA duplication machine.

the 'motives' of any living creature (if we can make a giant leap and impose a telos onto a process as mindless and mechanistic as self-replication) are therefore ultimately selfish. seemingly selfless acts, such as rare bouts of altruism, or a mother caring for its young, ultimately function only to increase the fitness of an organism, or of other organisms with closely matching DNA. if right and wrong exist on any level at all, it is on this biological level, not on the illusory level of our social or mental 'selves'.

but right and wrong, or good and evil, are still too abstract. really, all we can really talk about is 'promotes DNA replication' and 'inhibits DNA replication'.

the telos of a human being, if we can be said to have one at all, is to reproduce. it is therefore in an individual's best interests to play nice so that one's DNA may be multiplied as many times as possible.

as for this nonsense about innate feelings of right and wrong, this facts quite simply don't support the hypothesis. if this were true, then we would see very strong trends throughout history which show the majority of the global population acting the same way in similar situations.

actually, patterns do emerge: we find repeated instances of war, cruelty, greed, and corruption! ultimately, humans reliably exhibit unabashed selfishness, not good will towards men. it just doesn't add up!

if you want to blame social or religious pressures for all this 'evil', then you're ultimately calling the entire edifice of society an evil thing which we would be better off without!

last but not least, people tend to be forgetting natural 'evils'. what of earthquakes? gravity gone wild? rat-borne bubonic plague? rusty nails that poke without bias? grapes that choke?

03-01-2009, 11:04 PM	#44 (permalink)
garbanzo Recommended by 4 out of 5 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 137	i am in absolute disagreement with the notion that ethics are selfless. in order to deem something to be selfless or selfish, you have to first define 'self', then outline its motives. humans are animals, and animals (in fact all organisms) are nothing more than complex mechanisms which have evolved to ensure the duplication of DNA molecules. life began as an inorganic, self-replicating molecule, and has evolved by means of a mindless, mechanistic, algorithmic process to the myriad forms we see today. but no living thing is any more than a DNA duplication machine. the 'motives' of any living creature (if we can make a giant leap and impose a telos onto a process as mindless and mechanistic as self-replication) are therefore ultimately selfish. seemingly selfless acts, such as rare bouts of altruism, or a mother caring for its young, ultimately function only to increase the fitness of an organism, or of other organisms with closely matching DNA. if right and wrong exist on any level at all, it is on this biological level, not on the illusory level of our social or mental 'selves'. but right and wrong, or good and evil, are still too abstract. really, all we can really talk about is 'promotes DNA replication' and 'inhibits DNA replication'. the telos of a human being, if we can be said to have one at all, is to reproduce. it is therefore in an individual's best interests to play nice so that one's DNA may be multiplied as many times as possible. as for this nonsense about innate feelings of right and wrong, this facts quite simply don't support the hypothesis. if this were true, then we would see very strong trends throughout history which show the majority of the global population acting the same way in similar situations. actually, patterns do emerge: we find repeated instances of war, cruelty, greed, and corruption! ultimately, humans reliably exhibit unabashed selfishness, not good will towards men. it just doesn't add up! if you want to blame social or religious pressures for all this 'evil', then you're ultimately calling the entire edifice of society an evil thing which we would be better off without! last but not least, people tend to be forgetting natural 'evils'. what of earthquakes? gravity gone wild? rat-borne bubonic plague? rusty nails that poke without bias? grapes that choke?