In my earlier post I was making the point that out moral and ethical constructions are far older than any of our religions or religious texts and were derived from the pressures of the successive changes in our environments.

If anyone believes the Old Testament is a successful guide for the development of morality they need to read and understand it. I suggest they begin by analyse Deuteronomy 13;v6-11. That section is a perfect example of a power hungry politician invoking a claimed 'word in his ear' from a supernatural being to control the citizenry. Some morality and ethics!
Or give some thought to Lot, his wife and his two daughters. God reputedly murdered Lot's wife for looking back yet took no action when Lot sacrificed his daughter to rape by a mob in substitution for a male guest. Then his daughters involved him in incestuous behaviour after getting him intoxicated.

Singer's "How are we to live" is a better guide to ethical behaviour than any ancient tome.

As for ethics discussions of open ended questions in classrooms, how many posting comments are aware that such a practice will improve each student's IQ and improve classroom and school-yard behaviour?

Evolution is

Definitely dangerous

It "created" us

Al, I suggest that if you want to discuss the ethical implications of Darwin's work to humans, you should cast The Origin of Species aside and look instead at The Descent of Man. Darwin was quite timid with his first publication, and cautious to avoid explicitly discussing the evolution of humans. His later work cast caution aside and led a full-fledged assault on the 'separate' origins of humankind.

He also addresses the ethical aspects of human evolution, including altruism. In The Origin of Species, he focused primarily on the individualistic nature of evolution - animals do what they need to do to survive. This problematised the tendency of humans to behave in an altruistic manner - after all, if we're all in it for ourselves, why help our rivals?

He addressed this directly: 'each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return' (Darwin cited in Ruse 1999: 247). The general implication is that it is beneficial for species such as humankind to assist each other and work communally for the greater good, as we all gain from it.

As for your emphasis of the word 'preferred' ('favoured' in my edition) in the subtitle, this is either an attempt at deception or a confession of ignorance. If you have read beyond the title page, you'll know that there is no ethical 'favouring' here - instead, there is a sense that those 'favoured' by circumstance tend to survive longer than those who are not favoured. If you apply this to humans, the implication is that all races who have survived are 'favoured'. The fact that Europeans decimated populations in the new world is not deemed ethical or unethical - it simply indicates that those who died were not 'favoured' - they were too weak, susceptible to disease, etc. Those who are still alive after 200, 500 or more years of colonisation have adapted and demonstrated that they are favoured or preferred. It's not really a justification of racism when seen in that light.

A healthy and functioning society operates within boundaries not set by laws designed by lawyers: but created principles of divine character to be devotedly admired of the pure, whole and perfect and care and self sacrificial love for our fellow humans including enemies. Established within the character of the first man and highlighted by Jesus in his teachings and the way he lived.

God established family and community and intended it function harmoniously on the principles of love. He never intended that the unborn be surgically aborted as a form of birth control, or the aged be euthanized.

Hi Folks... this is a very juicy discussion and is jusssst getting started :) I confidently predict that the outcome will no less than global salvation and renewal :)

Ok.. another SLAP.. serious now.

AJ.. you make an interesting point:

I suspect that just as many people have based their ethics on evolution as they have on gravity - none.

Nope..I have to disagree (respectfully).. if you *begin* with the foundation of natural selection and an evolving range of organisms, you have no other choice than to respond in a naturalistic manner to your existence. ie.. you are limiting your world view to "we are" not "We were created".

Please note..this is not discussion specifically on "Did/did not... God Create" We all know that discussion is a very long and usually fruitless one.

I'm simply focusing on the logical ramifications of Human beings as the result of 'Natural selection/evolution' in ethical terms.

You asked.. "more developed for what" to which I respond.. "for anything".. I'm just saying that 'logically'.... if humanity is a product of natural selection..the axioms below apply

1/ Modern man arose from a pool of *various* stages of humanoid development. (as opposed to a single ancestor)
2/ Thus, it follows that the level of development is also different between races. That development (to use just one possibility) could be 'intellectual capacity'.

Now..remember.. I don't advocate this or assert it.. I'm only saying it follows 'reasonably' from the foundational ideas of "Evolution/Natural selection"

In fact.. it might even be called an "argumentum a fortiori"

ie.. the acceptance of one truth, strongly implies another.

It so turns out that Darwin was a monogenesist, but that was for political/family reasons :) not philosophical.

We can return to ethics soon... let's focus on the 2 axioms and thrash them to death/life first :)

Dear OTO... yes..I'm aware of DOM... we can introduce that later if ok ?

//Darwin applies evolutionary theory to human evolution, and details his theory of sexual selection. The book discusses many related issues, including evolutionary psychology, evolutionary ethics, differences between human races, differences between sexes, the SUPERIORITY OF MEN TO WOMEN , and the relevance of the evolutionary theory to society.//

Oto.. ur female are you not ? :)

One more from DOM.

//At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.//

*interesting*