LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
The "evolutionary" question is, though, why would we have developed in such a way as to reward the behavior - "it gives us an endorphin rush and makes us feel good" is the question, not the answer.

FWIW, I think an answer might be found in studying the AKC. Even though they have bred many breeds to the point of disease and genetic inferiority, you want to keep the dogs with hereditary illnesses in the breeding pool, because, those illnesses notwithstanding, they still add to the general genetic diversity of the breed and therefore contribute to the breed's continued evolutionary development. Less of the sick dogs' genetic inheritance may survive in the gene pool overall, but some will and that is to the benefit of the breed as a whole.

Basically, though, most of the evolutionary thinking in the last - well, ever - is agreed that evolution as it functions in animal populations has ceased to operate in human societies for tens of thousands of years (other than extreme cases, such as infertility and/or diseases causing early death (the sickle cell/malaria thing is particularly interesting there)) - basically, ever since humans gained the ability to manipulate their environment to their advantage. To the extent it operates generally, it is probably some form of "social" Darwinism, and the "environment" determining selection is the social one. Or: for humans for a very, very long time, being hot and/or charming (socially fit) is more important in selection than being physically fit.

I think you are 100% right. And if evolution is mostly stopped among humans why is our morality converging. I know some people don't think it is but I think it is. The world is slowly democratising, Slavery has almost been wiped out where it used to be commonplace etc. If evolution has stopped morality should diverging because new mutations would be created all the time, but everyone is surviving so all the variable moral beliefs are surviving to. It would seem to me that if morality is instinctual and evolution has almost stopped, more and more, people would disagree on what is moral.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic On that note, see y'all back on the fashion board - where we try to analyze the tools necessary for social success, and therefore morality.

- Actually, come to think of it, Spanky has a point that evolutionary principles can't give you a universal set of "moral" or behavioral codes for application to all human societies (though its not one he made) - selection is determined by the environment in which the individual (or group, if we're doing social Darwinism) functions. Human environments may be sufficiently alike that they result in similar attributes (e.g.: killing people, or at least people close to you, is not good), but Martians will probably have a very different "evolutionary" moral code. Hence: not universal. Of course, this bothers me not at all, since I don't actually think there are "universal" moral principles (including the killing one, actually), but there you go. Either I'm really rational, or really sociopathic, take your pick.

I will talk to Marvin on that and get back to you.

Tyrone Slothrop

05-25-2005 06:03 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I think the obvious response you would get from the leaders of these countrys would be - What rights? Our country does not give such rights. Having such rights would be bad for the society. We don't believe such rights exist and that such "rights" are against God's law. We believe that, according to our religion, it is the moral thing to do to keep trhese woman from becoming sluts and a prostitutes. If the woman does get the procedure she will have no dignity and no respect. It is in the girls best interest and societies best interest (because it will prevent immoral behavior that is dangerous to the cohesion of the society). Who are you to tell me that your view of rights, dignity and morality are better than ours?

One might expect to get that response. You can hardly think you're going to change minds so quickly. More likely, someone points out to the leaders of the nation in question that Big Oil Co. would like to invest in a pipeline there, but is concerned about bad press relating to female circumcision, and could they please crack down on it, and so they do, and the practice is marginalized, and more people look on it as abhorrent and unacceptable. And over time, a consensus emerges that it is not OK.

I think I understand the phenomenom that you are occupied with, but I do not understand why it leads only to your conclusion. If you want to persuade someone about the morality, you could say, well, God says it is so. Or you could say, look at this child, screaming. Both are persuasive -- for me, the latter moreso.

Spanky

05-25-2005 06:04 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
4) A proper respect for the dignity and human rights of the young women in your country should lead you to stop these practices. Female circumcision is a cruel tradition that needs to stop. It is brutal for the women involved, and the importance placed on the tradition by many men in the country is not a worthy reason to continue to permit this to happen.

One other thing - Didn't you say you did not believe in universal rigths and wrong. But are not "Human rights" a universal right? (or wrong). And isn't a proper respect for their dignity also a universal right or wrong. Why should someon respect a right in Egypt if it is not universal. Or by expecting them to respect human rights are you not assuming they are universal?

Bad_Rich_Chic

05-25-2005 06:05 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
1) It is in our national interest that you stop such activity, because if you don't, it is possible that the practice might spread to our country. Or such activity will create a culture of permissible death, and that permissiveness might influence the thinking and actions in our country. So we need to stop it. (if someone else has a national interest reason I am open to that).

It is in our national interest for as many other societies as possible to see the world our way and share our values, because they will then be more congenial and sympathetic to us and more cooperative with us. Therefore it is in our interest to impose our values upon others to the extent possible. Causing other groups to adopt our group values clearly strengthens and protects our group (and the individuals in it), regardless of whether or not those values have any objective value (moral or otherwise) or whether or not there is any risk of "foreign" values being adopted by us. Frankly, I think it works in much the same way that the US's economic power is enhanced and protected by the wide adoption of the dollar for global economic purposes, effectively making it a nearly "universal" currency.

In this sense, the exporting of American Idol to the world, and the increasing homoginization of world culture, can be seen as a great act of moral good. Yea us.

Spanky

05-25-2005 06:09 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One might expect to get that response. You can hardly think you're going to change minds so quickly. More likely, someone points out to the leaders of the nation in question that Big Oil Co. would like to invest in a pipeline there, but is concerned about bad press relating to female circumcision, and could they please crack down on it, and so they do, and the practice is marginalized, and more people look on it as abhorrent and unacceptable. And over time, a consensus emerges that it is not OK.

