(May 13, 2013 at 3:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's ignoring that even though you may think of yourself as a discrete and complete being, your dna - if it could conceive of anything, would call you a survival suit. It doesn't care if you die, so long as it survives- and if sacrificing one suit saves ten suits, that's a unilaterally self interested motivation.For the species, that would be self-interested, just not for an individual. I think the whole altruism thing evolved out of the self interest of the species, even if it may act against (or change) the interests of an individual.
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=153209
(May 13, 2013 at 3:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's the beauty of it, we don't have to uniformly decide whether or not it's a "good" goal, whether or not it has objective value - we only have to agree to strive for it (and we can state definitively that it's open to revision). What would such a goal be for you, we could tally up those goals between us and start working on the ones we share firstly. I doesn't sound so difficult, does it?I guess it just seems to me like there should be some way to tell when a goal is obviously off track, other than asking people's opinions. One would think that there would be some criterion by which a goal could be analyzed (i.e. reduce suffering, preserve life and fairness), but of course this would still be open to interpretation, it would have to be, as falliable humans are implementing it and there is no objective way to quantify these things.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.