Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I agree with you to a certain extent. I do think that an understanding of human beings as simply existing to be survival machines has an effect on how we view the value of human life.
|
I don't think it has to have any affect... someone may use that view to try and justify a moral position, but the biological realty does not dictate that moral position; the natural state of things is neutral, it's how we choose to use that information that is the moral decision.
If the view that all life at the most basic level exists simply to reproduce did impose moral views or impose a specific way of viewing the value of human life, those that held that view of life would have different morals.. when they don't.
Quote:
|
What I'm wary of, and I think a lot of sensible scientists agree, is the danger of how much consilience we are willing to allow between biology and the rest of our human understandings.
|
What rest of human understandings are you talking about? You're going around some point that I'm not getting.
Quote:
|
How does the validity of natural selection affect our moral understanding of certain issues, such as euthanasia?
|
How does the validity of chemistry affect our moral understanding of certain issues, such as euthanasia?