PDA

View Full Version : Law of the Claw


angelsaramark
11th September 2008, 02:10 PM
I've been reading some posts and it seems that some JREF members have a religion-influenced code of ethics. If we use simple logic / natural law as our guide, those less fortunate than the status quo should simply die out as a result of their own shortcomings, which in turn strengthens the remaining gene pool. Right?

Government instituted social programs are like ticks on a dog. If you choose a reasonable blood letting, that's one thing, but being forcibly loaded up with parasites is quite another. Runts don't command food / shelter in nature.

If we are no longer a religious nation, then why are non-productive people given a higher status than producers? Surely, we'll cease to exist with such a system. Any thoughts?

Drudgewire
11th September 2008, 02:31 PM
I think it's great, as it keeps their population from waning while at the same time allowing us to enjoy their delicious goodn...

...wait, this isn't about only being able to remove the big claw from stone crabs in Florida before throwing them back?

Never mind. :o

Madalch
11th September 2008, 02:32 PM
Any thoughts?

Yes- you're a troll.

OneDollarWilliam
11th September 2008, 02:46 PM
I think "natural law" is a bit of a misnomer in this case. Compassion is a trait that developed to preserve the tribe, and therefore our genes. Also, when trying to apply this logic how do we decide what qualifies as a shortcoming? I am pretty bright, or so I have been told, but I am also morbidly obese. Does my shortcoming of being really fat mean that money shouldn't be invested in research to prevent me from having a heart attack, or help me survive when I do?

It's also interesting that you use the "runt" analogy. What age is it appropriate to decide that a person won't make anything of themselves, and therefore should be left to die out?

The idea that it is religion that formed the core of human compassion, and that we should abandon compassion if we abandon religion seems awfully similar to the argument that we (Atheists, including myself) have no morals because they are not dictated by a god. Ethical conduct has been dictated through the process of social evolution, and is not dependent on the dictates of a church.

Lastly, I'd like to see some evidence that "non-productive people given a higher status than producers" it seems like when you look at the numbers the amount of money the government spends on large corporations (say defense contractors) is quite high.

IMST
11th September 2008, 02:47 PM
I've been reading some posts and it seems that some JREF members have a religion-influenced code of ethics. If we use simple logic / natural law as our guide, those less fortunate than the status quo should simply die out as a result of their own shortcomings, which in turn strengthens the remaining gene pool. Right?
Wrong.

Government instituted social programs are like ticks on a dog. If you choose a reasonable blood letting, that's one thing, but being forcibly loaded up with parasites is quite another. Runts don't command food / shelter in nature.
wrong.

If we are no longer a religious nation, then why are non-productive people given a higher status than producers? Surely, we'll cease to exist with such a system. Any thoughts?
religion and ethics are not synonyms. I assume you know this and are deliberately trolling. If not, you have a lot to learn.

paximperium
11th September 2008, 02:49 PM
What a nice big straw man you have there. Don't feed the troll.

OneDollarWilliam
11th September 2008, 02:57 PM
Sorry, I know I shouldn't, but I have trouble resisting poor arguments. I will pack up my picnic basket, and head elsewhere. :)

Drudgewire
11th September 2008, 03:08 PM
Sorry, I know I shouldn't, but I have trouble resisting poor arguments. I will pack up my picnic basket, and head elsewhere. :)


It's what skeptics' forums are for. Have a ball. :)

Soapy Sam
11th September 2008, 03:50 PM
I think anyone who lets socio-Darwinism dictate his morality is in deep trouble.

Gagglegnash
11th September 2008, 04:23 PM
Hi

I've been reading some posts and it seems that some JREF members have a religion-influenced code of ethics. If we use simple logic / natural law as our guide, those less fortunate than the status quo should simply die out as a result of their own shortcomings, which in turn strengthens the remaining gene pool. Right?

Government instituted social programs are like ticks on a dog. If you choose a reasonable blood letting, that's one thing, but being forcibly loaded up with parasites is quite another. Runts don't command food / shelter in nature.

