Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The Survival of the Fittest

treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 11:17:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Allow me to posit a situation. Let us say, there is a group of survivors stranded on some remote island with no possibility of rescue. There is perhaps enough resources for those well-equipped in survival skills to somewhat manage by themselves. However, you and the group of survivors are those that are better acquainted with the modern form of survival, namely making money, and have little survival skills outside of that "practical" norm.

The group of survivors include those that are virtually helpless and will only burden your chances of survival, such as children, infants, and the elderly. There are others that are much like yourself, largely ignorant of survival skills but equipped with enough physical and mental prowess to perhaps get by.

Where would you place the survival of the vulnerable in this situation? Would it be a priority given the uncertainty and direness of your own situation? What are you moral justifications? Would the principle of "survival of the fittest" suffice to save yourself and those that would be more "useful" to you in the given situation?
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:03:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 11:17:28 AM, treeless wrote:
Allow me to posit a situation. Let us say, there is a group of survivors stranded on some remote island with no possibility of rescue. There is perhaps enough resources for those well-equipped in survival skills to somewhat manage by themselves. However, you and the group of survivors are those that are better acquainted with the modern form of survival, namely making money, and have little survival skills outside of that "practical" norm.

The group of survivors include those that are virtually helpless and will only burden your chances of survival, such as children, infants, and the elderly. There are others that are much like yourself, largely ignorant of survival skills but equipped with enough physical and mental prowess to perhaps get by.

Where would you place the survival of the vulnerable in this situation? Would it be a priority given the uncertainty and direness of your own situation? What are you moral justifications? Would the principle of "survival of the fittest" suffice to save yourself and those that would be more "useful" to you in the given situation?

Using survival of the fittest here is a misnomer. SOTF isn't a prescriptive principle, it's a descriptive one. It doesn't justify what should do at all.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
MaxSterling
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 8:54:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 11:17:28 AM, treeless wrote:
Allow me to posit a situation. Let us say, there is a group of survivors stranded on some remote island with no possibility of rescue. There is perhaps enough resources for those well-equipped in survival skills to somewhat manage by themselves. However, you and the group of survivors are those that are better acquainted with the modern form of survival, namely making money, and have little survival skills outside of that "practical" norm.

The group of survivors include those that are virtually helpless and will only burden your chances of survival, such as children, infants, and the elderly. There are others that are much like yourself, largely ignorant of survival skills but equipped with enough physical and mental prowess to perhaps get by.

Where would you place the survival of the vulnerable in this situation? Would it be a priority given the uncertainty and direness of your own situation? What are you moral justifications? Would the principle of "survival of the fittest" suffice to save yourself and those that would be more "useful" to you in the given situation?

Assuming that by 'no chance of survival' you mean never and they just have to live there forever then I would say that the survivors abandoning the rest of the group would no be the 'fittest' as the term 'survival of the fittest' means that those who can best adapt to the environment shall survive. So if the survivors nurtured the skills of everyone else and they sought a stable food source (agriculture, animal husbandry, and if the situation was absolutely dire ritual cannibalism) and from their set up a stable environment so that the group can propagate and survive long enough to make their own way off the island if possible.

I think this is the most likely scenario for survival given what we know about pre-agricultural man and how the agricultural revolution brought us forward.
"But why do you want REVENGE?!"

"I HAVE REASONS!!!!!"
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 10:11:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 11:17:28 AM, treeless wrote:
Allow me to posit a situation. Let us say, there is a group of survivors stranded on some remote island with no possibility of rescue. There is perhaps enough resources for those well-equipped in survival skills to somewhat manage by themselves. However, you and the group of survivors are those that are better acquainted with the modern form of survival, namely making money, and have little survival skills outside of that "practical" norm.

The group of survivors include those that are virtually helpless and will only burden your chances of survival, such as children, infants, and the elderly. There are others that are much like yourself, largely ignorant of survival skills but equipped with enough physical and mental prowess to perhaps get by.

Where would you place the survival of the vulnerable in this situation? Would it be a priority given the uncertainty and direness of your own situation? What are you moral justifications? Would the principle of "survival of the fittest" suffice to save yourself and those that would be more "useful" to you in the given situation?

Did the dingos eat your baby??
777iam
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 10:15:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 11:17:28 AM, treeless wrote:
Allow me to posit a situation. Let us say, there is a group of survivors stranded on some remote island with no possibility of rescue. There is perhaps enough resources for those well-equipped in survival skills to somewhat manage by themselves. However, you and the group of survivors are those that are better acquainted with the modern form of survival, namely making money, and have little survival skills outside of that "practical" norm.

The group of survivors include those that are virtually helpless and will only burden your chances of survival, such as children, infants, and the elderly. There are others that are much like yourself, largely ignorant of survival skills but equipped with enough physical and mental prowess to perhaps get by.

Where would you place the survival of the vulnerable in this situation? Would it be a priority given the uncertainty and direness of your own situation? What are you moral justifications? Would the principle of "survival of the fittest" suffice to save yourself and those that would be more "useful" to you in the given situation? : :

It all depends on what God programmed them to do. He might have the strongest eat the weakest to keep living.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:08:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Using survival of the fittest here is a misnomer. SOTF isn't a prescriptive principle, it's a descriptive one. It doesn't justify what should do at all.

True, but then the question is what would you do? Where would you place the vulnerable people in terms of priority over yourself?
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So if the survivors nurtured the skills of everyone else and they sought a stable food source (agriculture, animal husbandry, and if the situation was absolutely dire ritual cannibalism) and from their set up a stable environment so that the group can propagate and survive long enough to make their own way off the island if possible.

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

If you were able to catch a snake to eat, would you share it with the other survivors, and even perhaps prioritize feeding the vulnerable members of the group like the babies, children, and elders, instead of yourself and those with similar reliability?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 9:17:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.

That's true, but it begs the question of whether they can support the baby in the first place. And given their survival is uncertain, how much of a priority is it to take care of the weak? What about the elderly? Would you let them die because they are not essential for propagation?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 10:17:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 9:17:57 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.

That's true, but it begs the question of whether they can support the baby in the first place. And given their survival is uncertain, how much of a priority is it to take care of the weak? What about the elderly? Would you let them die because they are not essential for propagation?

If they can't propagate, then they aren't fit for their environment.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 11:24:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 10:17:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:17:57 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.

That's true, but it begs the question of whether they can support the baby in the first place. And given their survival is uncertain, how much of a priority is it to take care of the weak? What about the elderly? Would you let them die because they are not essential for propagation?

If they can't propagate, then they aren't fit for their environment.

That is true, I suppose, if you are purely measuring their value on propagation. The question is who decides who lives and dies? Or more specifically, what is your principle of morality, when it comes to saving certain individuals over others? Do you revert to the law of the jungle, or do you die trying to uphold a more abstract moral standard like trying to feed the vulnerable at the cost of not having enough for yourself and others that are more "useful".

It seems like you are saying, let the elderly die and feed the babies and kids, so they can make more babies in the future. Then again, why not just let the babies and kids die too and have new babies with the other "useful" survivors?
MaxSterling
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 6:32:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:
So if the survivors nurtured the skills of everyone else and they sought a stable food source (agriculture, animal husbandry, and if the situation was absolutely dire ritual cannibalism) and from their set up a stable environment so that the group can propagate and survive long enough to make their own way off the island if possible.

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

If you were able to catch a snake to eat, would you share it with the other survivors, and even perhaps prioritize feeding the vulnerable members of the group like the babies, children, and elders, instead of yourself and those with similar reliability?

Given the state of the scenario, en triage isn't necessary.
"But why do you want REVENGE?!"

"I HAVE REASONS!!!!!"
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 12:18:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 11:24:52 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 10:17:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:17:57 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.

That's true, but it begs the question of whether they can support the baby in the first place. And given their survival is uncertain, how much of a priority is it to take care of the weak? What about the elderly? Would you let them die because they are not essential for propagation?

If they can't propagate, then they aren't fit for their environment.

That is true, I suppose, if you are purely measuring their value on propagation. The question is who decides who lives and dies? Or more specifically, what is your principle of morality, when it comes to saving certain individuals over others? Do you revert to the law of the jungle, or do you die trying to uphold a more abstract moral standard like trying to feed the vulnerable at the cost of not having enough for yourself and others that are more "useful".

It seems like you are saying, let the elderly die and feed the babies and kids, so they can make more babies in the future. Then again, why not just let the babies and kids die too and have new babies with the other "useful" survivors?

Put it this way: if you even have to consider such a choice, you're already_fucked.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 1:30:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.
You can't prove babies will help propagate the species...
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 2:17:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 1:30:08 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.
You can't prove babies will help propagate the species...

Um... making babies is the definition of propagation. You make them, then they grow up and make their own.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:16:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:32:32 PM, MaxSterling wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:
So if the survivors nurtured the skills of everyone else and they sought a stable food source (agriculture, animal husbandry, and if the situation was absolutely dire ritual cannibalism) and from their set up a stable environment so that the group can propagate and survive long enough to make their own way off the island if possible.

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

If you were able to catch a snake to eat, would you share it with the other survivors, and even perhaps prioritize feeding the vulnerable members of the group like the babies, children, and elders, instead of yourself and those with similar reliability?

Given the state of the scenario, en triage isn't necessary.

Nothing is necessary at all. It is a matter of, given the choices and circumstances, what will you do and why.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:18:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 12:18:34 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:24:52 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 10:17:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:17:57 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.

That's true, but it begs the question of whether they can support the baby in the first place. And given their survival is uncertain, how much of a priority is it to take care of the weak? What about the elderly? Would you let them die because they are not essential for propagation?

If they can't propagate, then they aren't fit for their environment.

That is true, I suppose, if you are purely measuring their value on propagation. The question is who decides who lives and dies? Or more specifically, what is your principle of morality, when it comes to saving certain individuals over others? Do you revert to the law of the jungle, or do you die trying to uphold a more abstract moral standard like trying to feed the vulnerable at the cost of not having enough for yourself and others that are more "useful".

It seems like you are saying, let the elderly die and feed the babies and kids, so they can make more babies in the future. Then again, why not just let the babies and kids die too and have new babies with the other "useful" survivors?

Put it this way: if you even have to consider such a choice, you're already_fucked.

You might say that the situation is "fucked", so to speak, but that does not exclude the fact that choices have to be made and considered, and if so, what choices will be made and why.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:20:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 6:18:47 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/3/2015 12:18:34 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:24:52 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 10:17:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:17:57 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:44:16 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:16:34 AM, treeless wrote:

Yes, this seems reasonable. Though one has to wonder what skills a baby could offer to the group. The common man without survival skills will have a very hard time even making fire.

Babies are essential for propagation of the group. As older members die, new ones must replace them.

That's true, but it begs the question of whether they can support the baby in the first place. And given their survival is uncertain, how much of a priority is it to take care of the weak? What about the elderly? Would you let them die because they are not essential for propagation?

If they can't propagate, then they aren't fit for their environment.

That is true, I suppose, if you are purely measuring their value on propagation. The question is who decides who lives and dies? Or more specifically, what is your principle of morality, when it comes to saving certain individuals over others? Do you revert to the law of the jungle, or do you die trying to uphold a more abstract moral standard like trying to feed the vulnerable at the cost of not having enough for yourself and others that are more "useful".

It seems like you are saying, let the elderly die and feed the babies and kids, so they can make more babies in the future. Then again, why not just let the babies and kids die too and have new babies with the other "useful" survivors?

Put it this way: if you even have to consider such a choice, you're already_fucked.

You might say that the situation is "fucked", so to speak, but that does not exclude the fact that choices have to be made and considered, and if so, what choices will be made and why.

Since you're fucked, the choice you make is irrelevant.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:28:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since you're fucked, the choice you make is irrelevant.

I'm inclined to disagree. There may be no correct choices in the given situation, but to suggest what one does is irrelevant because the situation is so dire does not make for a very convincing statement. A person with a terminal illness may be "fucked" but he may still make meaningful decisions before death. Likewise, perhaps one person may starve himself for the children and the elderly, or one might abandon the group to take care of himself. Both choices the person makes is relevant to his situation and his character.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:31:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 6:28:44 AM, treeless wrote:
Since you're fucked, the choice you make is irrelevant.

I'm inclined to disagree. There may be no correct choices in the given situation, but to suggest what one does is irrelevant because the situation is so dire does not make for a very convincing statement. A person with a terminal illness may be "fucked" but he may still make meaningful decisions before death. Likewise, perhaps one person may starve himself for the children and the elderly, or one might abandon the group to take care of himself. Both choices the person makes is relevant to his situation and his character.

Since I'm not that person, I don't care. This topic bores me, so I'm going now.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 11:05:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 6:31:31 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 6:28:44 AM, treeless wrote:
Since you're fucked, the choice you make is irrelevant.

I'm inclined to disagree. There may be no correct choices in the given situation, but to suggest what one does is irrelevant because the situation is so dire does not make for a very convincing statement. A person with a terminal illness may be "fucked" but he may still make meaningful decisions before death. Likewise, perhaps one person may starve himself for the children and the elderly, or one might abandon the group to take care of himself. Both choices the person makes is relevant to his situation and his character.

Since I'm not that person, I don't care. This topic bores me, so I'm going now.

So it would seem you only care about yourself, since you are no one but yourself.

Thanks for your input.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 10:04:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 11:17:28 AM, treeless wrote:
Allow me to posit a situation. Let us say, there is a group of survivors stranded on some remote island with no possibility of rescue. There is perhaps enough resources for those well-equipped in survival skills to somewhat manage by themselves. However, you and the group of survivors are those that are better acquainted with the modern form of survival, namely making money, and have little survival skills outside of that "practical" norm.

The group of survivors include those that are virtually helpless and will only burden your chances of survival, such as children, infants, and the elderly. There are others that are much like yourself, largely ignorant of survival skills but equipped with enough physical and mental prowess to perhaps get by.

Where would you place the survival of the vulnerable in this situation? Would it be a priority given the uncertainty and direness of your own situation? What are you moral justifications? Would the principle of "survival of the fittest" suffice to save yourself and those that would be more "useful" to you in the given situation?

The principle of "survival of the fittest" will be present either we like it or not. The harsh reality is that those skilled at survival skills, healthy bodies, etc, will probably survive more time than the weak.

This said, I would never expect human communities to take "survival of the fittest" as some sort of moral justification or value. I mean, it is a nonsensical thing to say that because you are more healthy or skilled, then you have a right to live over the weak. This is absurd, mainly because you are already enjoying the right by precisely being stronger than the weak! And because nobody knows exactly who the fittest is, this is something we know a posteriori once natural selection has already killed somebody. For example, if the weak survives you, for whatever reason, then it is clear you were the strongest, but not the fittest, which are concepts that are commonly mistaken. To go a little deeper into this, imagine that the community you mentioned were composed of kids and their mothers. Who do you think are the fittest here? Maybe the smarter, stronger mothers, are in fact not the fittest, because they direct all their efforts to ensure the survival of the kids, which automaticly makes them the fittest. Get my point?

As for what would I do if I were part of the community you mentioned, I would never leave any kid behind, and I would never leave anyone at all behind unless this person is an adult that wants to stay behind for whatever reason. If he/she wants to stay behind to not compromise the chances of the group, I would probably try to put some sense in his head to make him stay within the group, but I can't force him to do anything he doesn't want to do. As for my moral justification for doing all this, I don't know really, it would probably be about self-comfort, since I wouldn't be able to cope with the feeling that I left a child behind for whatever reason. This way of thinking is something deeply rooted in my mind and has to do with the way I was brought up, the experiences I've had, and the subconscious part of my moral values. I don't try to rationalize it, nor do I think I could.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 5:07:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 11:17:28 AM, treeless wrote:
Allow me to posit a situation. Let us say, there is a group of survivors stranded on some remote island with no possibility of rescue. There is perhaps enough resources for those well-equipped in survival skills to somewhat manage by themselves. However, you and the group of survivors are those that are better acquainted with the modern form of survival, namely making money, and have little survival skills outside of that "practical" norm.

The group of survivors include those that are virtually helpless and will only burden your chances of survival, such as children, infants, and the elderly. There are others that are much like yourself, largely ignorant of survival skills but equipped with enough physical and mental prowess to perhaps get by.

Where would you place the survival of the vulnerable in this situation? Would it be a priority given the uncertainty and direness of your own situation? What are you moral justifications? Would the principle of "survival of the fittest" suffice to save yourself and those that would be more "useful" to you in the given situation?

It never amazes me how little value is put on life, especially the lives of children. The marginalization of people to "what can they do for me". It's lead to all kinds of horrors in human history and yet.. Secular Atheist think they are the peak of human advancement. Instead of sacrificing one's self for the betterment of others, The Atheist is a coward content and happy to forcefully sacrifice another's life for their small comfort.

It is the degeneration of mankind.

Now I myself have good survival skills. And one things that is important is an optimistic view. There are only a few things think can quantitatively tell you that X amount of people for Y amount of time will survive. Oxygen and water for 2.

So there is no immediate need to abandon or kill anyone in a bid to elongate one's survival chances.

but all survival starts out the same. Shelter, water, food, then improve, improve improve.

If the situation is as dire as you make it out to be then the goal of the group would be to evacuate. If there is enough to sustain a group of survivors then there will be enough for everyone.

the problem is as soon as some dumb-arse atheist thinks a person can't help them survive they will be the first crazed ego maniac killing people. Either way the first thing I would do is kill the Atheists. They're mindset is poisonous and dangerous to the rest of the group.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 5:34:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

This said, I would never expect human communities to take "survival of the fittest" as some sort of moral justification or value. I mean, it is a nonsensical thing to say that because you are more healthy or skilled, then you have a right to live over the weak.

It is a moral justification, albeit, not a very good one. I do not see how "right" comes into play here, however. A person that leaves a group of weak survivors, because he feels he has a better chance on his own does has some justification, as he has no obligations to ensure their survival before his own.


