tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post2536157365446411614..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: PZ Myers, CreationistLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-86538075451644589262010-09-22T17:38:29.667+01:002010-09-22T17:38:29.667+01:00heh,
Yes, you do. I quote you: "when I menti...heh,<br /><br />Yes, you do. I quote you: "when I mentioned rape, it was because it has been the norm. Males will copulate with females in nature." You just said that rape is the norm. You then follow that up with the observation that males naturally copulate as females. Thus, your evidence for rape is the naturalness of copulation. Thus, you equate sex with rape. <br /><br />The difference between an ideologue and a non-ideologue is that the first cannot stand being corrected, while the other is willing to take correction. When Larry and I had it pointed out that we got Meyers wrong, we corrected ourselves. You insist that you didn't say what you actually said, then claim I am twisting your words, when I interpret what you say as practically any person other than yourself would interpret you. In fact, it didn't take any interpretation at all. You equate rape with sex. You say rape is the norm. That was your argument. Either stand by it, or correct yourself.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-80145983167827192812010-09-22T11:53:23.249+01:002010-09-22T11:53:23.249+01:00I notice that Troy Camplin is so thoroughly dishon...I notice that Troy Camplin is so thoroughly dishonest that he continues to lie. The pattern continues.<br /><br /><i>"You just equated sex with rape."</i><br /><br />No, I did not. But I can see that you are more interested in pushing your political ideology by any means necessary, so I won't bother responding any further than that.<br /><br />Thanks for confirming your behavioral patterns, though.hehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-51697942274994972452010-09-21T16:57:04.730+01:002010-09-21T16:57:04.730+01:00heh,
You just equated sex with rape. Rape is unus...heh,<br /><br />You just equated sex with rape. Rape is unusual, not the normal state of things. If rape were the normal state of things, animals -- including humans -- wouldn't have developed complex mating rituals to try to seduce females into mating. They would have just raped. What you consider to be "natural" in the sense of normal isn't. Thank goodness. Just because you think rape is the natural state of sexual reproduction, that doesn't make it so. Again, this says more about you than it does about the rest of reality. Rape and sex are not equivalent.<br /><br />Finally, I did not misrepresent what you said. I pointed out what you said. It's not my fault you argued that sex is rape. It's not my fault you don't know how to make an argument, or understand facts.<br /><br />The real issue isn't whether or not people can adjust their behaviors. Of course we can. The question is: can we do it without negative, destructive consequences? And the answer is clearly: no. For example, humans are a naturally sexual animal. We can deprive ourselves of sex and become chaste -- but at the same time, there is a reason why Catholic priests sometimes get involved in sex scandals. It is too strong a drive for the vast majority of people to overcome. Can people live in Leftist fantasyland under their murderous dictators. Of course they can. But it just won't be the best life.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-14156768028059503772010-09-21T13:55:41.212+01:002010-09-21T13:55:41.212+01:00heh,
It's good to see that you agree with me ...heh,<br /><br />It's good to see that you agree with me about the importance of practical reasoning or prudence in moral deliberation about our natural desires. This point is developed in Chapter 2 of DARWINIAN NATURAL RIGHT and Chapters 1-2 of DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM.<br /><br />As I have indicated in my post on "P.Z. Myers, Moralist," it seems that Myers also agrees with me (and Darwin) about morality as based on a natural moral sense.<br /><br />So we seem to be coming around to a fundamental agreement about morality as a product of moral sentiments, moral traditions, and moral judgments.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-55728937522386784432010-09-21T12:59:49.858+01:002010-09-21T12:59:49.858+01:00"I will leave it up to you as to how to inter...<i>"I will leave it up to you as to how to interpret that as someone who just admitted they have a natural drive to rape other people."</i><br /><br />Ah, the sheer dishonesty of the Conservative crowd. Just like Larry twisted PZ's words and lied about him, you just lied about me.<br /><br />I'm noticing a pattern here.<br /><br />My point was that appealing to "natural urges" is silly. We control our natural urges every single day.<br /><br />And when I mentioned rape, it was because it has been the norm. Males will copulate with females in nature. This goes for homo sapiens sapiens in the past as well.<br /><br />But I predict that the Conservatives will continue to dishonestly twist people's words. This is apparently a natural urge Conservatives do not see any value in suppressing.hehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-62486179191614089832010-09-21T12:57:03.510+01:002010-09-21T12:57:03.510+01:00"I have written two books--DARWINIAN NATURAL ...<i>"I have written two books--DARWINIAN NATURAL RIGHT and DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM--with chapters on the natural desires for sexual mating, parental care, and conjugal bonding. I have also written dozens of posts on this blog covering these topics."</i><br /><br />So what you are saying is that all those natural desires aren't all they are cracked up to be? That, gee, maybe we have to control our urges if it's the best thing to do?<br /><br />And, gee, maybe people disagree on what "best" means, and that appealing to Darwin is a huge fallacy, and basically FAIL?hehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-80973249979622648612010-09-20T19:11:44.658+01:002010-09-20T19:11:44.658+01:00heh,
Rape is a "natural" desire only fo...heh,<br /><br />Rape is a "natural" desire only for those one does not consider to be in one's family/tribe. Thus, as the notion of who is in one's tribe expands to include, say, all the people in the U.S., it is no longer natural to want to rape a fellow American citizen. One can apply this to those who share your religion or culture, or even everyone in the world -- as is the case for many people now. Those who do feel the drive to rape members of their family/tribe are sociopaths. I will leave it up to you as to how to interpret that as someone who just admitted they have a natural drive to rape other people.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-34496169080788768972010-09-20T14:27:10.330+01:002010-09-20T14:27:10.330+01:00"Tell me more."
I have written two book..."Tell me more."<br /><br />I have written two books--DARWINIAN NATURAL RIGHT and DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM--with chapters on the natural desires for sexual mating, parental care, and conjugal bonding. I have also written dozens of posts on this blog covering these topics.<br /><br />If you have a serious interest in these matters, you can read some of this material.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-10765336725476453722010-09-20T13:48:14.763+01:002010-09-20T13:48:14.763+01:00Larry Arnhart sez: "How is it "deeply fa...<b>Larry Arnhart sez:</b> <i>"How is it "deeply fallacious" to argue that socialist attempts to abolish natural desires like parental care and private property will create great human suffering--as they did, for example, in Mao's China?"</i><br /><br />What about natural desires like humping anyone of the opposite sex, whether they want to or not (RAPE!)? If natural desires are so awesome, why aren't you out there following them, and raping women, as has been the norm through most of human history?<br /><br />What was that? You are not practicing what you preach? Natural desires not what they were cracked up to be, is that what you are saying?<br /><br />Interesting. Tell me more.hehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-3202874934927239212010-09-14T06:14:33.666+01:002010-09-14T06:14:33.666+01:00This is one of the more spectacular examples of in...This is one of the more spectacular examples of intellectual dishonesty I've come across.<br /><br />You realize I hope that posting tripe like this has the effect of greatly diminishing any valid points you might have. If your position was strong, you wouldn't have to lie about your opponent's views.