Dont you think that survival of the fittest is the psychology which this world is currently following?
Re: survival of the fittest
Everyone is looking out for themselves like they have always done since the dawn of time.
I am assuming you are talking countries.
Re: survival of the fittest
Dont you think that survival of the fittest is the psychology which this world is currently following?
i think it's been like that forever.
Re: survival of the fittest
Everyone is looking out for themselves like they have always done since the dawn of time.
I am assuming you are talking countries.
not specifically about countries, but it happens at individual levels too. see ourselves when we are at office, for example.
Re: survival of the fittest
Come on fellows, comment on this. This is simple. isnt it?
Re: survival of the fittest
If that was true, there would be no charities, no NGOs. Look at the once-richest man int he world giving away his money to spend on the survival of the weakest.....
....moving beyond survival of the fittest is what separates mankind from animals.
Re: survival of the fittest
If that was true, there would be no charities, no NGOs. Look at the once-richest man int he world giving away his money to spend on the survival of the weakest.....
That charity act is negligible compared to rest of the matters of life where people follow 'survival of the fittest' approach.
What moral code is followed in business that is run by that richest person?
Is morality a separate thing?
[QUOTE]
....moving beyond survival of the fittest is what separates mankind from animals.
[/QUOTE]
agreed.
off topic: but some believe that it is hard to separate human from animals since science cannot do that :)
Re: survival of the fittest
That charity act is negligible compared to rest of the matters of life where people follow 'survival of the fittest' approach. What moral code is followed in business that is run by that richest person? Is morality a separate thing?
agreed. off topic: but some believe that it is hard to separate human from animals since science cannot do that :)
Humans are animals, why would science separate the two?
You're conflating morality with psychology and further, erroneously, adding in terms that are, generally, no longer used by scientists.
By they way, the more educated and less religious people are...the more likely they are to be charitable. Charity and religion are inversely proportionate!
Re: survival of the fittest
Humans are animals, why would science separate the two?
i know your take on this.
[QUOTE]
You're conflating morality with psychology and further, erroneously, adding in terms that are, generally, no longer used by scientists.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, you tell me what is morality? :)
[QUOTE]
By they way, the more educated and less religious people are...the more likely they are to be charitable. Charity and religion are inversely proportionate!
[/QUOTE]
lets be rational and talk with logical arguments.
Since i am waiting for your response to know what morality is, i am holding on my argument.
Re: survival of the fittest
i know your take on this.
Ok, you tell me what is morality? :)
lets be rational and talk with logical arguments. Since i am waiting for your response to know what morality is, i am holding on my argument.
Lets get some clarity here. Are you talking about the psychology of morality, which is called ethics, or are you speaking about the actions that constitute morality and moral behavior?
Re: survival of the fittest
Lets get some clarity here. Are you talking about the psychology of morality, which is called ethics, or are you speaking about the actions that constitute morality and moral behavior?
I am not asking you about (modern) ethics, because i know that modern ethics are another version of 'suvival of the fittest' attitude. That is my point that 'suvival of the fittest' attitude is being followed through modern ethics.
I asked you, what is morality?
What is the place of morality in any modern system?
Re: survival of the fittest
Morality is subjective. What is moral to you, may be immoral to me.
You need to expound your question, in bold, I don’t understand what you’re asking.
Re: survival of the fittest
is it moral to be lazy and expect hard working people to take care of those who choose not to work as hard? i dont get the point here.
Re: survival of the fittest
is it moral to be lazy and expect hard working people to take care of those who choose not to work as hard? i dont get the point here.
Define lazy! I would submit that every religious leader and every king is lazy and living off the hard work of their flock. Further, their laziness is only second to their nefarious want to maintain control. I think that is very immoral.
Re: survival of the fittest
is it moral to be lazy and expect hard working people to take care of those who choose not to work as hard? i dont get the point here.
You are taking an extreme and wrong example. This is not what i meant.
Original point is 'survival of the fittest' approach is being followed in modern systems.
Point related to morality is, modern systems do not distinguish between moral and immoral. Everything is counted in term of 'business' and 'value'.
For example, it is immoral to trap customers into buying unnecessary stuff. But modern systems do suggest such immoral approaches.
Re: survival of the fittest
Define lazy! I would submit that every religious leader and every king is lazy and living off the hard work of their flock. Further, their laziness is only second to their nefarious want to maintain control. I think that is very immoral.
Morality is subjective. What is** moral** to you, may be** immoral **to me. ....
See fluctuation and contradiction :)
Re: survival of the fittest
You are taking an extreme and wrong example. This is not what i meant. Original point is 'survival of the fittest' approach is being followed in modern systems. Point related to morality is, modern systems do not distinguish between moral and immoral. Everything is counted in term of 'business' and 'value'. For example, it is immoral to trap customers into buying unnecessary stuff. But modern systems do suggest such immoral approaches.
Your question is better stated if you had asked: Is consumerism moral?
Which modern system are you speaking about?
Re: survival of the fittest
Your question is better stated if you had asked: Is consumerism moral?
Which modern system are you speaking about?
most of the needs today are false needs and are being generated through consumerism.
Re: survival of the fittest
most of the needs today are false needs and are being generated through consumerism.
How can needs be false? Is the need for air, food, water, good health, false? What about the need for education and enlightenment? What about the need for the families of the missing Malaysian flight to know about their loved ones? All false?
Re: survival of the fittest
You are taking an extreme and wrong example. This is not what i meant. Original point is 'survival of the fittest' approach is being followed in modern systems. Point related to morality is, modern systems do not distinguish between moral and immoral. Everything is counted in term of 'business' and 'value'. For example, it is immoral to trap customers into buying unnecessary stuff. But modern systems do suggest such immoral approaches.
no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. we are all enslaved to fullfilling our own desires. you cannot blame industries for making things.
was it immoral for Mark Zuckerberg to make "Facebook". ofcourse we dont exactly "need" it, but did he force you to make your account?
whats immoral about something thats being produced which you have a choice to buy or not to buy?