Greetings... and a (potentially) sensitive question!

[Lunalle]

Hey Everyone!

My name is Steve. I'm not sure I'm ready to call myself a full blown atheist yet, but I'm certainly an agnostic. I really don't like the concept of religion, never mind the majority of the ones actually in practice! That said, I hope you guys don't mind me jumping in to your forums.

I've been pondering over an issue for a while now, and I was hoping to get some opinions from others who are open minded; not bound by the constraints of religion etc. In today's (at least North American) world, this can be pretty sensitive. I want to say, right off the bat, that I put a lot of effort in to being open minded, unprejudiced, and supportive to all minority groups.

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

For example, let's consider homosexuality. Is it wrong to be a homosexual who does not attempt artificial insemination, as it would result in a non-continuation of your genes? If we apply the example on a bigger scale, the problem becomes more clear. What if every person was a homosexual who did not practice artificial insemination? Would it be considered wrong to not practice artificial insemination, for the sake of the continuation of our species?

This is just one example. It's a tough and sensitive question, and I'm looking forward to some replies, (If you have a religious reply, please don't post it, I'm not interested in your religion!) Please, let's keep this one mature, and on topic. Thank you!

Cheers,
Steve

[max-greece]

Why homosexual?

There are plenty of people who are apparently not homosexual and yet do not breed. What if everyone were heterosexual and made that choice?

Who do you have in mind to be artificially inseminated? Are you saying that there is a moral obligation on a woman to accept artificial insemination from a gay man if she doesn't already have children of her own? Or, are you saying that even if she does have children of her own she has a moral obligation to accept that artificial insemination?

Why do you assume that everyone breeding is good for the species?

There are many species where only the dominant pairing breed. This does not seem to cause that species too much of a problem.

How does breeding relate to a moral standard?

I cannot see any reason why a person could not live a perfectly moral life and yet choose not to have children.

Wouldn't it be better to look at the morality of breeding and then taking no part in the raising of the children? Or to look at producing children that are doomed to go through life unloved?

I am sorry but I do not regard this as a "tough and sensitive question" as much as I regard it as a moronic question.

[Violet]

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

No. <-- short answer, save yourself the time.

Are you bound morally to fucking (or otherwise raping) every person potentially compatible for offspring? Maximizing the PROGENY of 'our genes' would also require raping children who have become pubescent, because if you don't, you are not maximizing your output.

Answering 'no', means no, by the way. Answering yes, on the other hand, would seem to indicate that one is in utter denial of essentially the whole of every known society. Contesting the question's formation and relevance is only to show ignorance of the matter at hand, given that it is the argument taken to an extreme. You can recreate it under any circumstances, it remains. Your morality is largely independent of your personal 'obligation' to spread your specific genes.

Infact, even as societies, our generalized intersubjective moralities only have a partial correlation to 'spread the species' genes'... largely consisting of 'don't obliterate other members of your society'. Other societies are clearly not so lucky, war and a common vilification of rape both stand clearly in the way of this absurdity.

It's neither a tough nor sensitive question, it is, in its entirety: silliness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI

---

There are plenty of people who are apparently not homosexual and yet do not breed. What if everyone were heterosexual and made that choice?

Then we'd go extinct. So wonderful that we have people with differing desires in this world

[Lunalle]

Thanks for your opinions, although the welcome was far from warm... seems like I don't fit in either camp!

[Lemonvariable72]

Hey Everyone!

My name is Steve. I'm not sure I'm ready to call myself a full blown atheist yet, but I'm certainly an agnostic. I really don't like the concept of religion, never mind the majority of the ones actually in practice! That said, I hope you guys don't mind me jumping in to your forums.

I've been pondering over an issue for a while now, and I was hoping to get some opinions from others who are open minded; not bound by the constraints of religion etc. In today's (at least North American) world, this can be pretty sensitive. I want to say, right off the bat, that I put a lot of effort in to being open minded, unprejudiced, and supportive to all minority groups.

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

For example, let's consider homosexuality. Is it wrong to be a homosexual who does not attempt artificial insemination, as it would result in a non-continuation of your genes? If we apply the example on a bigger scale, the problem becomes more clear. What if every person was a homosexual who did not practice artificial insemination? Would it be considered wrong to not practice artificial insemination, for the sake of the continuation of our species?

This is just one example. It's a tough and sensitive question, and I'm looking forward to some replies, (If you have a religious reply, please don't post it, I'm not interested in your religion!) Please, let's keep this one mature, and on topic. Thank you!

Cheers,
Steve

In short the answer is no. However the moral system I would sugest is a combination of the golden rule and moral utilitarianism.
Moral utilitarianism is where you chose the option that promotes happiness for the most people ex. Civil are important because the happiness of the majority is impossible without them.
This largely applies to big issues,
For day to day life I use the golden rule which is
Do unto other as you would have them do to you.
and where the two conflict the golden rule supercedes.
That out of the way, I for one would like to extend you a warm welcome and hope you stick around.

[Angrboda]

The question of the nature of morality, inside religion and outside it, is a topic that comes up about once every five minutes on the forum. And the discussion has a tendency to get heated. I suggest searching for relevant recent threads, or asking a knowledgable (and caring) regular to point some examples out for you, or start a new thread on it outside the introduction section of the forum. (One just recently wrapped up, so interest levels might not be optimum, but you'll usually get a few takers.)

Given that you've indicated you don't want my opinion as a religious person, I'll capitalize on the excuse and use it as a pretext to take a powder and blow off the question.

Enjoy the forum.

[Minimalist]

The question of the nature of morality, inside religion and outside it, is a topic that comes up about once every five minutes on the forum.

Indeed it does. We have some clowns who think that bashing a baby's head against rocks is okay because "god" said so....and then go birdshit if a woman wants an abortion.

I don't like those fuckers, much. You seem okay. Maybe a bit confused.

[max-greece]

Thanks for your opinions, although the welcome was far from warm... seems like I don't fit in either camp!

Sorry Steve,

Welcome to the forum.

Sometimes I see questions that are hard to take as real.

Stick around - ask more questions - I'll try to be a lot more pleasant in future.

It was a strangely phrased question though.....

[Lunalle]

Cheers! I appreciate the welcome. max-greece, thank you for reposting a welcome, that says a lot. I'll spend some time going through threads here.

For the past 10 years (roughly), I've been reading, and generally trying to figure things out for myself, so I expect to be considered "a bit confused". That's the reason I was looking for a good forum.

I'll give you that it was a strangely phrased question. I'm sure I could have done better, and probably will when it's not 2 am! I'm somewhat of an insomniac, so sleep is random and varied for me. Hopefully it will help if I provide some more information.

I'd like to address this first though:

Are you bound morally to fucking (or otherwise raping) every person potentially compatible for offspring? Maximizing the PROGENY of 'our genes' would also require raping children who have become pubescent, because if you don't, you are not maximizing your output.

I did not mean in any way that "maximizing output" was a good thing. Although you could argue that is the only way to maximize the prosperity of our genes, I think that's a discussion of its own.

One of the things I took from reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, is that, from an evolutionary viewpoint, we as humans, are merely a "shell" for our genes. That is the basis for me asking this question. If we are just a shell for our genes, are we not then responsible for the continued survival for our genes? If we are, then does that not lead to certain moral obligations?

I'm getting an overwhelming "NO", which is interesting. So I'll leave it at that, but hopefully this clarifies things a bit, and makes the question a bit less strange, and hard to take as real.

[max-greece]

Cheers! I appreciate the welcome. max-greece, thank you for reposting a welcome, that says a lot. I'll spend some time going through threads here.

For the past 10 years (roughly), I've been reading, and generally trying to figure things out for myself, so I expect to be considered "a bit confused". That's the reason I was looking for a good forum.

I'll give you that it was a strangely phrased question. I'm sure I could have done better, and probably will when it's not 2 am! I'm somewhat of an insomniac, so sleep is random and varied for me. Hopefully it will help if I provide some more information.

I'd like to address this first though:

Are you bound morally to fucking (or otherwise raping) every person potentially compatible for offspring? Maximizing the PROGENY of 'our genes' would also require raping children who have become pubescent, because if you don't, you are not maximizing your output.

I did not mean in any way that "maximizing output" was a good thing. Although you could argue that is the only way to maximize the prosperity of our genes, I think that's a discussion of its own.

One of the things I took from reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, is that, from an evolutionary viewpoint, we as humans, are merely a "shell" for our genes. That is the basis for me asking this question. If we are just a shell for our genes, are we not then responsible for the continued survival for our genes? If we are, then does that not lead to certain moral obligations?

I'm getting an overwhelming "NO", which is interesting. So I'll leave it at that, but hopefully this clarifies things a bit, and makes the question a bit less strange, and hard to take as real.

OK - that makes a bit more sense. Throwing in the homosexual angle confused things.

I think you may need to look at genetics a bit more. Progeny are not the only way your genetic line survives.

Take for example my wife's brother who is almost 50 and unmarried with no offspring. His direct line may stop there but he shares 25% of his genetic stock with my daughter and 25% with the other brother's son.

That is the same proportion as a grand-parent so if we are driven by our genes he has a strong impulse to support his niece and nephew, as strong as the doting grandparents have.

I don't see a link from any of this to morality - although there should be a link to instinctive behaviour.

There would be nothing moral in obeying the commands of our genetic inheritance. In fact one could argue that deciding not to have children (in a world of 7 billion plus people) could be a more moral decision.