Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by raitx | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

raitx

There is no such thing as morality and ethics, only darwinism.

We have made these constructs because it's advantageous.

Imo.

View on HN

That is like saying "there is no such thing as a hammer, only subatomic particles".

It's not even wrong.

Interpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are sometimes taken to be".

But that's so obviously a straw man. Obviously nobody believes that.

Could you elaborate? There are people that don't subscribe to moral or ethical absolutism.

Or objectivism, which is the nice one. It's rejecting absolutism that drives people into the arms of relativism.

What a lovely thought.

What exactly are you saying nobody believes? Moral absolutists, moral relativists and moral nihilists all exist.

They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative.

I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.

I think statements of the form "X is immoral" are just secular versions of "X is against God's will", in the sense that they (not necessarily intentionally) use linguistic trickery to present a personal preference as a universal rule.

If I am against something I can say "I am against X"; making statements about oneself is generally safe and not an overstep. There's no obvious path from "I am against X" to "I will stop you doing X".

If I say "X is wrong", that sounds like an absolute, and is more easily (ab)used as a justification for stopping others doing it.

The exact same linguistic distinction applies to offence. "I am offended by X" is accurate and works fine in a society. "X is offensive" is a precursor to censorship.

So you are saying there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it?

If you could choose between having hot sex without any chance of conception, or instantly producing a child (no sex involved), which scenario would you personally prefer?

Most people would enjoy the hot sex more.

Some people have this weird misunderstanding of evolution, where they conflate the behavior of genes, of human desires, and sometimes of morality. This is rather nicely debunked in The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

Interesting idea and question.

This reminds of the current trend that the population developed countries are in decline.

So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral, but now it's moral.

>So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral

Where and when are you talking of?

In medieval Europe it was considered immoral by the catholic church (and note: basically everyone ignored them in practice, and not everyone agreed with the church), because they explicitly religiously believed that deriving pleasure from sex was only caused by the Original Sin, and that nobody should have sex, ever. They carved out an exception for preventing humanity from going extinct, but otherwise: seeking sexual pleasure is sodomy.

Elsewhere: it varies, but sex is fun and most people wouldn't oppose it.

You may be interested in Darwin's views on morality here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html...

This is a strange take. Yes, both morality and ethics are intrinsically tied to there being existing agents interested in them. But once you establish that those agents exist, saying, "there is no such thing as morality and ethics" is nonsensical.

They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone.

I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative.

I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.

Isn’t that like saying there’s no such thing as eyelids because they’re a product of Darwinism?

There isn't even darwinism, just atoms doing atom things

Another shill for Big Atom. Everyone knows it’s all subatomic particles.

Darwinism is self evident. Like the water always flows path of least resistance. Moralism and ethics are ideas ever changning depending on who you ask.

Also self-evident: the existence and nonexistence of God.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com