- Posts: 3204
- Thank you received: 2282
Dewey_vs_Truman wrote: Isamorph
But Nietzsche liked Darwin's facts. I think Nietzsche might find me amusing if I said that was only his interpretation.
Am I correct that the cornerstone of the “Theory of Evolution” and “Survival of the Fittest”……..is “Species Mutation?”
If I'm correct, wouldn't "species mutation" as the engine of evolution be an "interpretation" ?
Oldbooks1 wrote: I have had the opportunity to read some of the works of the writers you mention and within the confines of the frameworks, they construct the argumentation is both compelling and emotionally powerful. The same could be said for the notion of 'fair price" expounded by Aquinas (and interestingly resurrected in a modern form from time to time on the other forum). Similarly, Hegel's Theory of Triads makes sense on his terms.
The problem is these are statements of principle and none of these thinkers or anyone else for that matter has found a way to develop an operational model that would apply unambiguously in the real world.
I do not think there is an absolute morality that serves as a basis for action. For instance, it is generally considered "moral" to take human life under specific conditions specifically, self-defense, in a "just war", and the execution of a criminal. Societies codify this behavior but problems arise in practice. For instance is it truly self-defense if one party is armed and the other is not? Is it possible that two opposing armies could both be fighting "a just war?" Is the death penalty moral if data show it is applied in different ways depending on where an accused might be tried and the standards that apply in that jurisdiction?
Take an equally serious moral issue, the intergenerational differences in health care in the US. A wholly disproportionate amount of resources are devoted to providing medical care to elderly patients during the last months of life. None of the treatments can do anything other than briefly extend life. Palliative care would be dramatically less costly and in many cases would involve less suffering than the alternative. However, that group of voters is particularly vocal and no politician would propose these resources be used instead to provide medical care for a different cohort where indeed clinical outcomes could be positive.
Machiavelli may not have been an original thinker but he certainly understood how humans behave as opposed to how they might behave were their actions governed by a moral code. That is why he argued it is better for the prince to be feared than loved.
Even if an operational moral code could be elaborated, it is unlikely that human nature would change as a result. It is not the lack of such a code that is the problem, rather it is human nature itself.
ETA: SCOTUS just commented on how a given group's views (a jury) can impact morality in the way society treats an individual.
Oldbooks1 wrote: "it has been 40+ years since I read the passage. I may have butchered it. "
It seems as if 40+ years is well within the range for completely accurate recall although some medical intervention may be needed to catalyze the process of retrieval.
" I could take the oldest person here, make a little hole right here on the side of the head,” Carson said, circling his left temple with a finger, “and put some depth electrodes into their hippocampus and stimulate. And they would be able to recite back to you, verbatim, a book they read 60 years ago. It’s all there. It doesn’t go away. You just have to learn how to recall it.”"
Other experts are less certain.