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-90425910217934819262010-09-06T18:31:33.126+01:002010-09-06T18:31:33.126+01:00Eusocial mammals are also territorial, so my state...Eusocial mammals are also territorial, so my statement on fish stands. I of course make reference to that in my comments above (didn't see it? then you need to be a more careful reader). Territoriality gets expressed in different ways, with different results. Humans aren't eusocial. We did not evolve to be that way. <br /><br />Speaking of your being a bad reader, I didn't say about Darwin what you claim I said. Go back and re-read it and address the actual point.<br /><br />Arnhart addressed it as he did, because his argument was on classical liberalism (which isn't a political bias -- classical liberalism is a kind of social organization). Of course, one would hopefully agree with the latter point -- but that proves nothing other than that your not anti-human. The point is which social organization will actually achieve that goal. Only classical liberalism will do that. Everything else has less than optimal outcomes (to put it nicely).Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-86787954234918289532010-09-06T16:45:52.498+01:002010-09-06T16:45:52.498+01:00"Thus, property rights isn't human, mamma..."<i>Thus, property rights isn't human, mammalian, reptilian, or amphibian -- it's fish!</i>"<br />OK, and mole-rats aren't concerned. And I'm the one plenty of logical fallacies? And you don't just take examples from nature willy-nilly! :-)<br /><br />If it isn't about <em>what Charlie said</em> the argument can go without mentioning <em>what Charlie said</em>, and that hardly explain <a href="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/09/pz-myers-moralist.html" rel="nofollow">that</a>. I don't know what PZ would have to answer to this:<br />"<i>If so, would he agree with me that a liberal social order is desirable insofar as it cultivates the moral sentiments in a free society?</i>" <br />but I can see how the question could be rephrased to be without personal political bias: <br />"<i>If so, would he agree that <strong>any social</strong> order is desirable insofar as it cultivates the moral sentiments in a free society?</i>"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-44678788293608138302010-09-06T06:10:43.361+01:002010-09-06T06:10:43.361+01:00I set down the path of vertebrates in reverse, fro...I set down the path of vertebrates in reverse, from humans. So unless mole-rats are direct ancestors of humans, what they do is of no relevance to human behavior. That would be one reason for my ignoring the only kind of mammal to act that way (and then still not quite on the level of social insects). And we should be happy we are nothing like eusocial animals -- vertebrate or invertebrate -- because they are much more warlike, and engage in wars of total annihilation, behaviors which are increasingly rare in humans. <br /><br />Your arguments are highly unpersuasive because, though well-informed by facts, abound in logical fallacies. I have already addressed the mole-rat issue. The other logical fallacy involves the fact that just becasue Darwin was wrong about one thing, we should uncritically dismiss other things he said. Einstein was wrong about quantum physics -- so we should dismiss relativity theory? Newton has a much longer list of things he was wrong about. So Darwin's belief in gemmules proves nothing. More, one cannot blame Darwin for not knowing something that was literally unknown by everyone at the time -- gene theory. Which is what your attack on Darwin's belief in gemmules boils down to. I suppose Albert Claude was an idiot for not knowing "microsomes" are ribosomes, and that their proteins aren't the catalytic part of the ribosome, but rather the RNAs are?<br /><br />Neither Larry nor I just take examples from nature willy-nilly. That is the job of Leftists and other obscuritants. Rather, we have consistently looked to actual relatives of humans and to human evolved psychology. This is to grossly misrepresent what either of us have said -- or have ever said. Perhaps one shouldn't reproach people for grossly misrepresenting others' ideas when one is doing so oneself.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-80944696751798157202010-09-05T20:26:32.625+01:002010-09-05T20:26:32.625+01:00Oh! and one more question.
