Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8761023" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I find the rationale suspect. There is truly no future that doesn't involve them going extinct? And humanity is the only reason this occurs? That's incredibly suspicious. That more or less means that humanity cannot even in principle change its ways. At that point, you've posited a purely deterministic universe where free will is an illusion anyway, so the vast majority of things one would call morality or ethics go out the window to begin with. You've framed the situation so hard you've pushed the morality out of it entirely; it's not just that this species isn't evil, it's that no one and nothing is evil, because it was all predestined anyway.I reject this analysis. You have, essentially, said that morality is always conditional on survival. No moral system worthy of the name would include that--to do so would be to gut it before you even articulated its first rule. Because there wouldn't be rules. There would only be &quot;as long as it's convenient...&quot;A fundamental tenet of the idea that there can be &quot;moral&quot; behavior is that there are some things more valuable than survival.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8761023, member: 6790260"] I find the rationale suspect. There is truly [I]no[/I] future that doesn't involve them going extinct? And humanity is the [I]only[/I] reason this occurs? That's incredibly suspicious. That more or less means that humanity cannot [I]even in principle[/I] change its ways. At that point, you've posited a purely deterministic universe where free will is an illusion anyway, so the vast majority of things one would call morality or ethics go out the window to begin with. You've framed the situation so hard you've pushed the morality out of it entirely; it's not just that [I]this species[/I] isn't evil, it's that [I]no one and nothing[/I] is evil, because it was all predestined anyway. I reject this analysis. You have, essentially, said that morality is always conditional on survival. No moral system worthy of the name would include that--to do so would be to gut it before you even articulated its first rule. Because there wouldn't [I]be[/I] rules. There would only be "as long as it's convenient..." A fundamental tenet of the idea that there can be "moral" behavior is that there are some things [I]more valuable than survival.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification