russ_watters said:I'll clarify: what is meant by "equal opportunity" in the US Constitution is equal protection under the law. Yes, the parents you get when you are born - and even the genes you get - are a roll of the dice, but the government has a pretty hard time of correcting that. So the point is that the government creates equality of opportunity in the ways that it can reasonably control.
There's no such thing. That's such a leap in logic that I really don't even know how to approach it. Moral Equality is an oxymoron. Each man determines his own morals. Each society will have vastly different morals. Human rights are based on the concept that all men are created equal. Yet when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life? That's our obligation, that's our duty. It's expressed over and over in the animal kingdom, yet we allow compassion to corrupt sensibility.russ_watters said:Human rights are not based on compassion, they are based on the assumption of moral equality.
Or, perhaps, morality has evolved...? We've shown that animals exhibit morality and more advanced animals exhibit more advanced morality.
Certainly, human morality is imperfect, but as certain as that is the fact that it is advancing. The average life expectancy today is double what it was 100 years ago and the global poverty rate is half what it was 20 years ago. What you so readily dismiss is responsible for by far the most rapid advancement in the human condition the world has ever seen.
The reasoning here seems circular.a4mula said:We're discussing one right now. Allowing compassion to corrupt natural selection.
Law is based on morality/ethics which can be quite reasonable and logical (I personally prefer the term ethics since the word morality seems to have so much religious baggage attached to it). Other than that point I think Russ has already said what I would say.a4mula said:That's far from the only example however. Since the beginning of humanity we have waged wars based on our morality and prejudices. Morality is merely a method to incite the differences in man. It's a remnant of the herd mentality that was prominent during the hunting/gathering phase of our past. Stick with your own, agree with your own, make rules among your own. Law has since superseded morality as the defining method of dictating order.
Logic or Emotion? Which is more serving to our race? Morality is nothing more than a sword of righteousness that people wield to slay the beliefs they disagree with. Nothing more.
There are not simply those who possesses "good genes" and those who possesses "bad genes". A person may possesses genetic defects as well as desirable genes. The genes may not even express themselves just as genetic defects may not express themselves either.a4mula said:Of course not. Evolution is driven by diversity. That's a far cry from saying that individuals that would not be able to reproduce without the assistance of others should be allowed to however. This isn't a knock on evolution, it's a knock on natural selection.
If natural selection is allowed to take it's course then evolution will systematically improve a race, or destroy it based on fitness and adaptation. When we strip evolution of natural selection then what we're doing is thinning the gene pool with traits that otherwise would have been destroyed. Is there a reason we want these traits destroyed? This seems like a pretty basic axiom. If whatever caused the trait to become unsustainable, then it's a pretty good indication that it's not increasing our fitness.
a4mula said:If I were would it make my points any less valid? That's the first question you need to ask and answer.
a4mula said:that if any individual is unable to provide for themselves then they should face the consequences of that.
The value of an individual life is subjective. To call any person (infant or otherwise) "undeniably unequal" is to impose your own values upon others. This is the danger in giving people the right to make life or death decisions about persons based on their perceived inequality. Had we not shed such ideas we would likely still be living with slavery and women would not be allowed to vote.a4mula said:There's no such thing. That's such a leap in logic that I really don't even know how to approach it. Moral Equality is an oxymoron. Each man determines his own morals. Each society will have vastly different morals. Human rights are based on the concept that all men are created equal. Yet when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life? That's our obligation, that's our duty. It's expressed over and over in the animal kingdom, yet we allow compassion to corrupt sensibility.
Humans rape, torture, and murder. Humans obviously do not exibit morality.a4mula said:Animals do not exhibit morality. Is it moral to eat your young? Is it moral to leave one of your pack behind that's been injured? Animals exibit survival instincts, something that we left by the wayside a long time ago. We've allowed compassion to dictate what is illogical and unreasonable.
a4mula said:when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life?
a4mula said:That's our obligation, that's our duty.
a4mula said:Animals do not exhibit morality.
a4mula said:Animals do not exhibit morality. Is it moral to eat your young? Is it moral to leave one of your pack behind that's been injured? Animals exibit survival instincts, something that we left by the wayside a long time ago. We've allowed compassion to dictate what is illogical and unreasonable.
Huckleberry said:I'm not sure where this is going? It seems all you've done here is choose traits from various species in the animal kingdom that would be reprehensible to modern society. You could just of easily chosen traits from the animal kingdom that are desirable. I don't think it would be very difficult to find behaviours in the animal kingdom that emulate any moral or immoral actions that humans may take. So, besides selection bias, what is your point?
