[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
the point is that it's been designed, it didn't come about by a natural process of evolution, but by an artificial one: culture. *1

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is culture not a function of "evolution"? Why (referring to your note thingamajig) do you believe the actions that contribute to "culture" are not "included in our genes." If I grill a steak, bake an apple pie, and wave an American flag, what exactly is driving my action? Why is the desire to pass down knowledge to future generations not "included in our genes"? What exactly are you saying? Do aliens sometimes make decisions for me that I'm not aware of?

In any event, this semantical tangent is sort of irrelevant to the point. Whether you want to call it natural selection or social selection (and I already said it's both) or whatever, my point (stemming back to your first reply in this thread) is that regardless of how we arrive at "morals," we arrive there because the morals have a logically defensible foundation.

It isn't bad to steal because "it just is" or because some dude wrote that it was on a stone. I could logically explain why the action of stealing is detrimental. So, getting back to your original disagreement, I think it's pretty clear that one can examine a person's logical applications of various situations as insight into their moral conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you meant here, but if I got it right, you didn't get me right when I used the term "anybody" to refer only to the hosts, and not to the parasites/viruses/memes themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get why you'd look at it that way. Why is a virus concerned with doing things that its host interprets as "good" if it can survive anyways? All it is concerned is doing what's good *for it*, i.e. surviving.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize we were at the evolutionary finish line. What makes you think the burdens you observe won't die out eventually?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please, you're walking right into my trap! Please don't make it that easy...

Are you aware that the same applies to your particular moral/ethical code? It too could be a burden that would eventually die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *could*, but the whole point is that we apply reason to determine which values/beliefs are most worthy of defending. If it did turn out that my "ethical code" was in fact a burden, then nature would correct the mistake, and it wouldn't be contradictory to what I'm saying here in the least. All it would mean is I (being a human, and not an omniscient force) made a mistake. I don't see why this is a problem, or what point you think you're making.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do we do this? Do we close our eyes and make a wish? Or do we merely live and make decisions according to what seems most pleasing?

[/ QUOTE ]

By thinking about what we want for ourselves and others, and communicating it to others, hearing them out, form new conclusions, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, by logically examining which values are best? Are you willing to concede the point that morals do not exist without underlying logical justification?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equilibrium ensues. If that person can't get it, why should he have it? That seems chaotic to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didn't understand what you meant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if people are selfish if people desire to be selfish. If the action is a problem, nature will correct it. Why do you think it's a problem if people behave differently?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that bias is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Hellooo? That is what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm... liiike, no you dinnnnnnn't, sistah.

If you agree that bias explains why people hold slightly different ethical codes, then you must agree there is some ethical core that, in the absence of bias, all humans would share. And the differences between our ethical sets are based on our differing experiences and logical applications. So, you are basically agreeing with me that you can examine a person's logical application of various situations to get some insight into his ethical set.


EDIT: This post is so long that you MUST be a pro by now.