If we are no longer a religious nation, then why are non-productive people given a higher status than producers? Surely, we'll cease to exist with such a system. Any thoughts?


Doesn't it depend on what, "fittest," means, and who's doing the defining?

Maybe the reason the Spartans never turned out someone like Socrates is that they left all the scrawny little geniuses out for the wolves.

How long would Steven Hawking last in the world you propose? If, on the other hand, the idea of, "fittest," depends on a thorough, intuitive knowledge of quantum physics, would you or I pass the muster?

Nice wolf... good wolf... I really don't taste all that good....

ANYHOW...

if you don't give people a chance to achieve something new because of some old definition of what they can or cannot do, you limit the ability of the gene-pool to get into and fill those odd little nooks and crannies that an industrial, educated society tends to generate.

So, no. You're wrong.

If we get back to the point where it's, "ug. Me hungry. Go beat buffalo ta deaths wit' bare handzez," again, then things may have to be reevaluated in light of the exigencies of that kind of existence, but as long as The Smartest Person in the World is in a wheelchair and needs help eating, hands of the gene pool.

mumchup
11th September 2008, 04:37 PM
Lemme take a shot at this "law of the claw" philosophicating. I only have one margarita in me so I should be in just the right mind.

So. What survival advantage do humans gain from compassion and care for the less fit members of the group? There must be something to it because it's such an important part of our social urges that we have incorporated it into all of our religions as we created them.
Although in practice the religious requirements for helping the less fortunate tend to lean heavily toward giving a little something extra for the serfs/servants/slaves than to the mentally and physically disabled.
So I guess the answer could be that the advantage is that it keeps the servants and slaves a little happier and healthier. So they can do all the less pleasant work while the rest of us make ourselves feel like they owe us something for helping us out.

Or the entire premise of this thread, that having a code of ethics is necessarily religious, could be incredibly wrong. I think I'll need another margarita to get my brain mushy enough to answer that.

Dancing David
12th September 2008, 05:32 AM
I've been reading some posts and it seems that some JREF members have a religion-influenced code of ethics. If we use simple logic / natural law as our guide, those less fortunate than the status quo should simply die out as a result of their own shortcomings, which in turn strengthens the remaining gene pool. Right?

First prove a concept like 'natural law' exists and is not just some social constrcu of bad social darwinism.

Government instituted social programs are like ticks on a dog. If you choose a reasonable blood letting, that's one thing, but being forcibly loaded up with parasites is quite another. Runts don't command food / shelter in nature.

Oh that's right those who have power and prestige deserve to get better because they had grandparents who were robbers and crooks?

The parasites are those who use the prestige of their familes and inside deals to get benefits the rest of us can't.

Your obvious bias is showing.

in game theory, there is a huge problem with the hierachy of plutocracy, it is great while you are a plutocrat, but if you fall, well then you are condemned.


If we are no longer a religious nation, then why are non-productive people given a higher status than producers? Surely, we'll cease to exist with such a system. Any thoughts?How many silly notions can you put in one post.

Try to explain all the silly things you have said.

Remember to do more than parrot what others have told you, try to find some facts and figures.
Like what proportion of taxes are actualy paid by companies in the top 10%. Not the rate that they are allegedly supposed to pay, but the amount that they do pay.
Why do the best watched TV shows claim that they aren't making a profit?
Does it really make sense to give companies an incentive to buy failing companies as a tax write off?

What is the ratio of parasites?
How are they destroying our economy?

Remember the growth in Medicaid spending?
What proportion of those are your grandparents in a nursing home?

How much of the national debt is money the government stole from social security and just spent?

Delvo
12th September 2008, 06:06 AM
Classic creationist lie: that someone who says how it IS is asserting his/her view of how it SHOULD BE.

Angelsaramark, if you aren't a creationist liar, you've been misled by them about this. Ethics, laws, and such are about what SHOULD BE. Evolution is a matter of what IS.