Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:25:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote:
> In response to "Dave Low" <stinglessbee@hotSPAMFREEmail.com> in message
> news:G5xHH6.6GH@lugnet.com...
>
> > Steve, sorry to interrupt again, but there's a basic
> > assumption of your argument that I totally disagree
> > with. I think your subsequent conclusions
> > are fascinating, but I'm not sure how stable their
> > foundation is.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I'm not sure about (1) [an archetypical human nature],
> > and I think there are strong arguments against some
> > of its implications, but I'd really like to focus on (2)
> > [the procreative teleology of sex].
>
> Dave,
>
> Your participation is no interruption at all; it's a welcome addition to the
> discussion.
>
> I understand your objection and would say that if we don't agree on (1) from
> the beginning (which is where all threads seem to be heading thus far,
> anyway), it's going to be awfully hard to secure (2) in a reasonable
> fashion. I don't pretend to be able to sustain it, in that case. So to
> date, I've been arguing on two fronts for (1) in this fashion: First, I
> don't think that an objective morality can be sustained without (1) - the
> folks here seem to have some understanding of such a morality, even if they
> lack an explanation for it, so that may be a fruitful discussion. Second, I
> gave a couple brief examples of what I would consider evidence of a
> purposeful human nature: I argued that we intuitively recognize a purpose to
> the human mind, and I attempted to present what I think are counterintuitive
> cases in our reactions to manipulating the biology of human beings. Some
> may find these more or less intuitive than others, but I thought they were
> somewhat compelling.
>
> You went on to say:
>
> > As far as I know, teleology and biology have had
> > nothing to do with one another since Darwin. We
> > can attribute functions to biological structures
> > and behaviours, but that does not mean that a
> > characteristic has primarily evolved to fulfil that
> > function, and neither does it mean that a
> > characteristic can no longer fulfil any other
> > (potentially novel) function.
>
> A few things come to mind here, but let me just mention just one: I
> responded to another post by noting that in my view the soul informs and
> sets parameters to the biology of the individual far more than changes in
> one's DNA (neo-Darwinism's medium for change). (DNA, in my view, may be
> more like bricks and mortar - or a recipe for such - than an architects
> drawing.) This would guarantee the preservation of that archetypical human
> nature, which wouldn't be subject to mutation and natural selection. What
> do you do with the soul? What role does it play in your view?
This is all assuming you BELIEVE in "the soul".
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A438E9B.2D4C9A...ape.com... (...) in (...) human (...) What (...) Apparently you don't, Tom? Am I understanding you correctly, or are you just making an observation? Steve (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Dave Low" <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> in message news:G5xHH6.6GH@lugnet.com... (...) Dave, Your participation is no interruption at all; it's a welcome addition to the discussion. I understand your objection and would say that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
