4 ms·

Diseases are very much a moral problem relative to biology. We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our soc

Diseases are very much a moral problem relative to biology. We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very contrary to evolution's preference for everyone just being disposable fodder to make better and better organisms. If violence needs the right socially-approved causes, that is further evidence that we really don't like it at the end of the day. Rights of the disenfranchised has nothing to do with it? It's related the same way diseases are - the disenfranchised should be mistreated and thrown out according to evolution. We seem to continually decide otherwise. Discussions on HN relate to what people are considering and thinking. In a properly naturalistic society, nobody would ever worry about the feelings of animals, we would think this entire discussion is silly. > It isn't tautologically true at all. Anyone can look around and see plenty of people that want to suffer. Your examples and arguments here are so shallow I'm skeptical that you're actually arguing in good faith. Surely there's a difference between someone undergoing a painful medical treatment that they believe will help them in the long run vs someone being tortured for another's enjoyment? And for the case of one undergoing painful medical treatment, is it really _wanting_ to suffer if they'd much rather have a non-painful version of the same treatment? Or is it more that they weren't really given a choice?

Amezarak 10y ago
You're confusing 'biological reality' with naturalism. I am not advocating naturalism, nor am I claiming that one or the other is moral. I am claiming that amorality is reality, and our 'morality' is whatever the fashionable social norms of the day consist of. For example: > We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very contrary to evolution's preference for everyone just being disposable fodder to make better and better organisms. Keeping their own alive, even the weaker members, is something many social animals do. The 'naturalism' position might be that we should engage in some kind of eugenics. The biological reality is that evolution doesn't care how strong individual members of the herd are. There's nothing "anti-evolution" about protecting the weak. > Rights of the disenfranchised has nothing to do with it? It's related the same way diseases are - the disenfranchised should be mistreated and thrown out according to evolution. We seem to continually decide otherwise. This is, again, nothing to do with 'biological reality' but with the straw-man of naturalism. And it couldn't be any other way. Everything we do is 'according to evolution', ergo the disenfranchised being accorded rights is 'according to evolution,' not somehow contra to it. We are animals, not gods. > Surely there's a difference between someone undergoing a painful medical treatment that they believe will help them in the long run vs someone being tortured for another's enjoyment? Maybe, but we have moved the goalposts from 'suffering is evil' to 'suffering for another's enjoyment is evil.' And yet there are people who allow themselves to be subjected to physical pain gladly for the enjoyment of others, and in older times, even tortured and killed.
- projektir 10y ago
  You haven't exactly defined what you mean by "biological reality". I don't really see how what you're proposing is any different from naturalism. Resignation to intentions of nature, i.e., statements like these: > I am claiming that amorality is reality Is exactly what I consider naturalism. That's what nature wants you to think. Why is that statement even significant? Morality, as I've stated earlier, is derived from a subjective experience. It starts existing the moment someone has experiences they like and don't like. It's a simple place to begin, everyone shares it, everyone agrees on the good or the bad side of it. The only difference is that there are people who are OK with the bad happening, and those who are not. But both groups are aware of the bad. I will say there is a big difference between a civilization where the bad is OK and one where it is not. I also know which one I'd prefer to live in. Which one pretty much everyone will prefer to live in. That's not a coincidence. Those who would prefer to live in the other civilization are also those who always expect to be on top. That seems quite a condition. Again, not a coincidence. "fashionable social norms" are an approximation, that doesn't mean the thing they're trying to approximate doesn't exist. Just like physics don't cease to exist because our conclusions about it are not always correct. > And it couldn't be any other way. Everything we do is 'according to evolution', ergo the disenfranchised being accorded rights is 'according to evolution,' not somehow contra to it. We are animals, not gods. Are meteors hitting dinosaurs according to evolution, too? "Everything we do is according to evolution" is a rather tautological, unfalsifiable belief. At some point, we need to start distinguishing what evolution intended and what we do. The aforementioned fashionable social norms to me don't sound like evolution had it all figured out already. Caring for the weak and our own is a thing social animals do? To a very, very limited point... we didn't do that at all for quite a few members of society for a very long time. It seems to have taken us a lot of civilized development to even start thinking about such things. Natural fear of the other is still fighting us at every turn. Desire to eat meat is fighting us in this very topic. No, I don't think evolution has anything to do with this, unless it's evolution of thought itself. There are clearly forces in opposition to each other here. If we are not gods, someone else is. > Maybe, but we have moved the goalposts from 'suffering is evil' to 'suffering for another's enjoyment is evil.' I haven't moved such goalposts, I made an example, and you should stop projecting your own conclusions when they were not at all present in the post you're responding to. The purpose of the example wasn't at all to say that suffering for another's enjoyment is evil (consensual BDSM is a thing), but to say that someone suffering due to things they didn't choose is very different from suffering due to things they chose. The difference here is obvious and I'm not going to explain it again.

