Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Letum
You can not get moral conclusions from logic.
Unless you have found a way round the is-ought gap.
PETA may be a irrational conclusion from Darwinism, but that just shows peta is
irrational and we all know that.
|
You think its irrational, and I think its irrational, but they think we are irrational, so this is defintitely not a moral conclusion since whos morals are we talking about? A Darwanist has no morals. Morals simply do not exist in Darwinism, and no Darwanist yet can show morals in Darwinism without turning into a babling wreck based on self interest that is clearly wrong as seen by any plain man. This is where Darwinism fails miserably as a theory, such as trying to explain 'Alltruism'. It can not explain this adequately and has more holes that makes even a shotgun approach miss completely. THis is why I personally believe it is all grey area when pure Darwanist see all in black and white.
So do not come at me from a moral perspective here. That will fail miserably.
-S |
When you are talking about Darwinism what exactly do you mean by that?
As I understand it Letum is correct Darwinism is not concerned with morality its a scientific theory.
Plus I don't see how the PETA is the conclusion of Darwinism.