I would say that morals are the survival instincts of a reasoning being that exists within a society. They are what determines right and wrong. If we want to live in isolation like spiders then we should emulate their behaviours and eat our young. If we want to live in packs like wolves we should emulate their behaviours and leave the injured to die. If we want to live in a human civilization we should live like moral human beings. Would we be more reasonable or rational to live like spiders or wolves? That sort of behaviour doesn't seem compatable with the long gestation, slow maturing, extreme vulnerability of a single child. Most other animals with similar traits also exhibit what could be described as compassionate child raising behaviours.
As humans we aren't so different from animals. We just aren't suited as a species to the traits that you would like us to be. You can be sure that if we had no food there would be people who would eat babies. They would live and others would die. If we were nomadic pack hunters and had to follow our food you can be sure that the entire pack isn't going to starve for one individual. That one would die and the fit would live. But we live in a civilization that can grow it's own food and raise animals. We have doctors to keep people healthy. We have technology to make physical tasks easier and to entertain us. We have art and science and philosophy and culture. We have all these things because we are reasoning, rational beings. If survival isn't threatened then there is no need to resort to those extreme 'animalistic' behaviours. We are able to care for the weak and the sick and so we do. When we are in a position where we can't then guess who will go first?.
Whether the glass is half full or half empty, it would be a waste to just pour it out.
superwolf said:No, who has given you this right? God?
You cannot disavow equal morality in one sentence and argue with duty ethics in the next.
a4mula said:This is a discussion where we contemplate the morality of killing infants. I wouldn't say that selecting that aspect of the animal kingdom could be construed as selective biases. We are animals so I'm not really sure why a difference need be made. There are many examples of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide" within our own species. In each and every case I see no morale contradictions. There is this concept floating around that human life is special. I see nothing that indicates this. We place more value on individual life then we do on the collective good. You go on to state that if 'survivors' aren't threatened then why resort to this behavior. In each example given in the wiki article there were measures of threat. Nobody here is calling for the unneeded killing just for the sake of death. All I'm merely stating is that preserving life, for the sake of life is unjustified.
Morality is merely a basis of relative judgement of actions. It determines only how we view events from our own personal spectrum of biasness. There is nothing universally 'right' or 'wrong' about morality.
I will respectfully disagree. I find life to be a worthy thing to preserve for its own sake whenever possible. I think it is a fundamental principle of civilization.Nobody here is calling for the unneeded killing just for the sake of death. All I'm merely stating is that preserving life, for the sake of life is unjustified.
Huckleberry said:In fact, among animals that have similar patterns of birth and growth to humans there are more examples that mirror our own behaviour. You have intentionally selected ones that do not. I believe your appeal to animal behaviour is biased.
a4mula said:I'd love to see the evidence of this fact. It's been shown time and again that even the most advanced mammals (dolphins, primates, pigs) do indeed practice forms of infanticide from direct killing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt" neglect.
I'm not trying to be derisive here, I'd honestly like some evidence of non-human animals that cater to malformed or diseased offspring. Preferrably I'd like to see evidence that shows a trend of this behavior consistently. Exceptions to rules are just that.
TheStatutoryApe said:At any rate though humans are just as "immoral" as animals when under survival pressures. And I still do not see how taking care of deformed or sick children is detrimental to the evolution of humans.
I hope 'committed' is the right word there, not practiced. At least in this society infanticide is not acceptable, it is murder. I thought that statement would be pedantic, but after reading this thread so far, maybe not.TheStatutoryApe said:Humans have practiced, and still do practice, infanticide...
a4mula said:It's not. Allowing them to breed however is, assuming their issues are genetic in nature.
I wasn't talking about capitalism in that quote.a4mula said:You're misrepresenting Capitalism. Capitalism is strictly an economic policy. If you'd like to converse about our Republic and the the laws that are dictated by our social policy then Capitalism plays no role at all.
Ironic, because I don't know how to respond to that! What you describe is just plain historically wrong. It is historical fact that the morality that we use is based on what I said it is! What you describe is complete moral relativism and quite obviously is impossible since if it were applied as you suggest, we could have no laws.There's no such thing. That's such a leap in logic that I really don't even know how to approach it. Moral Equality is an oxymoron. Each man determines his own morals. Each society will have vastly different morals. Human rights are based on the concept that all men are created equal.
I don't know of any mammals that act as you describe, but even if they did, it wouldn't matter: morality is a human construct and our morality is beyond that of (stricter than) animals. Some animals behave in ways that fit our morality and though it probably has a rational basis, they have never been able to ask the question and develop the morality.Yet when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life? That's our obligation, that's our duty. It's expressed over and over in the animal kingdom, yet we allow compassion to corrupt sensibility.
Those are survival instincts that may or may not be moral depending on the situation. Certainly, if caring for a weaker member of a group could endanger the rest of the group, it is morally correct to abandon that member of the group.Animals do not exhibit morality. Is it moral to eat your young? Is it moral to leave one of your pack behind that's been injured?
Those survival instincts often follow a similar logic as our morality (such as in the example I just gave). I submit that that is not a coincidence.Animals exibit survival instincts, something that we left by the wayside a long time ago.
That's an illogical/self-contradictory thing to say! Logic should be devoid of emotion, essentially by definition. Or is that what you are trying to say? If it is, it is still wrong.We've allowed compassion to dictate what is illogical and unreasonable.
I was showing the result - the correlation, not the actual connection, but the connections are blindingly simple. The morality of people and their governments practiced in many places was openly hostile to freedom and education. Forced slavery and subjegation were commonplace. These societies had lower standards of living precisely because the laws of the time (the morality) enforced a lower standard of living on the poor. This enforced lower standard of living included enforced ignorance, which had the secondary effect of helping to prevent scientific advancement.I fail to see how you attribute scientific advancement to morality.
There is a big difference between direct killing and runt neglect. Note, in particular, that "runt neglect" is usually (always?) associated with a litter of animals. More intelligent/higher mammals tend to only have one offspring and I suspect there is a causal relationship between that fact and the fact that development in higher mammals requires much more direct parental care.a4mula said:I'd love to see the evidence of this fact. It's been shown time and again that even the most advanced mammals (dolphins, primates, pigs) do indeed practice forms of infanticide from direct killing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt" neglect.
Noted...a4mula said:Unarguably Unequal
Defined: Any person born that would be unable to have a self-sustained life.
No individual has either responsibility - why would they?Is it not our responsibility to ensure not only the continuation, but also the improvement of our species?
Certainly not - to keep a disabled person alive does not kill anyone else. What we do is place that individual life above the financial freedom of everyone else.When a choice to allow someone that is unarguably unequal to continue their existence we have placed that individual life above that of all others.
Could you show me somewhere in any government document where it says that people have those responsibilities?We have placed it above the continuation and improvement of our species. We have harnessed the energy of others to ensure that said life is allowed.
1) No infant or toddler can self-sustain life, and if you mean upon achieving a later age, then 2) the planet can only support a population a small fraction of its current size consisting of people acting utterly self-sufficiently. At the current world population the vast majority of us survive and thrive only by depending on one another in some form.a4mula said:Unarguably Unequal
Defined: Any person born that would be unable to have a self-sustained life...
a4mula said:I'd love to see the evidence of this fact. It's been shown time and again that even the most advanced mammals (dolphins, primates, pigs) do indeed practice forms of infanticide from direct killing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt" neglect.
I'm not trying to be derisive here, I'd honestly like some evidence of non-human animals that cater to malformed or diseased offspring. Preferrably I'd like to see evidence that shows a trend of this behavior consistently. Exceptions to rules are just that.
What do you believe is the likelihood that any person with a severe genetic debilitation, such that they take from society without direct contribution, is going to reproduce? Few such people survive childhood and even fewer still are capable of taking part in society to such a degree that they are likely to reproduce. And even if they do their children could easily turn out perfectly normal and capable of contributing to society. Do you have any stats that could show us just how much these genes are polluting the pool? Since people are more likely to keep children that are disabled do you think maybe that having one such child will be enough for them and they will be less likely to have more? Generally in human and animal groupings the deformed and sick children would be killed and then the parents would have yet more children. This would seem more likely to perpetuate the defective genes.a4mula said:It's not. Allowing them to breed however is, assuming their issues are genetic in nature.
Again this is just one aspect of the overall detriment that is posed by nurturing those that are incapable of self-sustenance.
This is quite the hard-lined stance. I don't expect many to agree. What I would hope however is that people at least consider the cost at which we as a society and species pay to support anyone that cannot or will not provide for themselves. Once that is considered I ask why? Is it merely for the sake of preserving life, or is it because we've been sold into a belief of moral wrongdoing? If it's the latter then I believe we need to step back and reaccess the situation.
mheslep said:I hope 'committed' is the right word there, not practiced. At least in this society infanticide is not acceptable, it is murder. I thought that statement would be pedantic, but after reading this thread so far, maybe not.