(March 4, 2015 at 11:42 am)FreeTony Wrote:(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Survival of the fittest hardly qualifies as a moral principle.
Perhaps, go and study some biology and find out where empathy and social structures originate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operatio...olution%29
I will grant you that I have only a layman’s understanding of biology gained from popular books on the market, such as Robert Wright’s “The Moral Animal” and summaries of the work by E. O. Wilson. Scientists have done much good research into how humans gained the capacity for moral behavior. How this new and unique feature of our species came to be and how it affects behavior falls fully within the scope of scientific inquiry. Making value judgments about our inherited dispositions, social structures, and individual behaviors does not. Knowledge of evolutionary processes do not by their own conjure up moral imperatives.
Here is an interesting thought problem: Assume that humans and Neanderthals co-existed for a period of time, which I think has been shown to be the case. Here we have two sentient species each engaged in their own battle for their own survival. Does one or both have moral responsibilities to the other? What if the other species is entirely different, like the Formics in Ender’s Game?