3 ms·
From parents and close relatives it is easy to see a evolutionary reason Which is not a rational reason. That would be the naturalistic fallacy.
by Confusion 17y ago
From parents and close relatives it is easy to see a evolutionary reason
Which is not a rational reason. That would be the naturalistic fallacy.
- dejb 17y agoEncouraging the propagation your genes not rational? In evolutionary terms that is the the goal.
- angelbob 17y agoGeneralizing from a situation where it may apply (close relatives) to one where it does not apply isn't rational, even if it's a vaguely similar-looking situation.
- dejb 17y ago- The post I was replying wasn't about that part as far as I could tell. - The exact same reasoning has been applied to why we commit altruistic acts by richard dawkins (sorry no reference). The general idea is that certain behaviours are somewhat hard-coded and applying them to everyone was a good enough approximation for helping your close relatives in the past. - This is speculation. Generalisation is quite rational when speculating.
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoI can't see how it falls to the naturalistic fallacy ("that which is natural is good"). Surely a neo-darwinist sees the only goal of life as perpetuation of a specific genetic code. If an only off-spring chooses to take sexual partners that prevent the perpetuation of the parents genes beyond that offspring's generation then the parents genetic material will cease to be passed on. This is negative not because it is merely natural but because it destroys the only apparent purpose in such a system. I can see how you'd argue against such a position but I can't see how you can see it is not rational.