I think I understand the phenomenom that you are occupied with, but I do not understand why it leads only to your conclusion. If you want to persuade someone about the morality, you could say, well, God says it is so. Or you could say, look at this child, screaming. Both are persuasive -- for me, the latter moreso.

That is the crux of the issue. How do you convince someone something is moral or immoral? Children scream when you give them an innoculation. So that is an absured argument. How do you argue that circumcission is immoral. I think all you can say is it just is. I have never heard of a good argument for morality (except of course self interest). But that does not work in this case.

I believe that the US should put pressure on these countries to stop these activities. I believe in universal human rights. But how to argue for the morality of rights?

Tyrone Slothrop

05-25-2005 06:12 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
One other thing - Didn't you say you did not believe in universal rigths and wrong. But are not "Human rights" a universal right? (or wrong). And isn't a proper respect for their dignity also a universal right or wrong. Why should someon respect a right in Egypt if it is not universal. Or by expecting them to respect human rights are you not assuming they are universal?

I think everyone agrees that there are universal human rights. But not everyone agrees what those rights are. And not everyone agrees what the basis of those rights is.

Spanky

05-25-2005 06:16 PM

Jefferson, who was not a very religious man, faced this issue with the Declaration of Independance. Jefferson, like many men of the enlightenment, was a Deist. He believed in the Clockmaker theory, that a power created the universe but there was no evidence that the maker was involved in the universe anymore. He also created the Jefferson bible where he cut out everything that he though was supersitious in the New Testament (a large chunk of it).

However, when Jefferson needed to come up with a reason to explain our right to succeed from Great Britain, all he could come up with was that our rights were God given, and that when a Government infringes on those God given rights, you could revolt. He could not come up with a rational reason for why we have rights.

Spanky

05-25-2005 06:18 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
It is in our national interest for as many other societies as possible to see the world our way and share our values, because they will then be more congenial and sympathetic to us and more cooperative with us. Therefore it is in our interest to impose our values upon others to the extent possible. Causing other groups to adopt our group values clearly strengthens and protects our group (and the individuals in it), regardless of whether or not those values have any objective value (moral or otherwise) or whether or not there is any risk of "foreign" values being adopted by us. Frankly, I think it works in much the same way that the US's economic power is enhanced and protected by the wide adoption of the dollar for global economic purposes, effectively making it a nearly "universal" currency.

In this sense, the exporting of American Idol to the world, and the increasing homoginization of world culture, can be seen as a great act of moral good. Yea us.

So the most powerful country gets to impose its ideas of morality on everyone else. So the morality that is eventually accpeted by the world is the morality that is derived from the most powerful country, not necessarily the morality that is the most correct.

Tyrone Slothrop

05-25-2005 06:18 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That is the crux of the issue. How do you convince someone something is moral or immoral? Children scream when you give them an innoculation. So that is an absured argument.

It's not the fact of the screaming itself -- that's not what I'm saying. It's that having a fuller understanding of the facts of female circumcision -- being confronted with what it entails -- will tend to persuade people that it's wrong.

The world changes, and old facts appear in a new light. The world is not that very different from the way it was 10 years ago, and yet we are in the midst of an argument about the morality of gay marriage which would have seemed alien a decade ago. Many minds have already changed, and there is widespread discussion and acceptance of things that would have seemed loopy or revolutionary not long ago. Why do you think this happened?

Quote:

How do you argue that circumcission is immoral. I think all you can say is it just is. I have never heard of a good argument for morality (except of course self interest). But that does not work in this case.

It causes pain and suffering which cannot be justified in the name of tradition.

Hell, even male circumcision is a tough call.

Spanky

05-25-2005 06:19 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think everyone agrees that there are universal human rights. But not everyone agrees what those rights are. And not everyone agrees what the basis of those rights is.

How are universal human rights any different from a universal moral code. Are they not the same kind of thing. And where do these universal human rights come from?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

05-25-2005 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky

However, when Jefferson needed to come up with a reason to explain our right to succeed from Great Britain, all he could come up with was that our rights were God given, and that when a Government infringes on those God given rights, you could revolt. He could not come up with a rational reason for why we have rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I actually think the argument is just as compelling without the first sentence (start with "Governments are instituted . . .")

ltl/fb

05-25-2005 06:21 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So the most powerful country gets to impose its ideas of morality on everyone else. So the morality that is eventually accpeted by the world is the morality that is derived from the most powerful country, not necessarily the morality that is the most correct.

Yep. Impose with varying degrees of success. I think that the fact that males are physically stronger had something to do with the accepted morality becoming that hacking off a clitoris and sewing a vagina shut is necessary for a woman to be "good."

Hank Chinaski

05-25-2005 06:23 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

good. Now answer these.
Its wrong to beat the wife for not following orders?
Its wrong to not let girls be educated?

see where you're headed when you're honest?

Tyrone Slothrop

05-25-2005 06:24 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
How are universal human rights any different from a universal moral code.

You and I would probably disagree about that.

Quote:

Are they not the same kind of thing.

Yes.

Quote:

And where do these universal human rights come from?

People can disagree about that, too.

Tyrone Slothrop

05-25-2005 06:25 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
see where you're headed when you're honest?

And yet I do not see where you're headed, or even where you are now. It's like there's a special corollary to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that applies solely to the electrons you emit.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 PM.

Page 304 of 334

304

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page