In 1996, Robery Ardrey succinctly stated how we developed our concepts of ethics and morality when he wrote,
"And finally we must know that the territorial imperative - just, one it is true of the evolutionary forces playing upon our lives – is the biological law on which we have founded our edifices of human morality. Our capacities for sacrifice, for altruism, for sympathy, for trust, for responsibilities to other than self-interest, for honesty, for charity, for friendship and love, for social amity and mutual interdependence have evolved just as surely as the flatness of our feet, the muscularity of our buttocks, and the enlargement of our brain; out of the encounter on ancient African savannahs between the primate potential and the hominid circumstance."

Al at least you are transparent. I am quite happy making a judgement about zoophilia and find the idea abhorrent especially in view of animal rights - another prominent issue in Singer's repertoire.

However introduction of this topic on a course in Ethics or Philosophy is surely most appropriate. Singer is not "teaching" this behaviour, he is setting up discussions around zoophilia and bestiality which surely fits under an Ethics/Morality discipline.

Human beings have always defined morality within their own social and cultural constructs including using a belief in the supernatural and the evolution of religion.

Currently in Australia we have multiple ethical systems as many as there are cultures. We are a Multicultural society with different world views. For instance, when is a foetus human? Should we euthanize the unproductive?

In a democratic society everyone is free to hold different views and not be proselytized or indoctrinated by one view promoted by the State. The third Reich was a system of evolutionary indoctrination that one society was more advanced than another, which should be eradicated.

The current teaching of ethics in schools would promote one view on how to live in a secular society [without God]. Ethics outlines views of law on how to live it does not deal with guilt, failure etc.

Christianity should teach how to overcome personal sin, find forgiveness and self awareness and revalued in community. There is a definitive difference between laws of man defining guilt and the Grace of God. Ethics in society is as old as community or village - it just depends on whose ethics. Shari'ah laws are equally ethics as is the Hammurabi or Mosaic laws. Justice in some societies is an "eye for an eye". A equal justice imposition which is what in many societies is the reason for wars.
.

Pelly Philo and Peter.. thanx for joining.

Dear foyle.. I'm not quite sure what your point was.. mind clarifying ?

Peter first.

Just want to focus a bit longer Peter on the 'facts' of natural selection and race. Don't get me wrong... I don't for a moment support or accept the idea of any racial superiority/inferiority... but you probably realize I operate from a theistic perspective.

You say:
As I recall, the justification of Negro slavery in theistic ethics was that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japeth.

Yes indeed that verse(s) have been used just for that purpose. The problem though is linking Ham with the Negro races. It can't be done.
Looking at the Biblical record we find the sons of Ham are:

The sons of Ham:
Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.

It should be noted, that the curse applied to CANAAN...not to the other sons of Ham, which included Cush and Put who are regarded as the fathers of the African races. Egypt is named also. So...if anything, it is the palestinians who should be slaves of the Israelis if one wanted to place a hermeneutical straightjacket on the text. Bottom line it isn't the Negroid races.

IMPORTANT QUESTION
So.. Jewish and 'Christian' traditions aside.. and back to 'natural selection'... Peter..and others, can you accept that on the basis of normal reason (if this theory be accepted)... it is more probable that the various branches of humanity have developed at different rates and advancement both physically and intellectually?

Please note..I'm speaking ONLY of the idea of natural selection as an explanation of human origins...After all.. Darwin noted the various qualities of various flora and fauna within species did he not ?

We can come back to ethics soon :)

Boaz,

What’s all this talk about theistic ethics versus “Darwinian/evolution based ethics”? I suspect that just as many people have based their ethics on evolution as they have on gravity - none.

There have been, however, those who have adulterated and misinterpreted evolution (through an inability to distinguish between natural selection and artificial selection/selective breeding), to justify their ideology, whether it be eugenics or the free market.

This is one of the reasons creationism is so dangerous. The wilful spreading of misinformation and confusion about what exactly evolution is, makes it easier for lunatics to use it as a justification for their own gain.

[Note to fellow atheists: I realise that last claim is a long stretch of the bow, but I’m simply turning the creationist’s asinine claim, that evolution is dangerous, back on them. It actually makes more sense though, doesn’t it.]

<<'Darwinian' natural selection had a hidden dark side.>>

No, it doesn’t. This is simply a line pedalled by desperate and dishonest creationists as a way of appealing to emotions by instilling a sense of disgust in, and fear of, evolution in the minds of the naive.

<<IF..... the human race has developed by natural selection...and there are very noticable differences between 'races'....then it is entirely consistent with the theory to claim "Some are more developed than others"...>>

More developed for what?

(Let’s forget for a moment that the fact that we have arrived at this point through natural selection is a demonstrable fact and not an “if”.)

Evolution isn’t a ladder to be climbed, nor does it have any goal in mind. So no, it is not “consistent” at all and this is why the ignorance perpetuated by dishonest creationists can be so dangerous.

Besides which, the differences may be noticeable, but biologically we are all one race.

<<...which of course leads to the sub title of his book "Origin of the Species"...which our kiddies are defintely NOT taught at school i.e. "Or the Survival of PREFERRED races in the struggle of life">>

Yeah, that’s because Darwin wasn’t referring to eugenics like you are.

Continued...

...Continued

By “races”, he simply meant “variations”. “The Origin of Species” barely even mentions humans, but you didn’t know that, did you? No, you’d just prefer to parrot the total crap spread around in batsheet crazy, fundamentalist circles.

<<So... all I'm saying is that this leads to the 'open slather' idea of racism and eugenics.>>

Really? So given the distinction I’ve made between ‘natural selection’ and ‘selective breeding’, how do you justify this claim? And considering natural selection is very much about that which is biologically advantageous, what justification could one - who actually understood natural selection - possibly have for narrowing the gene pool?

<<But with theistic ethics (all equal because of one ancestor) racism is not possible.>>

And yet racism is rampant throughout Christianity and Islam; arguably more so too. In fact there often appears to be a correlation between the racism in societies and their religiosity.

<<So..I will argue that Theistic ethics are indeed superior to non theistic.>>

And you would be wrong.

Secular ethics (I’ll switch from “Darwinian ethics” to “secular ethics” now since I have demonstrated why your “Darwinian ethics” is based on total ignorance) are superior to religious ethics in every way except one - religious ethics are simplistic. Secular ethics require thought and effort, whereas religious ethics are for the lazy and the thoughtless; those who would be duped into thinking that something becomes ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of an edict attributed to some other being.

Secular ethics come from an understanding of reality, not a baseless assertion of authority, and for that reason alone, they are superior.