Larry Blanchard wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I didn't say "what is good for my particular tribe." I said what is
good for the species. What various societies think is good for them
(often to the detriment of other groups) has no bearing on the matter.
Astonishing. Just who, other than perhaps yourself, do you think
is wise enough to determine what is good for an entire *species*?
OK, let's take one simple example. When wars were fought with clubs or
swords, the strong and/or smart survived better than the weak and/or
stupid. Thus warfare was, in at least one sense, good for the species.
Once we learned to kill at a distance, with nuclear weapons being at the
current end of that chain, who died became much more random (and
included a lot of non-combatants). So warfare is now, in all senses,
bad for the species.
I don't think it takes a lot of wisdom to figure that one out.
I stipulate that on particular issues what is good for the species may
be self-evident. But as a general matter, no single person or even
group of people is going to be able to make this call for an entire
species on every issue.
The absence of vaccines might potentially lead to the deaths of
the "least fit" which is, of course, evolutionarily appropriate as I
understand the theory. In fact, people who espouse a purely mechanical
universe have no moral basis for objecting to this sort of thing.
If this were a primitive society, I'd agree with you. But not only has
our current society introduced methods where a disease can spread far
beyond the area it would have in olden times, the disruption of society
would be far greater because of our greater interdependence. So since
we've changed the conditions to the benefit of the virus, we need to use
compensating conditions to combat it.
And what happens to the poorest members of our society if vaccines are
made profitable by raising prices? Surely your beliefs must include
Some would die (or become quite ill). Some would benefit from private
charity.
answering the "Am I my brother's keeper" question in the affirmative.
The real question is "Am I my brother's keeper at the point of a gun,
where 'brother' and 'keeper' are defined by other people, not me?"
It's not "my beliefs" (which I have largely kept to myself as regards
to religion, morality, etc.) that are on trial here. You cannot
consistently hold an entirely mechanical universe absent any intelligent
cause AND at the same time argue for "morality". In the absence of
any ultimate teleology for the Universe, the only moral code consistent
with that position is one rooted purely in self-interest. Now,
"self-interest" may in some cases mean helping others. But broadly,
there is no particular imperative to be your "brother's keeper" if the
Universe has no author, no purpose, and no meaning beyond its mechanical
self.
One *can* construct a consistent basis for human law using the
rule I suggested previously in the thread: Use law to maximize personal
liberty. This is, however, is entirely utilitarian. It has no real
"moral" basis, merely a demonstrable history of serving more people better
and faster than any other known system of human governance. The problem
even here, though, is that in a mechanical Universe without first and
intelligent cause, there is no particular reason to believe that the
strong shouldn't conquer the week. That is, that social and behavior
'evolution' ought to mirror the claimed biological evolution.
I always find it entertaining when mechanical reductionists on the one
hand, argue for the "morality" of collectivist government action, even
by force, to "help the downtrodden." Given the philosophical starting
points of mechanical reductionism/materialism, there is simply no basis
for "morality", "help", and "downtrodden" except for the narrow self-
interest of the speaker.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/