h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

you are missing the point and, if I may say so, are guilty of a certain amount of woolly thinking yourself

True Darwinianism should extend from the simply biological and ecompass all realms of self organising systems. It follows that rules of interpersonal behaviour should also follow some form of natural selection.

As such, the idea of rights or ethics is currently the strongest and best method of allowing people to progress towards more advanced forms of organisation. By your own argument, if it wasn't then the idea would have become extinct long ago.

You are limiting the scope of a great and wonderful idea to the purely biological - try following your rational line of thinking to its logical conclusion and I'm sure you will agree.

If you think that any of this is woolly or sentimental, then I'd be interested and surprised to learn why.

My argument for why ethics can be justified without gods or religion is as follows:

1.) As a member of the species H. sapeins, one should act in a way that benefits that species and makes it more fit to survive.

2.) H. sapiens is more fit to survive if there exists a large and stable civilization of H. sapiens that can control the world to benefit members of H. sapiens.

3.) For a stable civilization of H. sapiens to exist, there must be a uniform system of ethics followed by members of the civilization.

4.) In order for above goals to come to pass, this system of ethics ought topromote a civilization of the type that is best sduited to prolonging the survival of the species.

What's wooly or fuzzy about this? Care to discuss my four statements?

"1.) As a member of the species H. sapeins, one should act in a way that benefits that species and makes it more fit to survive."

Why does being a member of a particular species carry with it an obligarion to act in a certain way? Why is survival more "right" than extinction?

obligation, even

Well, specieses exist basicly becasue their members reproduce, which they can't do if they're extinkt.

So? By what moral code do you choose existence over extinction? I agree that animals will inevitably try to survive, but does it follow that they *should* do so?

What I'm getting at is that you can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. You need some kind of axiomatic 'ought' to start from.

I'm not convinced that it is possible to derive a meaningful moral code from anything but opinions, or that some moral codes are better than others. Thus, my previous statements are nearly meaningless.

The only real reason for an organism (be it a virus or a whale) to reproduce is to propogate its own genes to the future. I use the term gene as described in The Selfish Gene (by Richard Dawkins).
I strongly recommend reading it since you will find it very easy to understand the reasoning behind the theory.
In a nutshell, genes that create an organism more likely to reproduce are more likely to exist in future generations. Other genes are likely to die out. Multiply this over millions of generations and you get organisms that are well adapted to their complete environment (including competition for mates in sexually reproducing species - they will pick mates more likely to have genes with a good chance of survival). Richard Dawkins makes it far easier to understand than I can though!

I found this article utterly hateful. You are in danger of turning Atheism into the most select religion on this planet. Some of my best friends are atheists and they would call themselves true atheists, I am a Christian however, but they have no problem with me and I have no problem with them. It's called multiculturalism, surprised you don't appear to accept it. Now I would be inclined to help the likes of Richard Dawkins in any way that I can, especially to defeat the right wing Religionists. However you are expressing a point about what I can only describe as radical atheism - it amounts to anti-humanism. It's even more right wing than the "Rapturists".

Totally disgusting, if this thinking became prevalent, I don't think that the Human race would last very much longer.

And don't you perhaps think that some H.Sapiens were actually trying to create the best chance for survival when they invented religion. Perhaps some H.Sapiens have out grown it now and don't percieve a need for it. Then perhaps some H.sapiens have also lost the will to live. Like lemmings.