File 138080505994.jpg - (387.75KB , 667x1000 , url.jpg )
E Philosophy review !Mjk4PcAe16 13/10/03(Thu)12:57:39 No. 73780

Hi, thanks for the replies to my previous thread regarding the transporter story, the debate on Skype was pretty entertaining as well.

As my philosophy exam is in a few weeks, I am reviewing all of the stuff from my lectures. I figured I would pose some questions as well, since various perspectives are always welcome.

Darwinian theory aka Evolution theory has brought forth a phrase commonly since in various forms of media today.

Nature: Survival of the fittest
- A system of utilizing one's advantages

The strong takes advantage of the weak
The smart takes advantage of the stupid

I believe this is rather self-explanatory so there's no need for me to interpret this.


Catherine Wilson (Not to be confused with the killer) states in her book 'Moral Animals', that moral obligations "reduce the advantages of those who observe them".

My interpretation of this statement is as follows: If we act in accordance to moral obligations, we are reducing our advantages.


If you have not noticed, these two statements of Evolutionary theory and Catherine Wilson seems to be at opposing ends.

Is it rational to reduce one's advantage?

Share your thoughts.

Last edited at 13/10/03(Thu)05:58:57

Expand all images

>>

Naturally exceptions exist, but that doesn't matter from an evolutionary standpoint. Meta-Ushiromiya George 13/10/03(Thu)15:48:15 No. 73781 File 135765678036.jpg - (136.46KB , 781x574 , 1355778529255.jpg ) Reduction of natural advantages through adherence to moral obligations is compensated by acceptance into societies. The advantages of an aid network comprised of an extremely large number of people outweigh the costs of not taking advantage of superior amoral opportunities. Overall, people who are part of a society have an advantage over people who aren't. Moreover, people who take amoral actions in the presence of a society face costly feedback from that society that often outweigh the advantages in the first place. In short, a murderer who killed someone for their wallet is less likely to survive than somebody who spends their own money to bake cookies for everyone in the neighborhood.

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]