Quote:
|
Originally Posted by karomesis
Objectively arguing morality is simliar to arguing taste, which, contrary to popular opinion, cannot ever be won by either side.
The lifeforms on this planet arose through a process that is ruthless and heartless......evolution. Jim was hinting at the results of it when he commented on our incisors. I may agree or disagree with machiavelli, but his principles hold true regardless.
In probably less than 15 years or so we will have artificial meat and other animal products that taste exactly like the real thing but are grown in labs using nanotech, saving billions and billions of dollars in the process.
|
In a philosophy class I would agree with you. Outside the world of academia, not entirely. All the rules and conventions most of us live by, whether we agree with them or not, are based on moral values and without them society would fall apart.
Yes, "evolution" (up to a certain point) made the world what it is, but natural selection hasn't been a factor in the development of human societies for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And this is exactly what sets us apart from animals; compassion and empathy, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or even have a concept of right and wrong (based on moral values). Knowing when to do the right thing. Or self-servingly act against that knowledge no matter who gets hurt.
Me, I'm really looking forward to a nice, juicy nano-burger.
