Re: It begins

sinister wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:480b6c24$0$30183$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sinister wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4809616a$0$3392$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=

<snip>

Taboo, the pre-civilization substrate for things like abhorrence
of incest, requires a social structure. It can't be considered innate.
The prevalence of ritual cannibalism should be sufficient to prove this.

Don't follow you there.


Some societies practiced ritual cannibalism; some did not. Morality
is founded on taboo.

Social structure _is_ innate. Just because it cannot exist in a single human organism doesn't mean it isn't.


Just because humans are adapted to potentially be social doesn't
mean there are not a wealth of possible societies, much less
moralities. Previous to agriculture, it is not clear
that social-ness made that much difference in evolutionary
fitness.

People assume a morality is an evolutionary fitness-improver; I
rather doubt it...

He also clearly fails to understand the difference between "is" and "ought".

TO what extent is that just good old 19th Century Determinism? Which is
ironic - it is the principle which failed in Germany after you-know-who.

Still, I think people are predisposed to reject Darwin on merely
... consumerist grounds.


I think the guy's article reeks of it. That is appalling.

Oh, I (unfortunately) have to agree there.


<snip>
--
Les Cargill



--
Les Cargill
.