Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat
It is possible that such behavior is genetic, as more sympathetic societies passed on their genes because they were more successful.

There are moral and immoral genes?

I am talking about how the eugenicists think only of physical traits, trying to "improve" the race by weeding out what they think is undesirable. What they don't realize is that their very actions are undesirable according to Darwin.

Ok. The actions of eugenicists are undesirable according to Darwin. So what? The actions of eugenicists are desirable according to eugenicists. Desirability is in the eye of the beholder. Desirability does not equal morality. If you're going to insist on completely naturalistic explanations based on material causes, then material causes are all you have. “The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist."

None of Darwins's biological principles can be translated into moral imperatives. What Darwin did with his completely naturalistic presuppositions is destroy the bridge he needed to cross to reach his moral judgments.

Both Darwin and Christianity agree on the subject, in opposition to the eugenicists. No surprise since Darwin was originally Christian.

Darwin could not remain thoroughly consistent with his own naturalistic premises, so he tacitly borrowed from the Christian world view with its transcendent moral standard to arrive at his moral judgments. He just never acknowledged the debt.

Concepts of morality grew from what worked best for a society.

Is there an obligation to do "what's best for a society"?

Cordially,

43 posted on 03/01/2009 9:05:36 PM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Diamond
There are moral and immoral genes?

You're still not getting it. What we call moral is what makes a society more cohesive. We already know some base actions are in our DNA, like a baby naturally going for the nipple, so its possible that higher tendencies might be passed along.

The actions of eugenicists are undesirable according to Darwin. So what? The actions of eugenicists are desirable according to eugenicists.

But the context here is an attack on Darwin because of what the eugenicists believe. I think you've about admitted such attacks are unfair without realizing it.

Is there an obligation to do "what's best for a society"?

Does religion give such an obligation?

44 posted on 03/01/2009 10:08:50 PM PST by antiRepublicrat (Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson