Xray Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 It goes to show. As soon as you allow arguments from genetics in - you elevate picking fleas off each others' hides, and diminish humans interacting for the best within them.Then the concepts become more or less blurred.Then you get moral relativism.Then you get the end of morality.It doesn't have to be blurred - I agree with John on that. But I think one has to be very precise in one's choice of words to make unmistakeably clear what one is talking about, and be willing to explain again if it looks like misunderstandings arise. Alas, the fudgy term 'altruism' seems be very prone to cause this 'blurring' when used, which is why I'm trying to avoid it.Re biology as the basis: I have the impression that biological and philosophical argumentation often seem to antagonize each other, but this need not be the case if one looks at it analogous to a house where biogology is the fundament and philosophy the roof.Just as one cannot start building house beginning with the roof, imo the rational approach is to first consider the fundament of the 'edifice', examining man's biological nature.The fact that we have biologically evolved from more primitive animals belongs to the fundament.The Objectivist idea of "man as a heroic being" would belong to the 'roof', for it indicates a high stage that can be reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now