Who is the blogger with...Oh! and one more question.<br />Who is the blogger with administrator privileges in this blog who wiped out my <a href="http://coffeeandsci.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/larry-arnhart-being-evil/" rel="nofollow">backlink</a> to this post?<br />Wasn't expecting this kind of behavior here, reminds me of <a href="http://coffeeandsci.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/john-templeton-foundation-censorship/" rel="nofollow">Gary Rosen</a> of the <a href="http://coffeeandsci.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/john-templeton-foundation-censorship-backstage/" rel="nofollow">Templeton Foundation</a>.<br />Will you go along the same path as BQO and "<i>temporarily disable[d] [DC] comment feature while [you] refine [your] policies moving forward</i>"?<br />At least you didn't edited the comment. Oh! Wait! You can't edit comments on Blogger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-12145677340406132432010-09-05T16:51:08.047+01:002010-09-05T16:51:08.047+01:00Troy Champlin,
You set down the path of vertebrate...Troy Champlin,<br />You set down the path of vertebrates and that's why I reminded you that hive-like social organizations were observed in mammals as well. And asked you to check the literature (which you seem to know well and reproach Myers to ignore) before answering my question; may I be more specific and suggest mole-rats?<br /><br />If you find telling that one could find persuasive arguments for slavery in biology you must find also telling that someone could find any <i>persuasive arguments</i> about human social behavior taking examples from biology, and that's exactly my point: this is where Larry Arnhart, and you, fail.<br />It was nice of you to point that out.<br /><br />OTOH, Arnhart didn't find time or interest to instruct us on why he <i>called</i> Charlie on this one and if he would also support gemmules theory as well as Darwin's views on evolved human morals. For the moment he found it more productive to try to change the subject. And without really explaining how one could do <i>darwinian</i> predictions; I'm genuinely interested by such a method independently of what the field of application is.<br />If Arnhart is not willing to answer me, maybe you should ask him to enlighten us on this two points. They are far from being trivial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-36686906070347515322010-09-05T09:24:04.765+01:002010-09-05T09:24:04.765+01:00"If this is what Myers is implying, then he i..."If this is what Myers is implying, then he is a creationist like the Pope. While the human body can be explained as a product of natural evolution, he suggests, the human mind and morality transcend evolutionary science."<br /><br />Ha! What a twit. Have you ever actually read anything Myers has written, Larry?<br /><br />Have you read *anything* that anyone who understands biology has written?<br /><br />Looking at this post and your comments, I see Darwin-this and Darwin-that. Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. Generally, the only people who fetishize Darwin are the ones who don't understand biology...Josh in Californianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-80297342710604476362010-09-05T06:54:50.833+01:002010-09-05T06:54:50.833+01:00Let me ask the following questions: Are there plac...Let me ask the following questions: Are there places in this world where people are better off than in others? Worse off? What kind of politico-social-economic systems are present? Do we see patterns of material improvement and regression? May these differences have something to do with how well they fit human beings' evolved nature? I suspect they do. <br /><br />I'm a classical liberal because it is the only world view consistent with maximizing human material improvment, human liberty, human excellence, and human virtue. The reason this is true is that it most closely matches our evolved nature. It is what emerges naturally, in a bottom-up fashion, from free human interactions. All other systems are imposed from the top-down (and top-down imposition sounds like -- dare I say -- creationism).Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-33562912433918337692010-09-05T06:37:12.355+01:002010-09-05T06:37:12.355+01:00coffeeandsci,
Please note I set out down the path...coffeeandsci,<br /><br />Please note I set out down the path of vertebrates, not invertebrates. Hives are found in social insects, not social mammals. The fact that worker ants and bees are nonreproductive may have something to do with the presence of hard altruism among them. Who cares if you lose someone who cannot reproduce? That is the logic behind hard altruism among social insects. But this is not the case among social mammals. You don't see members of a particular social mammal engaging in slavery of others of its species. Humans were the only ones -- and they became squeemish of it when they came to see those they enslaved as fellow human beings (i.e., became less tribalistic). <br /><br />I do find it telling that you find persuasive arugments for slavery from biology.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-74931624123540432232010-09-05T06:30:57.213+01:002010-09-05T06:30:57.213+01:00I stand corrected. I had read Myers' article, ...I stand corrected. I had read Myers' article, and even commented on it on my own blog:<br /><br />http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2010/07/darwinian-classical-liberalism-at-cato.html<br /><br />I made the mistake of letting Larry act as my memory of his response. Perhaps because the work was less coherent than Larry's criticism implied. Which is really no excuse for my not double checking.