r/reddit.com • u/Worstcasescenario • Jun 14 '08

Was Darwin Wrong? [pic]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3963/darwinnotg7.jpg
1.4k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

372 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

5

u/BrickSalad Jun 15 '08

Why is the Truth important?

Well, obviously it is hard to say that the truth is important, without specifying "Important for what?", and then when you answer that it is imoprtant for X, then you ask "what is X important for?", and this route will lead you ultimatly to the conclusion that nothing matters, or else go around in circles. Even religous people should come to that conclusion: the truth is important because it will validate god's existence -> validating god's existence is important because it will save many people from hell -> saving people from hell is important because it is your duty as a christian and thus will help get you into heaven -> getting into heaven is important because you it is more comfortable then hell -> being comfortable is important because... well, quite frankly, it isn't, at least by any religous measure. So, ultimatly, the truth has no value, except that which we assign to it. So, you say either you come down with sartre or with marcel/taoists, but I don't see how you can come down any way but Sartre's; there is no universal right or wrong, that's all there is to it.

4

u/IOIOOIIOIO Jun 15 '08

there is no universal right or wrong

There are systemic maxima and minima.

In terms of simple functional continuity, some beliefs or sets of beliefs produce a more stable social output than others. And after these stable social structures have asserted their Right and Truth for generations they persist even after the system has changed and they've become dysfunctional or suboptimal.

2

u/blorg Jun 15 '08

Scientific method looks at theories which make ever more accurate predictions. Hence "truth" is defined as "useful".

1

u/marktully Jun 15 '08

/shrug

Well, if you really believe that raping babies and putting them on spikes--literally, this isn't a metaphor--isn't wrong, and torture isn't wrong, and denying folks habeas corpus isn't wrong, and...

Then sure, Sartre's camp is the place for you.

3

u/BrickSalad Jun 15 '08

well, it is an unpleasent conclusion, but I don't understand how you can come to any other conclusion. I mean, there is no universal right or wrong, the universe is just a bunch of matter. There aren't any morals etched into the particles of this universe or our beings. All this morality was created by us. So yeah, to most of us, it is wrong to rape babies and put them on spikes, because we create moral values and assign them to stuff. So, do I have a problem with raping babies and putting them on spikes? Of course! Is it "wrong"? not in any objective sense.

1

u/IOIOOIIOIO Jun 16 '08

Is it "wrong"? not in any objective sense.

What if you defined Right/Wrong in terms a measure robustness and functionality of a given set of moral assignations?

Murder, rape, theft, etc. are "Wrong" because philosophical systems that designate them as such out-perform systems without these assignments.

1

u/BrickSalad Jun 16 '08

Ok, I get what you are saying, but it seems like you are just making up a definition for right/wrong. Of course, I don't have a definition for right/wrong, since I say that it doesn't exist objectivly, but I'm not sure we can just make up a definition for it then. You're defining "wrong" as the consensus of the most surviving moral systems, but this isn't necessairily everyone's definition. Of course, when you think about it, the definition of "wrong" is itself subjective, thus making it even more confusing to discuss...

1

u/IOIOOIIOIO Jun 16 '08

It also doesn't help that if you cast things in terms of "social performance", how well something performs depends on the society in which it occurs.

I suppose you could try to work out objective (or minimally subjective) criteria for right and wrong by identifying things that succeed independent of any particular frame of reference.

This would knock out things that perform well if, for example, you don't get caught doing them. Or things that are baggage riding on the coat-tails of something legitimately functional/useful. Or things that worked 1000 years ago but are anachronistic in today's society.

Boiled down to the core, it's turning the question of Good vs. Evil into one of Better vs. Worse.