evolution/morality/ethics

[donmartin]

Is it correct that concepts of morality and ethics have no place, and are necessarily excluded from consideration, in the theory of evolution? In other words, and by way of example, were an individual tomorrow to exterminate one-half of the world's population, would that act essentially be neutral and have no moral or ethical context; simply determinative of an evolutionary step?

[npsguy]

I am confused. How does a conscious decision to arbitrarily murder a large number of people equate in any way with evolution?

[donmartin]

What I am trying to suggest, quite inelegantly, is whether arbitrary conduct can be regarded in moral or ethical terms. Is all conduct essentially appropriate, acceptable, and justifiable by reason of being innate and necessary to the evolutionary process?

[mhr3501]

Can't speak for Don but I took the question to ask whether morality and ethics have any basis for meaning within an evolutionary construct.

If there is no over-riding authority what would be the basis for defining ethics or morals. If everything is random and there is nothing apart from "a universe which has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" as Dawkins has been quoted as saying then IWSTM that no one persons ethics and morals are better, worse - or even any more or less valid than any others.

[npsguy]

Feb 25, 2009 7:55:55 GMT donmartin said:

What I am trying to suggest, quite inelegantly, is whether arbitrary conduct can be regarded in moral or ethical terms. Is all conduct essentially appropriate, acceptable, and justifiable by reason of being innate and necessary to the evolutionary process?

No because the natural evolutionary process and human morality are mutually exclusive.

Morality is a judgment society makes SOLELY based on some human action as a result of conscious rational thought. If someone exterminates half the population of the planet that is immoral by even the most lax moral standard.

Evolution on the other hand is driven primarily by Nature. Nature cannot be said to be moral or immoral for it lacks the one important component: conscious rational thought.

For example if someone murders 20 people is immoral. It a volcano erupts and 20 people die from the ash plume that is neither moral nor immoral. It just is.

In its basic form morality exists so we don't act on thoughts that run contrary to what is good for the species. It is immoral to attempt to kill, hurt, steal, etc... from each other. No scientific theory nor religious belief may be used as an excuse to subvert morailty. To do so would be simply immoral.

[donmartin]

But did we not through democratically elected governments build nuclear arsenals which could terminate the entire human species in a moment? Was this conscious rational thought? And we did it to protect our "freedom."

[npsguy]

Feb 27, 2009 6:31:17 GMT donmartin said:

But did we not through democratically elected governments build nuclear arsenals which could terminate the entire human species in a moment? Was this conscious rational thought? And we did it to protect our "freedom."

WHAT? Are you kidding me?

It wasn't just OUR freedom but the freedom of most of Western Europe (NATO) and members of SEATO right? We protected them from the aggressive totalitarian dictatorships.

You ever read about things like the Soviet purges, or the Ukraine famine? How about Mao's Great Leap forward? Think about it for a moment... China had somewhere between 20-43 million people die in a 3 year period. Not because they were at war with another country but because Mao ordered the country to industrialize leaving the crops literally to rot in the field. Everyone starved.

Or take the Holodomor (the Great Ukraine famine). Under Communist rule all farms were forced to form collectives and what happened? Somewhere from 2-10 million people died.

And of course who can forget the great purges of 1937-38.

Now if you think these regimes were NOT aggressive then I recommend you read up on Czechoslovakia in 1968. Google "Prague Spring" and learn some history.

You think we were immoral to protect ourselves and our allies from these totalitarian societies? You know maybe your arguments work on the weak minded who haven't a clue about history but don't pull that historical revisionist claptrap on me.

And by the way, you put FREEDOM in quotes like it is some form of abstract idea. Freedom isn't and if you have ever been to a country where your freedoms are limited you would know.

And to make it more concrete for you think about the fact you and I could NOT have had this debate in China or the Soviet Union now could we?

[donmartin]

Leaving out the issue of whether thought is conscious, or not, how can any of the national conduct you have described be deemed irrational, immoral, or unethical? It may be unpleasant, but what else?