Amezarak 10y ago

You're confusing 'biological reality' with naturalism. I am not advocating naturalism, nor am I claiming that one or the other is moral. I am claiming that amorality is reality, and our 'morality' is whatever the fashionable social norms of the day consist of. For example: > We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very contrary to evolution's preference for everyone just being disposable fodder to make better and better organisms. Keeping their own alive, even the weaker members, is something many social animals do. The 'naturalism' position might be that we should engage in some kind of eugenics. The biological reality is that evolution doesn't care how strong individual members of the herd are. There's nothing "anti-evolution" about protecting the weak. > Rights of the disenfranchised has nothing to do with it? It's related the same way diseases are - the disenfranchised should be mistreated and thrown out according to evolution. We seem to continually decide otherwise. This is, again, nothing to do with 'biological reality' but with the straw-man of naturalism. And it couldn't be any other way. Everything we do is 'according to evolution', ergo the disenfranchised being accorded rights is 'according to evolution,' not somehow contra to it. We are animals, not gods. > Surely there's a difference between someone undergoing a painful medical treatment that they believe will help them in the long run vs someone being tortured for another's enjoyment? Maybe, but we have moved the goalposts from 'suffering is evil' to 'suffering for another's enjoyment is evil.' And yet there are people who allow themselves to be subjected to physical pain gladly for the enjoyment of others, and in older times, even tortured and killed.

projektir 10y ago
You haven't exactly defined what you mean by "biological reality". I don't really see how what you're proposing is any different from naturalism. Resignation to intentions of nature, i.e., statements like these: > I am claiming that amorality is reality Is exactly what I consider naturalism. That's what nature wants you to think. Why is that statement even significant? Morality, as I've stated earlier, is derived from a subjective experience. It starts existing the moment someone has experiences they like and don't like. It's a simple place to begin, everyone shares it, everyone agrees on the good or the bad side of it. The only difference is that there are people who are OK with the bad happening, and those who are not. But both groups are aware of the bad. I will say there is a big difference between a civilization where the bad is OK and one where it is not. I also know which one I'd prefer to live in. Which one pretty much everyone will prefer to live in. That's not a coincidence. Those who would prefer to live in the other civilization are also those who always expect to be on top. That seems quite a condition. Again, not a coincidence. "fashionable social norms" are an approximation, that doesn't mean the thing they're trying to approximate doesn't exist. Just like physics don't cease to exist because our conclusions about it are not always correct. > And it couldn't be any other way. Everything we do is 'according to evolution', ergo the disenfranchised being accorded rights is 'according to evolution,' not somehow contra to it. We are animals, not gods. Are meteors hitting dinosaurs according to evolution, too? "Everything we do is according to evolution" is a rather tautological, unfalsifiable belief. At some point, we need to start distinguishing what evolution intended and what we do. The aforementioned fashionable social norms to me don't sound like evolution had it all figured out already. Caring for the weak and our own is a thing social animals do? To a very, very limited point... we didn't do that at all for quite a few members of society for a very long time. It seems to have taken us a lot of civilized development to even start thinking about such things. Natural fear of the other is still fighting us at every turn. Desire to eat meat is fighting us in this very topic. No, I don't think evolution has anything to do with this, unless it's evolution of thought itself. There are clearly forces in opposition to each other here. If we are not gods, someone else is. > Maybe, but we have moved the goalposts from 'suffering is evil' to 'suffering for another's enjoyment is evil.' I haven't moved such goalposts, I made an example, and you should stop projecting your own conclusions when they were not at all present in the post you're responding to. The purpose of the example wasn't at all to say that suffering for another's enjoyment is evil (consensual BDSM is a thing), but to say that someone suffering due to things they didn't choose is very different from suffering due to things they chose. The difference here is obvious and I'm not going to explain it again.