RE: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)

Note that any errors in transcription are mine, I had to re-edit this to get it to fit on a 80 column screen. Forwarded message:

From: Wayne Radinsky Subject: RE: rant on the morality of confidentiality Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:32:15 -0800

The reason morality is impossible to nail down is because it does not exist al all in any absolute sense,

Morality is an individuals or societal groups beliefs of right and wrong. Of course there is no more absolute right morality than there is a right flavor of ice cream, this entire line of reasoning is a non sequitar. Ethics is the issues of what is correct or permissible in relation to a particular human activity such as scientific research or law. When you use 'science' and 'morality' in a comparison you are in actuality comparing apples and oranges. Science is related to *how* one does a particular activity, it is not concerned in the least with *why* that activity should (not) be done in the first place. Science and its philosophy are *not* applicable to all areas of human discourse anymore than the Bible is applicable as a methodology to study quantum physics or aerodynamics.

at least as far as science is concerned.

Science isn't concerned with right, wrong, morality, etc. It *is* concerned with a systematic way to ask questions in a *specific* area of discourse. To apply science to religion is as much a disservice to science and religion as it would be to try to apply it to art.

According to the principle of natural selection, all people, including scientists, exist purely to maximize their own inclusive genetic fitness.

Exactly whose theory or principle of natural selection? At the current time I am aware of several different theories that fit the data but which in many aspects are mutualy exclusive. This is entirely too broad a statement to have reasonable merit. We simply don't know enough about what is going on with the processes of life to justify this sort of leap.

Keep in mind that all natural selection really does is decide which genes are allowed to propagate,

Natural selection isn't doing anything. It is a term we apply to a process we observe occurring. That process seems to occur at several levels besides just the genes.

and since genes are just digital information stored on DNA molecules

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. We start with the base pairs, which really are informationaly isolated from the codons which are triplets of base pairs which form a 'word' in the genetic code. It is of some import to realize that the genetic code itself is *not* dependant on the actual mechanism of expression, in other words you can talk about the genetic langauge without any reference to the base pairs themselves. It is the codons that are important. There is a fundamental symmetry break at that level. Each of the codons is mapped to one of 20 amino acids. Since there are 4 bases arranged in 3's there are 64 combinations. This means that for any particular amino acid there is more than one way to code it. There are also several 'stop' codes which break the transcription process as well.

, what we call "life" is really just a complex interaction of matter/energy which determines which bits of information continue to exist over time.

That works equaly well as a definition of the cosmos. Keep this up and you'll become a pantheist...;)

The underlying reason people benefit by promoting themselves as moral people, in general, is because of the benefit of what evolutionary psychologists call reciprocal altruism. With reciprocal altruism, both parties benefit if they are in a non-zero-sum situation. Because most situations are non-zero-sum and the benefits are so great, everyone has a stake in promoting themselves as a good reciprocal altruist, in other words, a good, trustworthy, moral person. This is how natural selection explains the existence of the concept of "morality".

Oh boy... Not all moralities or religions accept the premise of altruistic behaviour. Further, if you look at the prisoners game, you actualy accrue more from intermittent moral behaviour than from consistent moral behaviour. Human morality has no place in any consistent theory of natural selection that I have ever seen. Please explain how a moral theory as you propose will increase the participants likelyhood for reproduction? Further, if you look at primate research (both non-human and human) what you find is a tendency for promiscuity in both sexes. Males tend to be 'in heat' at all times while females (at least when they are just entering the mating group) tend to follow a estrus or lunar based cycle. Recent studies of primates in Africa have found that the previous theory that band members don't intermingle is actualy incorrect. Upon extended monitoring they find that when the females go into heat each month they sneak off and mate with outlying members of other bands (who are usualy un-paired males). They intentionaly hide this activity from their band mates because if caught they will face a physical assault and potentialy death. This raises the question of whether chimps have morality under your view because it is clearly a measure of right and wrong. Are you willing to give chimps some sort of equal status to humans as a result? Studies of human females find this same sort of behaviour in the young just entering the mating pool. Studies find that young women tend to wear more provocative clothing and explore non-familiar peer groups in relation to their menstrual cycle.

So it is a myth that scientists live to find deep truths or to benefit humanity.

Absolutely, unfortunately the fallicy with such an assertion have nothing to do with the reasons you expound.

They may do those things, but their real goal is maximizing their own inclusive fitness.

So being a scientist increases ones probability for mating? Please be so kind as to offer some proof. Do scientist tend to have more offspring than non-scientist? I think you will find that the actual studies show that the more intelligent and well educated tend to have *fewer* children. This would seem to run contrary to your hypothesis. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|