<br /><br />Nevertheless, some who have continued to criticize Larry seem to have ignored his correction -- or his followup question. It is easy to criticize -- let's try som real thinking, now.<br /><br />Myers' criticism is essentially this: lots of ideologies have tried to use evolution, and this is just another ideology trying to do just that. He makes no attempt to actually address the issues, to consider the arguments. As I say in my posting, Myers' essay read as thoough he hadn't read Larry's essay at all. <br /><br />The fact of the matter is that if humans are a species which evolved, and if humans have behavioral instincts which evolved, then evolution has everything to do with morality and social organization. Thus, evolution has something to say about why certain political systems will work better than others. We can imagine far more kinds of systems than real peoplea can actually live well in. If human minds aren't blank slates on which anything -- including acceptance of tyranny -- can be written, which is to say, if there is such a thing as a human nature, then that nature is an evolved nature. We have a basic evolved nature out of which various social systems evolved. But some of these systems are more conducive to human excellence and material improvement than others. Social systems too evolve and undergo selection. When natural, they evolve in a bottom-up fashion; top-down impositions work far less well. <br /><br />Myers addresses none of these things. He dismisses without argument, simply pointing out that various people of various ideologies have tried to fit their ideologies into evolutionary theory. So what? That doesn't address either their arguments or Larry's. And neither has anyone here.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-13781770504238499332010-09-05T01:53:05.162+01:002010-09-05T01:53:05.162+01:00"I'll have to apologize for hastily takin...<i>"I'll have to apologize for hastily taking a quotation out of context."</i><br /><br />After quote-mining Professor Myers' words to claim that he said exactly the opposite of what he actually said, this is the best you can do?<br /><br />If you want to claim that you actually understood what PZ was saying, publicly proving that you either didn't understand it or are deliberately dishonest in your claims is -probably- not the best way of doing it. And <b>that</b> was all the apology you could come up with when your glaring error(s) were revealed?<br /><br />See, I've been reading PZ's writings for some years now, and from what I've seen, he says exactly what he feels. If someone misunderstands him and actually <i>asks</i> for clarification, he'll patiently explain until they understand. I've never seen him deliberately misquote someone to make a point, and on the few occasions where he -has- made some sort of mistake of any kind, he's quite willing to own up to them take full responsibility for his errors.<br /><br />So far, I've never seen someone catch <b>him</b> turning someone's words 180 degrees 'round by selective quotemines, 'hasty' or otherwise. <br /><br />YOU on the other hand, have now been caught in at least one obvious falsehood, and your not-pology leads me to believe that it was intentional. Why should I listen to anything more that you have to say when you've just demonstrated publicly that you'll lie to make a point?<br />(And come on, do you <i>really</i> expect us to believe that you misquoted his statement by 180 degrees because you were HASTY?) - What exactly were you hasty about, anyway? Did you neglect to actually read the whole statement, or were you just <i>hasty</i> in your choice to quote-mine, not realizing that other people <b>would</b> catch you at it?<br /><br />So, after you are caught making claims that were not just false but apparently maliciously so, what is your response? <br /><i>Whoops, I was being hasty - Now, let me make more claims about his beliefs, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.</i><br /><br />You sir, are no honest researcher. Nor an honest journalist, blogger, or whatever else you're claiming to be, either. <br /><br />Fortunately, you've told me all I need to know about YOUR morals in this exchange. Are the rest of the Libertarians as dishonestly self-serving as you are? Perhaps that's why the movement isn't catching on as you think it ought to, hmmm? <br /><br />Why don't you go think about THAT for awhile instead of publishing lies about other people? I certainly won't be reading anything more from you, your own actions have destroyed any respect or trust I might have had.<br /><br />My thanks at least for putting it up in public where I and others can see it and judge for ourselves how much credence to give to your words.<br /><br />ErmineErminenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-14798650528733500242010-09-05T01:22:19.378+01:002010-09-05T01:22:19.378+01:00The whole problem with this kind of debate is the ...The whole problem with this kind of debate is the numerous meanings of "morality". The two most relevant ones are:<br /><br />1. The general sense of "right" and "wrong" which is "intuitive" for the majority of individuals. The <b>psychology</b> of human notions of moral behavior.<br /><br />2. The "real" principles of what human beings ought to do under various circumstances. The <b>rightness and wrongness</b> of actions.<br /><br />PZ and many other biologists feel that the fact of evolution ultimately accounts for #1 just like it accounts for the rest of human nature. That's distinct from #2, which many feel that evolution is only related to (for example, it can inform medical decisions), not responsible for.<br /><br />(Most biologists in our world probably agree that, for example rape would still <i>be</i> wrong even if it was evolution's main means of reproduction, and thus encoded as a "good thing" in the human ethical palate. And many would say that our "instinctive" morality in <i>this</i> world is just a crude approximation of the real thing; that it's too influenced by disgust, fear, kin-favoritism, xenophobia, and other irrationality, and must be "augmented" by a sort of intellectual empathy.)<br /><br />All that said, after a third reading, I think I'm coming to gather your argument better. What you are saying is that the process of evolution has lead to the development of a species that doesn't take collectivism very well, even if individuals have tired to institute collectivism again and again. Next, <i>because</i> collectivism produces suffering, it is morally wrong.<br /><br />But all that stuff, while absolutely reasonable, is just <i>one possible branch</i> off the initial premise of "evolution fully shaped the human brain/mind." Ergo, to argue that disagreement with your conclusion implies disagreement with that premise is incorrect. <br /><br />A person could just as easily say "If you believe that evolution influenced human morality (by definition #1), then you must agree that it made us social creatures with a greater emphasis on groups than individuals, therefore, my brand of socialism is the ethically superior option." And the same for just about any ideology/philosophy.<br /><br />Evolutionary psychology is not nearly developed enough to bestow some sort of approval on any political system or philosophy, not even to disapprove of dictatorships. (Assuming any science is actually capable of addressing moral questions.) I mean, do you really believe that if humans were the result of divine creation, communism would be A-OK? My view is that our origins should make no difference in the question.Lenoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809085020841868387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-3033549250201373552010-09-04T19:00:33.129+01:002010-09-04T19:00:33.129+01:00Like the Bush regime?Like the Bush regime?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-54628857476602889402010-09-04T18:38:15.251+01:002010-09-04T18:38:15.251+01:00Consider the remarkable contrast between the Marxi...Consider the remarkable contrast between the Marxist dictatorship in North Korea and the more liberal order in South Korea. The first produces human suffering. The second produces human flourishing. Why?<br /><br />My answer is that this is a predictable contrast between a regime that denies the reality of evolved human nature and a regime that accepts it.<br /><br />In fact, there are reports that the Chinese Communist leaders are advising the North Korean leaders that they are making the same mistakes that were made by the Maoist Marxists in trying to transform human beings into "the New Communist Man."<br /><br />My Darwinian prediction is that regimes that approximate North Korea will always produce similar suffering, because they go against the grain of evolved human nature.<br /><br />Does Myers disagree?Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-32500042438649982632010-09-04T18:16:46.188+01:002010-09-04T18:16:46.188+01:00Lenoxus,
General relativity and the germ theory o...Lenoxus,<br /><br />General relativity and the germ theory of disease make no claims about human morality and politics. But Darwin's theory of human evolution includes a theory of human moral evolution--of the "moral sense" as rooted in evolved in human nature.<br /><br />Does Myers agree with Darwin's evolutionary theory of morality? Or does Myers think that morality transcends human evolutionary nature?<br /><br />If Myers thinks morality transcends evolutionary nature, then he is to that extent very close to the creationists.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-58427670131500137312010-09-04T18:10:23.901+01:002010-09-04T18:10:23.901+01:00dvizard,
My argument is that by cultural trial an...dvizard,<br /><br />My argument is that by cultural trial and error, we can discover that a liberal social order conforms well to our evolved human nature because it maximizes our liberty to pursue the satisfaction of our natural desires.<br /><br />By contrast, we can discover that illiberal social orders frustrate our natural desires in ways that impose great human costs. This history of socialist attempts to change human nature illustrates this.<br /><br />Even Peter Singer--in arguing for a "Darwinian left"--admits that to accept the reality of a Darwinian human nature, leftiss would have to accept a "sharply deflated vision of the left" that would give up on utopian socialism.<br /><br />Does Myers agree with this conclusion? Or does he believe that human nature is so free from the constraints of evolutionary history that it is really just a "blank slate"?Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.com