Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News A new Morality

  1. Feb 5, 2004 #1
    Shahil said,

    This brings me to something i had been meaning to say,

    I think robert tracinski pointed it out best when he said, "So it would seem that the system that enforces virtue leads to poverty—while the system that encourages vice leads to prosperity."

    Meaning that although moral, the welfare-state will always lead to poverty, and conversely, although immoral, capitalism will always lead to prosperity.

    You see, I think we need to change our idea of what is 'moral.'

    To me, morality should be the application of human nature to our lives, and nothing more.

    To provide welfare to those unable to provide for themselves is silly. Why?, because it is in my thoughts that the object of economics is to better the human state by any means neccesary.

    One would say that giving the unable provisions is bettering the human state, but to that i say: Why should a weaker genetic line be able to reproduce and carry on those genes to future generations? to take this to the extreme, should a mentally handicapped person be able to reproduce and thus create more strain on the able? ofcourse not, and If you agree with me here, then you must agree with me in a lesser sense of not providing help to those with with weaker but less obtrusive genetics. (ie intelligence, physical capacity, vunreability) Because by providing help to those weaker than us, we are encouraging reproduction and thus hurting the human condition in the future.

    Now, this philosophy to my knowledge is unwavering in theory, but would definately have some setbacks in application to the real world. One Word, ENVIRONMENT.

    You see, people are also weaker because of their environent. You know the old debate nature vs. nurture... while we dont know the exact balance, we do know that a person is composed of these 2 variables only! What does this mean for real-life application?

    Raise kids in exact as possible environments, and do not help the ones who struggle, because as they struggle, they will be less inclined to reproduce because the rescources provided to them are not sufficient.

    Result: the strong survive, the weak diminish, the human condition is made better!
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 5, 2004 #2
    Mattius, haven't I already compared you to Hitler once?
  4. Feb 5, 2004 #3
    here, here!!


    Mattius, you do have a point on a level - you can discuss it further ehile sitting on the seat reserved for you in the afterlife, conveniantly placed next to Hitler!!

    Seriously though - I disagree on the vice principle as well as the virtue principle. I think I have argued before that a middle ground is needed - only finding it is a huge problem.

    However, albeit simple, I love using this on people with similar points of view to you:
    I think that your theory falls apart if you are a person who partakes in any modern day "luxuries" that ensure your survival - like medication and, :wink: ,TV diners. Don't these only ensure that you survive? How can you say that a disabled person shouldn't live (or reproduce)? You may be in tip top condition now BUT what if a drug saved you from dying, lets say, from pneumonia, when you are a kid? You, in fact, are not suppose to even being living then! BUT what is happening is that your "weak genes" are still being transmitted as an example of mankinds brilliance!

    Anyhow, I still applaud your theory in a way. It kind of makes sense in the pure animal instinct kind of way!!! But I can't help but still disagree.
  5. Feb 5, 2004 #4
    Huh!...what if he does something to himself and he becomes the next plague, weak genes, (HaH!) heck, next he'll want to go after what he thinks is (what?) weak minded???

    "Careful what you ask for, you might just be it"....'Southern blot' anyone....Mattius_??
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook