MrStakhanovite wrote:Let me break the problem down to you Socrates. Here is how you set up your idea that something X is moral:
X has survival value if and only if X is moral
Look at what you said in the OP, which said the same thing:
mfbukowski wrote:This life is simply the best that humans can have. That is why living morally "works" and is "true". It defines itself that way. It is considered "moral" and "civilized" because it is the best lifestyle humans have
These become what we can call "moral absolutes" because they absolutely always work for the survival of the species.
Which can be read as:
X is a moral absolute if and only if it works for the survival of the species.
Both are bi-conditionals (Do you recall this term from you rigorous graduate philosophy training?). All anyone has to do is come up with a counter example which shows one side of the bi-conditional to be false. Eugenics does that.
Eugenics works for the survival of a species, this is beyond dispute, because farmers, horticulturalists, live stock breeders, race horse breeders, and dog breeders all utilize eugenics to great effect. The fact that eugenics is a great tool the maintain the health of a gene pool is beyond dispute.
Eugenics when applied to humans is considered immoral not because it some how hurts our species survivability, because it offends out notions of autonomy. This is why it’s okay to sterilize a dog or horse with a defect, but not an infant with Down Syndrome.
Our choice not to practice eugenics on humans has an overall negative effect on our population’s health, but we deal with this because autonomy is more important to us. You haven’t dealt with the counter-example, because you don’t know how to do basic philosophy, so instead, you carry on for pages about how you are just simply misunderstood and blame other people.
This is how cranks operate. Mormon apologists have turned this into an art form.
Now unless you can put together a post that some actually deals with this counter example in a way that isn’t over-the-top stupid, you're not helping your case here.
I really don't know if I will bother with a detailed reply to this pile.
First of all, your interpretation of my statements are total distortions, I didn't say anything "in the OP"- you quoted me out of context from a different board.
I was speaking of moral behavior being civilized behavior, which provides humanity a superior, peaceful environment for reproduction, indisputably allowing for those to survive who would not under the "law of the jungle", and you turn it into a bi-conditional falsifiable by eugenics.
You even say "Which CAN be read as:" clearly implying that it CAN be read other ways as well.
But I already of course specified that eugenics was immoral.
In that original post from the other board, I was clearly NOT talking about eugenics and that is clear from virtually every post I have made and all the others here who have willingly acknowledged that I was not talking about eugenics.
And the you have the nerve to say:
"Our choice not to practice eugenics on humans has an overall negative effect on our population’s health, but we deal with this because autonomy is more important to us. You haven’t dealt with the counter-example, because you don’t know how to do basic philosophy, so instead, you carry on for pages about how you are just simply misunderstood and blame other people. "
...when I already in a previous post spoke of human rights including reproductive rights, which is clearly the reproductive "autonomy" you falsely stated that I did not mention.
Everything you write on this board is insulting, belittling, and intended to inflate your own ego, which must be horrendously in need of strokes.
I've had about enough. I think there are a few here who clearly understand me and understand how distorted your criticisms really are, because they have said as much.
That's good enough for me.
