Posted on 07/12/2021 7:54:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
(notwithstanding the bastardization of the definition of "species" in the recent past)
RE: I would have said “all men are unique and we should appreciate our differences” or in other words “vive la difference!”
Again, you use the word “should” ( a prescriptive word ) as if we are obligated by some moral rule somewhere to observe this rule. How is this rule applicable if we accept the notion that we are all products of random mutation?
+1
A great response to Vaduz’s question.
Darwinism theories and social Darwinism by others but not Darwin....
Good point.
I have seen quotes such as ““One thing I have always thought that the destruction of Slavery would be well worth a dozen years war.” And Some few, & I am one, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. — Great God how I should like to see that greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished.”
— Charles Darwin, 5 June 1861, to Asa Gray
There is a balanced and well written article on the two sides, ending with agreement with your point of view.
https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/charles-darwin-on-racism-slavery-and-eugenics-cb6416b8277c
RE Lee was descended from Light-Horse Harry Lee, who President Washington appointed to lead the US Army against western Pennsylvanians in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion.
Light-Horse Harry had no problem suppressing rebellion in Pennsylvania and it was hoped his son would feel the same about rebellion closer to home.
Alas, enthusiasm for suppressing rebellion was not inherited from father to son, a defect in genetic transmission which cost the United States dearly.
“So is racism wrong? Should we work to help those struggling in poverty? Do we respect all people and affirm their innate moral worth?
Absolutely. But why?”
Whether racism is wrong depends on how you define it, and anytime there is talk of racism the definition is always left out.
If racism is hatred or bad impression of every individual of a particular race, then that’s bad.
If by racism one means that on average there are difference between races with each having certain strengths and weaknesses, then that’s simple reality, just as there are differences between dog breeds. A better name for it would be “race realism” and I’m sure that over 90% of the people are race realists. Down deep they know that there are difference between races.
DNA statistics on shared DNA....
Interesting.
Well, someone could have shared an elevator once with Jerry Nadler and Maxine Waters but it didn’t make them a relation——thank goodness. A really hot shower later helped.
RE: If racism is hatred or bad impression of every individual of a particular race, then that’s bad.
Based on whose definition?
Again, I am working on the premise that we are NOT created by God but are products of random mutation.
If that premise is true, why is anything “good” or “bad”? Everything just “IS” and what’s good or bad is simply a natural preference.
Good post.
Thanks.
Two groups of the same species are physically separated and forced to adapt to different conditions.
Some just die off only the strongest and the fittest are the only ones the evolve.
“And what if a powerful person like a terrorist tells us that HIS ethics and HIS morality bring long term happiness? How is he wrong if we are mere products of the random collision of atoms?”
It’s “wrong” ie, bad for him, because his happiness will most likely be short lived as the people he’s terrorizing will hunt him down like a dog. It’s why tyrants don’t last long.
“And oh, while we’re at it - why is long term happiness a “good” to achieve over nihilism?”
It’s a personal choice. You want to off yourself because you think life is just a tragedy, go for it. Some do.
What is good or bad, right or wrong is a personal decision informed and enforced by the consequences of you choices. Choose wisely.
As for whether we’re just a random collection of atoms, for me that’s a strawman.
I certainly don’t believe that’s the case. We are very purposeful collections of atoms. To the extent that there’s some truth to evolution, it is the result of the “will to survive”. All living things are endowed with that will, from the tiniest cell to the individual to the specie. (survival of the fittest)
Evolution can only occur following this will to survive. In other words the will to survive has to precede evolution. Thus the will to survive cannot be the result of evolution.
Where this will to survive comes from is the 64k question. A supernatural designer is certainly a possibility.
That mankind was created in the likeness of God does not come from Christianity initially but from Judaism: Genesis 1.26-27.
>>But I challenge the man to step forward who believes that General Robert E. Lee is descended from a ape.<<
I challenge the man who says airplanes are not carried on the wings of angels.
Hey this is fun! Anyone can play!
I don’t think it is. Bad manners perhaps even rude but not racism. The only thing I see as being racism is the absolute dislike or treatment of someone only based on what they look like. But even that is somewhat vague because you can’t discount a persons experiences.
If man decended from apes, why did Rosanne get in trouble about what she said about Valerie Jarrett? Sounds to me like a compliment.
RE: It’s a personal choice. You want to off yourself because you think life is just a tragedy, go for it. Some do.
What is good or bad, right or wrong is a personal decision informed and enforced by the consequences of you choices. Choose wisely.
If I understand you correctly, good or bad are simply PERSONAL CHOICES, There is no overriding universal objective rule that tells us that Hitler is worse than Mother Theresa.
Now, if Hitler had won the war, his choice would have been called wise based on HIS PREFERENCE or PERSONAL CHOICE, not because his beliefs are inherently evil.
So in a more local sense, cheating in an election is not objectively, morally wrong as long as you win the election.
The winner in this sense has chosen wisely based on the result. Cheating in and of itself is not objectively wrong, it’s simply a preference. Wise or Foolish depends on one’s own definition of what’s wise or foolish.
There is no ultimate, omniscient moral judge who tells you that cheating in and of itself is wise or foolish.
In other words, right or wrong, wise or foolish are simply labels we attach yo actions based on personal preference.
I never said any of what you just said.
Reminds me of a Youngbloods song: https://youtu.be/w_inXx-J3nU
RE: collection of atoms, for me that’s a strawman.I certainly don’t believe that’s the case. We are very purposeful collections of atoms.
Based on WHOSE PURPOSE?
If the collection of atoms are the result of random mutation, then purpose is simply what natural selection produced. Hitler and Mother Theresa simply are what they are, no different ultimately from what an earthquake or tsunami are.
If however, these collection of atoms were CREATED AND FORMED by a PERSON with moral attributes, as the framers posited, then we have a basis for determining what that purpose is.
RE: I never said any of what you just said.
I apologize. I pressed the wrong reply to link. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.