Monday, February 25, 2008

An exercise.

If we assume that evolutionary processes are entirely responsible for our understanding of morality, how then are we justified in telling someone else that murder is wrong. Note, I used the word wrong. Not, undesireable, but wrong.

If I am a serial killer and rapist as a result of my genetic configuration, on what basis can I be told that I am wrong for doing what my genes command me do to?

Is it not conducive to propagation of the species? No, it's very conducive as a stronger male would be fertilizing many females with that stronger genetic code, producing more dominate males to snuff out the inferior code of those too weak to assert their authority over females.

Has society deemed it is not conducive to the propagation of the species? Yes, but on what basis? Why should that stop the serial rapist? He is only reprimanded if he gets caught. He is only wrong because his genetic code has not infiltrated the gene pool pervasively, yet. It is merely an example of the statistical majority lording their genetic predisposition on the statistical minority. That's not wrong, that's just unlucky. If he kills and rapes enough, then his genetic predisposition will be in the majority. Would it still be wrong then to rape?

That's the answer I want to know. If the majority of males were predisposed serial rapists, would it be wrong to rape?

One would argue that it would be, because it would violate the maxim that the fittest are the ones deemed to survive, and a society of rapists could not survive. Ok, let's assume that.

Why is survival desireable? Nature said so? Are we then, again, saying that an intelligent bright-line rule has developed from non-intelligence?

That's a pretty amazing, unproven, and faith-based statement.

1 comment:

Jason said...

I might be able to answer this if you can first explicate the meaning of 'wrong' as you are using it. I get it that you do NOT mean 'undesirable' but what DO you mean? 'Wrong' has so many senses and I have a feeling that if we don't get this settled from the start this could go no where fast.

Do you define a wrong act as:

- Conduct inflicting harm without due provocation?

- Conduct contrary to civil law?

- Conduct contrary to Divine Command?

- Conduct contrary to social conventions?

- Conduct contrary to Natural Rights?

- other?