As for what would I do if I were part of the community you mentioned, I would never leave any kid behind, and I would never leave anyone at all behind unless this person is an adult that wants to stay behind for whatever reason. If he/she wants to stay behind to not compromise the chances of the group, I would probably try to put some sense in his head to make him stay within the group, but I can't force him to do anything he doesn't want to do. As for my moral justification for doing all this, I don't know really, it would probably be about self-comfort, since I wouldn't be able to cope with the feeling that I left a child behind for whatever reason. This way of thinking is something deeply rooted in my mind and has to do with the way I was brought up, the experiences I've had, and the subconscious part of my moral values. I don't try to rationalize it, nor do I think I could.

Other animals die providing for their young. I wonder if this "moral" value is instinctual. That said, I also think someone staying behind in fear of burdening the group is also displaying a similar characteristic. For instance, if you were injured or ill and thought you would compromise the chances of the group, would you choose to go with them or stay behind?
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 5:38:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

It never amazes me how little value is put on life, especially the lives of children. The marginalization of people to "what can they do for me". It's lead to all kinds of horrors in human history and yet.. Secular Atheist think they are the peak of human advancement. Instead of sacrificing one's self for the betterment of others, The Atheist is a coward content and happy to forcefully sacrifice another's life for their small comfort.

That's a bit harsh and bias opinion of Atheists. Religion has been one of the leading causes of wars and needless violence. Despite this, I don't categorize religious people as violent or mean-spirited.


the problem is as soon as some dumb-arse atheist thinks a person can't help them survive they will be the first crazed ego maniac killing people. Either way the first thing I would do is kill the Atheists. They're mindset is poisonous and dangerous to the rest of the group.

I think otokage is an atheist based on his profile. I do not think he is the person you are making him out to be, based on his response. Why all this hatred for atheists?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 8:49:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Atheist is a coward content and happy to forcefully sacrifice another's life for their small comfort.

Well, that's the theory anyway. The problem is that the vast majority of atheists haven't read the script and are jolly nice people - I know that because I am an atheist and most of the people I know are atheist, or at least they not at all religious (I live in Britain, if it's not obvious). Put it this way, if an atheist can help you he generally will, but a religious person will only pray for you (if you promise to be grateful).

Of course some numpty always brings up Hitler or Stalin, but Hitler and Stalin are not typical atheists anymore than Mother Theresa is a typical religious type.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 4:00:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 5:34:11 AM, treeless wrote:

This said, I would never expect human communities to take "survival of the fittest" as some sort of moral justification or value. I mean, it is a nonsensical thing to say that because you are more healthy or skilled, then you have a right to live over the weak.

It is a moral justification, albeit, not a very good one. I do not see how "right" comes into play here, however. A person that leaves a group of weak survivors, because he feels he has a better chance on his own does has some justification, as he has no obligations to ensure their survival before his own.


As for what would I do if I were part of the community you mentioned, I would never leave any kid behind, and I would never leave anyone at all behind unless this person is an adult that wants to stay behind for whatever reason. If he/she wants to stay behind to not compromise the chances of the group, I would probably try to put some sense in his head to make him stay within the group, but I can't force him to do anything he doesn't want to do. As for my moral justification for doing all this, I don't know really, it would probably be about self-comfort, since I wouldn't be able to cope with the feeling that I left a child behind for whatever reason. This way of thinking is something deeply rooted in my mind and has to do with the way I was brought up, the experiences I've had, and the subconscious part of my moral values. I don't try to rationalize it, nor do I think I could.

Other animals die providing for their young. I wonder if this "moral" value is instinctual.

It's probably instinctual to a degree, in the sense that empathy is something instinctual to a degree too. We can choose to act or not act driven by our empathy, but we can not choose to be empathetic, we simply are.

I have always thought that morality is not a human construct, but a product of evolution.

That said, I also think someone staying behind in fear of burdening the group is also displaying a similar characteristic.

Fear is sometimes related to excessive prudence, which can appear as a burden, but in fact be a life-saver.

For instance, if you were injured or ill and thought you would compromise the chances of the group, would you choose to go with them or stay behind?

I would choose to go with them. I think leaving behind a sick person is both diminishing us as individuals and also not a smart choice. Sick people can still be valuable for the group as being sick is not the same as being in a coma: you can still do things, think, lead, be an emotional incentive that gives strenght to others, etc. Moreover, the group can learn valuable things by taking care of the sick (ie, how to take care of other sick people in the future, as there's a big chance than without drugs, everyone will eventualy get sick).