Morals -- relative or absolute.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your origional statement implied that natural selection is 'physical forces acting on biological matter'. This is not the case.

[b]Oh yes; so your moral code includes blowing up buildings, killing innocent civilians, and gassing the weak and helpless when there is some perceived “utopian” objective that validates it. Pathetic.
What is path ves.

I have never yet met a Christian who would give up his place in heaven for another.[/b]

Your origional statement implied that natural selection is 'physical forces acting on biological matter'. This is not the case.

I still stand by it. The physical forces of nature act as they will and the creatures best adapted to the situation survive -- that is natural selection.

What is pathetic is when people deliberately misinterpret a moral code for thier own ends, or people being very short sighted when it comes to trying to achieve thier "utopian" objectives.

Why is that pathetic? Isn't natural selection all about reaching the top of the heap -- be it by hook or by crook? I see no foundation for your outcry against foul-play. If the ref doesn't see it and you win the game – then there is no problem.

Many americans including Bush consider torture to be morally acceptable if the objective is correct.

Let's say a guy strapped an explosive device to your body and there was no way of defusing or removing it before it exploded other than getting the correct combination from this hypothetical chap. Let's also say you had this guy overpowered and at your disposal. Would you justify torture to extract the combination if it was the only way of getting it in time?

They also consider mass murder of women and children to be morally acceptable as demonstrated in the iraq war.

What? You're starting to sound like STANG. Kindly sustain this assertion.

Originally posted by Halitose
Isn't natural selection all about reaching the top of the heap -- be it by hook or by crook?

You have a vertical bias.

(Just think about it.)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You have a vertical bias.

Explain.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
(Just think about it.)

There's nothing in "the code" about getting as many as possible to the top with you -- you just need a cursory scan of all the rich and powerful (with a few notable exceptions) to see that.

Originally posted by Halitose
There's nothing in "the code" about getting as many as possible to the top with you -- you just need a cursory scan of all the rich and powerful (with a few notable exceptions) to see that.

Vertical bias aside--success is more sustainable for people who get there by being (for want of a better word) nice; as you said, not all incredibly successful people are morally reprehensible (indeed, very many are--nice). Now many people get to the top by nefarious means only to plummet from it later on; their failure to sustain their social advantage means, to me, that they are unsuccessful (Hitler was not a successful leader).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Isn't this another example of the process creating itself? How can a brain think itself?

This is gibberish.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is gibberish.

"This is gibberish," doesn't make sense. To what are you referring, Professor No1?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"This is gibberish," doesn't make sense. To what are you referring, Professor No1?

If you look at a post, there's a box showing what post it is responding to. Please try to remember this; you've asked the same stupid question in two threads now.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you look at a post, there's a box showing what post it is responding to. Please try to remember this; you've asked the same stupid question in two threads now.

Surely you couldn't have been referring to my post, as it was a lucid as the day is obtuse. Are you having a difficult time discerning the meaning of my post, Professor?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Surely you couldn't have been referring to my post, as it was a lucid as the day is obtuse. Are you having a difficult time discerning the meaning of my post, Professor?

"How can a brain think itself" is gibberish. Thought is a product of the brain. Try to restate this "thought" in some manner that makes a tiny bit of sense.

EDIT: If you're just going to play childish games, say so; I prefer not to waste my time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Isn't this another example of the process creating itself? How can a brain think itself?

It is neither imposible for the human brain to think of another brain (invent), nor is it imposible for humans to document and understand the workings of the human brain. So why cant a brain think itself? Many computer compilers (programs which create programs) are compiled using themselves.

Originally posted by Halitose
I still stand by it. The physical forces of nature act as they will and the creatures best adapted to the situation survive -- that is natural selection.

Diseases and many other causes of death can hardly be called 'physical forces of nature'. Natural Selection has far more to do with the 'best adapted to the situation' part than the individual causes of death.

Let's say a guy strapped an explosive device to your body and there was no way of defusing or removing it before it exploded other than getting the correct combination from this hypothetical chap. Let's also say you had this guy overpowered and at your disposal. Would you justify torture to extract the combination if it was the only way of getting it in time?
This would be considered morrally acceptable to most people on the basis of self defence (which fits my moral code). However many people object to allowing torture and the death penalty on the basis of the possibility of mistakes and the possibility of missuse.

What? You're starting to sound like STANG. Kindly sustain this assertion.
America went into the war knowing in advance that women and children would die as a direct result of us weaponry. And yet they considered it morally acceptable 'for the greater good'. In that sense they are little different from Hitler in terms of overall morals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Diseases and many other causes of death can hardly be called 'physical forces of nature'. Natural Selection has far more to do with the 'best adapted to the situation' part than the individual causes of death.

Let's say a guy strapped an explosive device to your body and there was no way of defusing or removing it before it exploded other than getti good'. In that sense they are little different from Hitler in terms of overall morals.

[/b][/b][/b]Diseases and many other causes of death can hardly be called 'physical forces of nature'.

The key work here being "hardly".

Natural Selection has far more to do with the 'best adapted to the situation' part than the individual causes of death.

You're splitting hairs again. I'm really not one to debate such subtle shifts of emphasis.

This [torture] would be considered morrally acceptable to most people on the basis of self defence (which fits my moral code).

Why then did you condemn the practice across the board? You seem to have a different scale of measurement for yourself.

However many people object to allowing torture and the death penalty on the basis of the possibility of mistakes and the possibility of missuse.

As you have already shown, this is all relative to the stakes -- if your life is in danger, then you wouldn't hesitate; but when another's life depends on it, it seems you could care less. Very intriguing, yet entirely consistent with your views.

America went into the war knowing in advance that women and children would die as a direct result of us weaponry. And yet they considered it morally acceptable 'for the greater good'. In that sense they are little different from Hitler in terms of overall morals.

This is absurd. In WWII Hitler ordered the indiscriminate bombing of cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. He also allowed the gassing, shooting and butchering of 6 million Jews. The killing of the Jews in particular was his intention from the start.

Compare this to Iraq where civilian casualties are unfortunate and (largely) unintentional. There are strict rules of engagement which attempt to minimise civilian loss.

The intent, means and result is clearly different in both situations. You are seriously confused if you want to compare Hitler Germany with the current United States of America.

I also note that you have chosen to ignore the point that your moral code is one where the end justifies the means.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Who's norm? Who's standard? What standard or norm? Notice how it refers to [b]a norm or standard, implying that there are more than one.[/b]

Well that is the whole subject of debate here -- whether the norms are relative or absolute.

That [it's wrong to torture babies for fun] is simply one (or more than one) person's opinion.

Are yo ...[text shortened]... s.[/b]

So morals should be decided by democratic consensus? Why have morals at all?[/b]

Are your arguing that this is merely a preference claim? I don't see people going to prison for preferring vanilla ice-cream to Twinkies.

I don't know what a "preference claim" is. No one cares much if people prefer ice cream or Twinkies; however people do care about getting raped or shot and want to prevent these things from happening.

So morals should be decided by democratic consensus? Why have morals at all?

"Should" be? I don't know about "should" but they are individually decided. Morals are a characteristic of an individual, not a group; each person decides for himself what he thinks of morality. That's how it is; "should" doesn't really belong in a discussion of this.

Originally posted by Halitose
You're splitting hairs again. I'm really not one to debate such subtle shifts of emphasis.

You had attempted to belittle the possible effects of a highly sophisticated process called 'natural selection' by calling it 'physical forces' which it is not.

Why then did you condemn the practice across the board? You seem to have a different scale of measurement for yourself.
As I explained, I condem a practice if it is open to error and abuse, as the intended benefits are not achieved in such cases.

This is absurd. In WWII Hitler ordered the indiscriminate bombing of cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. He also allowed the gassing, shooting and butchering of 6 million Jews. The killing of the Jews in particular was his intention from the start.
Hitler and his supporters percieved the Jews as a threat to thier society. Americans percieved muslims and Sadam husein in particular as a threat to thier society. Without imagined WMDs (and oil) the Iraq war would not have happened.

Compare this to Iraq where civilian casualties are unfortunate and (largely) unintentional. There are strict rules of engagement which attempt to minimise civilian loss.
Nevertheless the route taken was not one to minimise civilian loss. A well placed sniper could have eliminated Sadam much easier without as many casualties but that would have been seen as 'morally wrong'. Strange world isnt it.

The intent, means and result is clearly different in both situations. You are seriously confused if you want to compare Hitler Germany with the current United States of America.
When you look at specifics they were different situations, but the overall intent of mass killing to preserve own society is no different at all.

I also note that you have chosen to ignore the point that your moral code is one where the end justifies the means.
I would like to hear about a moral code that doesnt. You yourself implied that torture for self defence was acceptable.

The main objections people have to 'end justifies the means' systems is how the 'end' is measured and how sure we are that the 'means' is the best one.