Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <1299@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 15:01:31 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1299 Posted: Thu Jul 18 15:01:31 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 14:33:27 EDT References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> <2127@pucc-h> <618@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 30 >> [Jeff Sargent] >> If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of >> protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there >> be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have >> plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of >> chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of >> commission? > [Mike Huybensz] > Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait. It can be a heuristic for > optimizing reproductive success. Just like intelligence. You merely remove the question one level. Why should evolutionary adaptiveness be valued? Or survival? (Again, I may agree that they *should be*, but why should I believe it, for reasons *you* can give?) > Your example resolves simply in terms of game theory: kill a relative of > somebody and you are reducing the genetic fitness of the survivor. Thus > it may pay to make standing threats against people who bump off your > relatives. Making killing someone immoral is a shorthand that is simpler > to teach than game theory. Still presupposes the value of survival. Which was the question! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |