0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In an extreme case where everyone is somehow convinced that humans are cancer to the earth and the best case is when the planet is free from humans. They are all willing to die together with their loved ones. What do our fundamental moral principles say about this situations?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 22:01:28In an extreme case where everyone is somehow convinced that humans are cancer to the earth and the best case is when the planet is free from humans. They are all willing to die together with their loved ones. What do our fundamental moral principles say about this situations? Such suicide is weird but has no moral consequence if it doesn't inconvenience others. The only objection to such cults is if they kill people unable to give informed consent - i.e. children.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 21:53:22The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.The most fundamental requirement is sufficient sefishness to survive. Then natural selection requires conscious or unconscious competitiveness, whether to outgrow the adjacent tree or fight for mating rights. Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.
The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.
Quote from: charles1948 on 09/12/2020 01:13:00Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2020 21:50:01Quote from: charles1948 on 08/12/2020 18:43:37However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?Pardon?Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is meaningless?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2020 21:50:01Quote from: charles1948 on 08/12/2020 18:43:37However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?Pardon?
Quote from: charles1948 on 08/12/2020 18:43:37However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?
However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?
How do you define children?
Quote from: alancalverd on 09/12/2020 23:56:31Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 21:53:22The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.The most fundamental requirement is sufficient sefishness to survive. Then natural selection requires conscious or unconscious competitiveness, whether to outgrow the adjacent tree or fight for mating rights. Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively. Self awareness came later in the process.
For any true statement, there are infinitely many alternatives that are false.Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost. Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 23:48:22Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:Choosing robust media. Creating multilayer protection. Creating backups. Create diversity to avoid common mode failures. The existence of a thinker is subject to natural selection. Thinkers who has backups tend to be better at survival than those who don't. Thinkers who reproduce backups to replace the destroyed copies tend to survive better, otherwise, all of the copies will eventually break down. Thinkers who actively protect their copies tend to survive better than those who don't.Thinkers who produce better version of themselves at survival tend to survive better than who don't.
Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:Choosing robust media. Creating multilayer protection. Creating backups. Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
Evolution process can be viewed as trial and error to achieve balance
Only by those who think there is an objective and evolution is purposive towards that objective. There is no evidence for this.
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/01/2019 08:34:30Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2019 04:30:00As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.Far from it. If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans. So you think fewer human is better. How low can you go? Is zero the best? What do you propose to get there? Do you agree with the genius who makes all people to stop reproducing as I mentioned in a previous post in this topic?How do you define what's better or worst morally then?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2019 04:30:00As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.Far from it. If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.
As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.
Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right, or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most. Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral. By understanding more about our moral roots, his hope is that we can learn to be civil and open-minded.
Species is just a convenient way for classifying living organisms, especially when they reproduce sexually. Phenomena like ring species blurred its definition and usefulness. AFAIK, there is no consensus on how much difference is the threshold to classify two organisms as separate species. Even some humans carry different percentages of Neanderthals' genetic codes.
An example of the willingness to sacrifice is shown in this video, starting at 2:30
Even so, we can distinguish between worker, soldier, drone and queen bees and ants, and as they all have the same parents they obviously belong to the same species however you define it. But I don't think you can find such morphological specialisation in a slime mold, even though the cells all have different parents.
A willingness to sacrifice others. Nothing new there - it's the essence of politics, religion and economics. But would he add himself or his wife to the pile of corpses and the legion of permanently disabled ? I suspect a fail on both counts.
Which species does a liger or a tion belong to?
It is generally accepted that hominids with merged second chromosome are descendants of apes with separated chromosomes. Do they belong to the same species?
I agree that most of us don't want to be sacrificed.