dilemmas do not prove a concept does not exist.

That's correct. My point is natural selection can explain why the dilemma exists.

there are pretty clear cut cases

Natural selection also explains why there are "clear cut" cases, since it assumes our "moral sense" is just our mental accounting of reciprocal altruism: what we've done for others and what (we think) others owe us.

natural selection does however support the idea of altruism. natural selection does not require each individual seek survival. various aspects of the genetic code that lead to survival of the species are what are truly favored. a breed of animals that does nothing but try to kill each other off leads to a situation where each individual is maximizing the odds of its own DNA propagating, no? but how long would such a species survive? and extra credit, to what "animal" am I actually alluding to here?

You are correct: the object is survival of the gene and this can be at odds with survival of an individual. This applies to all animals and even "non" animals; so I have no way of knowing which "animal" you are alluding to.

natural selection is relevant among species that have no intelligence or intellectual control over their own destiny. it is only relevant to humans insofar as we wish to behave like animals.

Our "intelligence" itself evolved, presumably, because it enhanced genetic fitness in the evolutionary past. Intelligence exists to increase, rather than overcome, inclusice genetic fitness.

...

So it is a myth that scientists live to find deep truths or to benefit humanity . They may do those things, but their real goal is maximizing their own inclusive fitness.

false, even by your own reasoning, because a scientists DNA does not necessarily lead to more scientist DNA. sons and daughters of scientists may be anything they wish to be in a free country.

All that is required is that the offspring can survive and reproduce. Scientists use their jobs as "scientists" to fund survival and reproduction.

natural selection among animals. and a pretty scary mind that would consider us on that level. I agree there are some vague parallels for human development. but humans do not have children in the mindless way that animals breed,

The use of birth control causes the trait, "conscious desire to have children" (and not use birth control) to be selected. It was not required before, so natural selection gave more weight to sex drive and love of offspring.

nor hopefully do they live their lives according only to evolutionary instincts,

The whole premise of evolutionary psychology is that we live according to evolutionary instincts, it's just that those instincts (and our behavior) are very complex, and that "consciousness" and "free will" are illusions.

but of course letters like yours tend to make me wonder, and I'm being deliberately ambiguous here by what I mean by that <g>

Of course most people are bothered by the idea that copying genes is the only thing their life (and all lives) are about. Life is totally meaningless if you follow Darwin's logic to its conclusion, and the alternative is religion and belief in the afterlife. I personally believe someday we will see a synthesis of the two, but at the present, which to believe is a philosophical decision. ---------- From: Vladimir Z. Nuri[SMTP:vznuri@netcom.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 12:52 PM To: Wayne Radinsky Cc: 'Blanc'; 'cypherpunks@cyberpass.net'; 'tcmay@got.net'; 'vznuri@netcom5.netcom.com'; vznuri@netcom11.netcom.com Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality philosophers have struggled with what is moral since the beginning of civilization. at least they are struggling with the question. each new civilization and era gives a new answer to the question, "what is morality", and hopefully each is more evolved than the last, unless humanity is regressing. "what is morality" is obviously something that cannot be settled in cyberspace, it hasn't even been settled by great writers, and there are only mediocre and borderline insane minds in cyberspace <g>

The reason morality is impossible to nail down is because it does not exist al all in any absolute sense, at least as far as science is concerned. If you dec lare, for example, that "murder" is "wrong" you are always left with dilemmas, such as whether soldiers who kill during a war are doing something "wrong".

dilemmas do not prove a concept does not exist. there are pretty clear cut cases, and less well clear cut cases. those that have difficulty with the concept of morality will tend to focus on the fuzzy cases and conclude that the whole exercise is a waste of time.

According to the principle of natural selection, all people, including scientis ts, exist purely to maximize their own inclusive genetic fitness. "Fit" means that an organism is well adapted to it's environment, so "maximizing inclusive genetic fitness" means having the maximum number of offspring which are themsel ves fit.

natural selection does however support the idea of altruism. natural selection does not require each individual seek survival. various aspects of the genetic code that lead to survival of the species are what are truly favored. a breed of animals that does nothing but try to kill each other off leads to a situation where each individual is maximizing the odds of its own DNA propagating, no? but how long would such a species survive? and extra credit, to what "animal" am I actually alluding to here?

The underlying reason people benefit by promoting themselves as moral people, i n general, is because of the benefit of what evolutionary psychologists call re ciprocal 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 r eciprocal altruist, in other words, a good, trustworthy, moral person. This is how natural selection explains the existence of the concept of "morality".

natural selection is relevant among species that have no intelligence or intellectual control over their own destiny. it is only relevant to humans insofar as we wish to behave like animals.

So it is a myth that scientists live to find deep truths or to benefit humanity . They may do those things, but their real goal is maximizing their own inclus ive fitness.

false, even by your own reasoning, because a scientists DNA does not necessarily lead to more scientist DNA. sons and daughters of scientists may be anything they wish to be in a free country.

The only way out is to believe in the afterlife, and religion, and that life ha s meaning beyond the genes and material world. Doing so doesn't make moral dile mmas go away, and you never know, people may just be believing such things for the benefit of genes, after all natural selection has no real concern for "trut h".

natural selection among animals. and a pretty scary mind that would consider us on that level. I agree there are some vague parallels for human development. but humans do not have children in the mindless way that animals breed, nor hopefully do they live their lives according only to evolutionary instincts, but of course letters like yours tend to make me wonder, and I'm being deliberately ambiguous here by what I mean by that <g>