natural interpretations of right and wrong

[arcturus88]

from a "natural" sense of life, meaning all science chalks up to life, we as humans are "right" or better said, "successful" by one thing and one thing alone.

procreation.

procreation so as to enable our genes to carry on. that means the guy who has 11 kids out of wed-lock and is a dead-beat dad and abuser is a success. he put his genes out there and thus wins from a darwinian standpoint.

wrong or failure in this light is simply not spreading ones genes. so the man who is charitable and perhaps does not have kids but gives to orphanages or even adopts a child or two (of the deadbeats children) is still by this natural definition a failure.

any thoughts?

 

[tecoyah]

from a "natural" sense of life, meaning all science chalks up to life, we as humans are "right" or better said, "successful" by one thing and one thing alone.

procreation.

procreation so as to enable our genes to carry on. that means the guy who has 11 kids out of wed-lock and is a dead-beat dad and abuser is a success. he put his genes out there and thus wins from a darwinian standpoint.

wrong or failure in this light is simply not spreading ones genes. so the man who is charitable and perhaps does not have kids but gives to orphanages or even adopts a child or two (of the deadbeats children) is still by this natural definition a failure.

any thoughts?

Humankind have evolved into a societal animal...Due to adaptations this entails it no longer depends on Darwinian evolution or individual survival of the fittest procreation.

 

[arcturus88]

Humankind have evolved into a societal animal...Due to adaptations this entails it no longer depends on Darwinian evolution or individual survival of the fittest procreation.

so naturalism falls short of answering moral questions?

from wiki...

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only laws of nature (physical law) (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) and forces operate in the world; the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[

 

[arcturus88]

"Right and successful " / "wrong and failure" were also included in the opening topic and these are very tied in with morality

 

[arcturus88]

You seem to prefer to debate semantics rather than the issue I put forth. I wonder why that would be.

 

[arcturus88]

I prefer stationary, rather than moving targets!

stop spinning around in circles and your environment should get stationary shortly.

 

[arcturus88]

...about:

natural interpretations of right and wrong

 

[arcturus88]

Well where would right and wrong come in? If it doesn't come in with naturalism where and when does it?

 

[Polydectes]

You seem to prefer to debate semantics rather than the issue I put forth. I wonder why that would be.

Not sure he can.

 

[Polydectes]

stop spinning around in circles and your environment should get stationary shortly.

Simple minds are entertained by spinning.

 

[tecoyah]

I disagree that procreation is the only success. Survival is the primary success. Procreation is merely icing on the cake.


Considering the incredible amount of children that need viable parents...should we not let them have access to them?
?
But where "right & wrong" comes into the discussion, I have no clue.

Considering the incredible amount of children that need viable parents...should we not let them have access to them?


as for right and wrong you not only "Have a clue"...you have an opinion you wish to share.

 

[Polydectes]

from a "natural" sense of life, meaning all science chalks up to life, we as humans are "right" or better said, "successful" by one thing and one thing alone.

procreation.

procreation so as to enable our genes to carry on. that means the guy who has 11 kids out of wed-lock and is a dead-beat dad and abuser is a success. he put his genes out there and thus wins from a darwinian standpoint.

wrong or failure in this light is simply not spreading ones genes. so the man who is charitable and perhaps does not have kids but gives to orphanages or even adopts a child or two (of the deadbeats children) is still by this natural definition a failure.

any thoughts?

I find appeals to nature in deciding whether something is good or bad to be extremely short sided mostly based on your argument above. Basically it's a logical fallacy.

 

[arcturus88]

I find appeals to nature in deciding whether something is good or bad to be extremely short sided mostly based on your argument above. Basically it's a logical fallacy.

yeah that's the point. i post it to highlight the logical fallacy that nature provides such an argument. or some try but when examined it falls short.

 

[arcturus88]

i dont know what you mean. :giggle:

 

[Polydectes]

yeah that's the point. i post it to highlight the logical fallacy that nature provides such an argument. or some try but when examined it falls short.

Yeah, I agree. It's a bad point to argue but I haven't really seen much real debate on it here.

 

[arcturus88]

from a "natural" sense of life, meaning all science chalks up to life, we as humans are "right" or better said, "successful" by one thing and one thing alone.

procreation.

procreation so as to enable our genes to carry on. that means the guy who has 11 kids out of wed-lock and is a dead-beat dad and abuser is a success. he put his genes out there and thus wins from a darwinian standpoint.

wrong or failure in this light is simply not spreading ones genes. so the man who is charitable and perhaps does not have kids but gives to orphanages or even adopts a child or two (of the deadbeats children) is still by this natural definition a failure.

any thoughts?

bump... any new thoughts?
it seems any true morality requires the supernatural .

 

[Ralph47]

bump... any new thoughts?
it seems any true morality requires the supernatural .

I saw a show on bears in remote Alaska, and it has be documented that when when one of them succumbs to death, the
group actually digs a hole, and drags the carcass into the hole, and buries it.

 

[arcturus88]

I saw a show on bears in remote Alaska, and it has be documented that when when one of them succumbs to death, the
group actually digs a hole, and drags the carcass into the hole, and buries it.

thats cool.

I've heard elephants grieve their losses too .

 

[Ralph47]

thats cool.

I've heard elephants grieve their losses too .

I guess they didn't want the wolves to eat the remains.