[npsguy]

Let me ask YOU a question. Do you think for one moment that if we had stuck with conventional weapons while the Soviets continued to build a nuclear stockpile that things would be better today? The Russians WOULD have exerted their power and no one... not the US, the French, the English or the West Germans would have been able to stop them.

We would have all have been at their mercy.

By having a nuclear arsenal we were able to help maintain freedom throughout Western Europe. We were able to deter that sociopath Stalin from taking any more than he did. It was bad enough they took over the countries they did.

If we had NOT done so you and I more than likely would NOT be able to argue about it. Maybe you are willing to dump your freedom and turn your kids over to the re-education camps but I am not.

[donmartin]

To respond to your first question, that is, whether things would be better today, I frankly have no idea. However, perhaps your argument makes my point. The West and Russia (USSR) engaged in identical behaviour (MAD -mutually assured destruction). I do not see how the conduct of one or the other was morally justifiable, or a moral issue at all. Had the bombs been used, the human species would have terminated. Just another event in the evolutionary process. And I rather doubt nature would "care". Roaches and carpet beetles would continue evolving, quite externally to concepts of morality and ethics, and I bet they would not annihilate one another. Maybe it is true. The meek shall inherit the earth, and the last shall be first.

Have a great day

[npsguy]

Feb 28, 2009 23:05:55 GMT donmartin said:

I frankly have no idea.

See that is the problem. You have no idea nor do you seem to want to even think about it. You don't want to look at past Soviet aggression. Don't you even remember any of the events I mention? How about the blockage of rail and roads through East Germany that blocked off access to West Berlin. What do you think the Soviets were trying to do? If it had not been for the Berlin Airlift West Berlin would have starved until they gave into the Soviets.

Your problem is you want to debate this without looking at the historical context. That is the cowardly ivory tower approach. That is why you aren't sticking around to argue about it. History proves you wrong IN SPADES.

I don't understand people with your mindset. Neville Chamberlain and the British Parliament was like you and they let Hitler walk all over him. Maybe if Chamberlain had shown some backbone and threatened Hitler with war earlier Germany would have backed down from taking Czechoslovakia and WWII might have been avoided altogether.

But like most people with your mindset when actual historical context is applied to the situation you back down from the argument.

It is easy to convince the ignorant masses that you are right but reality shows you are completely and utterly wrong.

[donmartin]

Not to put too fine a point on it, and somewhat off topic, I recall that it was Germany that invaded the Soviet Union, which over the course, of the war lost in excess of 20 million people fighting on "our" side, and Berlin was in the middle of Soviet German territory. If I recall, Britain and the Soviet Union stood alone against Germany. I mean, wasn't Lindbergh a friend of Hermann Goering?

[npsguy]

You know it is really sad to see your side of the debate degenerate into a collection irrelevant, half true statements.

Britain and Russia 'stood alone' against Germany? That one statement alone discredits you as being even remotely knowledgeable about World War II. Not on did the US fight on the Allies side but so did Canada, Australia, India, the Free French, South Africa, New Zealand, Greece and a number of others that just go on and on. Just read up on the North African campaigns alone.

Berlin in East Germany? Yeah... but the allies agreed to govern both Germany and Berlin in four separate sectors. Nothing justifies the Soviets closing off the AGREED to transportation routes into the western sectors. Stalin wanted to control all of Berlin because whoever controlled Berlin would eventually control a unified Germany. Please read a book.

And what does the war dead count of the Soviets have to do with anything? Do you know WHY so many died? Not because the NAZI's were so good at fighting but because Stalin crippled his own military by killing off the leadership of the Red Army during the 1937-38 purges. Think about it... people like Chief of the Red Army Mikhail Tukhachevsky were killed simply because they were becoming 'too popular'. If anyone is to blame for the number of Soviet dead it is Stalin. Will you please read a history book?

And what does Lucky Limburgh have to do with ANY of this? What do ANY of your statements have to do with the debate. Nothing. I mean you are just grasping straws here or trying to change the topic into something that justifies the actions of Stalin and later Soviet leaders.

With all due respect I don't want to insult you but there seems to be some fundamental differences with what you THINK happened and what really happened. I really recommend that you read about the events of those times before making any moral judgements.

