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

[Violet]

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

Did you want a hug? That's a surprising request.



I bet you blow up just the same as anybody else, regardless of how large you'd have to be to not fit into 'either(?)' camp. Might have to increase the potency of the explosion from standard, though.... larger package, same effect.

Just with a few more fatty bits lying around. A thick skin will do you a great deal more good here than a big belly Welcome to the forums.

---

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.

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?

Yes, the only ways to maximize the output of your genes involve... maximizing the output of your genes. I'm glad that we've mastered the rare and ever elusive tautology.

Then that answers your stated question, as it was formed. If you have another question, I would suggest you reformat: revise. I was not the one who used the word 'maximize' to describe the question. If you are discussing 'nonmaximalized' subject matter, you should refrain from using the word 'maximize'

Second quote is for self-reflection. The italicized is to indicate what you're basing your obligation and/or moral standard (pick whichever you want, ends the same damn way). Bold is the acting descriptor of 'prosperity of our genes' (prosperity... I'm still having a chuckle). Again: reformat, revise, reattempt.

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?

To the last question: No. If I have to explain how it *can potentially* 'assist in the having of' <arbitrarily numerous> 'moral' obligations... then I will. However, it is a gigantic waste of time that would require I assist in bringing you to as full an understanding of EVERY SINGLE PART OF THAT as I am able to provide, and I'd really rather not. Go look in the forum elsewhere, somepeople've probably written at least 3000 posts on the damn subject. As an aside, using 'merely' prior to 'shell of ____' doesn't provide you any cool points

One might be responsible for the continued survival of our genes. That's up to whether or not one engages in activities that continue the survival or their genes or not... it's also not a black and white 'X vs Y' grouping, for there is a matter of degrees by which one may be responsible.

An individual who completely cuts themselves away from society, prior to any 'gene survival activities', is NOT responsible in any way for continuing the survival of their genes, or anybody's genes. An individual who engages in mild 'gene survival activities' (such as promoting babymaking without taking the plunge), is mildly responsible for the survival of other people's genes, but is NOT responsible for the continuing survival of their genes. Blame game, you can see where this is going if you have a brain: Genghis Khan.

TLDR: Obligation means 'to be morally (or legally, or really other nonstandard uses would work, but that's semantic) 'bound'. Asking if being obligated to something is to be morally bound is absolutely ridiculous, and deserves to be treated as such.

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.

I'm impressed: THEY CAN BE TAUGHT! (not you, THEM)

Or you could learn instead of leaving it at that