[donmartin]

I don't know how we got here, but I will respond:

- Stalin was by any definition, a very bad man, and communism engaged in fraudulent "scientific" economics - so we can agree on that

-The allies, including the Soviet Union, adopted the Morgenthau Plan which called for a unified non-industrial Germany. The western powers concluded that were the allies to proceed with the plan, all Europe would suffer economically. So western powers understandably backed away from the Plan. The Soviets, however, were understandably more concerned about another invasion from the west, particularly a re-industrialized Germany, and that is the direction the invasions always seemed to go in, and therefore wished to enforce the Plan. It was fundamentally these different perspectives which resulted in the Berlin airlift. The Soviets wanted the agreement amongst the allies enforced, and this position, in light of the economics of Europe as a whole, was unreasonable, whereas the allies discontinued their performance under the agreement, and this in hindsight was reasonable.

With regard to Britain and the USSR "standing alone", Greece and France were defeated early in the war, and all the other countries you mention were British dominions - later known as the British Commonwealth. Citizens of those countries were British subjects.

My question, however, is whether amidst the mayhem and horror,and indeed all other conduct, is neither good nor bad, just an evolutionary process which does not include considerations of morality and ethics.

[npsguy]

Mar 1, 2009 19:50:50 GMT donmartin said:

I don't know how we got here, but I will respond:

Donmartin we got here because you brought us here. It started with the post on morality of Mutually Assured Destruction which then evolved into WWII and who attacked who first.

Mar 1, 2009 19:50:50 GMT donmartin said:

- Stalin was by any definition, a very bad man, and communism engaged in fraudulent "scientific" economics - so we can agree on that

That is a very vague and high level definition of Stalin and Communism but yes I agree.

Mar 1, 2009 19:50:50 GMT donmartin said:

The Soviets, however, were understandably more concerned about another invasion from the west, particularly a re-industrialized Germany, and that is the direction the invasions always seemed to go in, and therefore wished to enforce the Plan.

Incredible... here is where you are diverging from reality. You make the Soviets sound like some form of victims where they TOO were initially aggressors. Remember that BOTH the Soviets and the Germans invaded Poland in Sept of 1939. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact divided Poland into two. Don't act like the Soviets were innocent bystanders.

And what you also fail to mention is that the Soviets retained control of ALL of Poland after the war to act as a buffer zone between them and Germany. "Understandably so" my foot.

They kept East Germany because they wanted Germany to come into the Soviet sphere of influence; not because they were worried Germany would attack again.

Mar 1, 2009 19:50:50 GMT donmartin said:

It was fundamentally these different perspectives which resulted in the Berlin airlift. The Soviets wanted the agreement amongst the allies enforced, and this position, in light of the economics of Europe as a whole, was unreasonable, whereas the allies discontinued their performance under the agreement, and this in hindsight was reasonable.

I don't understand this at all. What does "these different perspectives which resulted in the Berlin airlift" mean?? That is silly. The Soviets tore up the highways and railways into West Berlin so West Berlin would STARVE and be forced to agree to a Soviet puppet government.

You forget that the Soviets in East Berlin offered to give food to the people of West Berlin ONLY if they crossed over into the East and give up their ration cards. In other words, they would be fed but they would be stuck in the Soviet sector.

Yeah... their intentions were to starve West Berlin into submission. That is IT.

Mar 1, 2009 19:50:50 GMT donmartin said:

and all the other countries you mention were British dominions - later known as the British Commonwealth. Citizens of those countries were British subjects.

Last time I checked neither the Free French Forces nor the US was not part of the Dominion. My bad

Mar 1, 2009 19:50:50 GMT donmartin said:

My question, however, is whether amidst the mayhem and horror,and indeed all other conduct, is neither good nor bad, just an evolutionary process which does not include considerations of morality and ethics.

So going back to your original question you seem to basically ask that old question "Is there such a thing as good or bad?" but add in the twist "isn't this just evolution".

Well I gave you my opinion above and you responded with nuclear deterrence being immoral. Seems it worked out pretty well to me. ;D