Hi there,
So I see Evolution right, and I think "ok, that basically amounts to being a martyr for your genes" (passive ("safe"?) terrorism, what have you). But there is a problem, despite being able to coherently espouse a smooth transition from slime to civilized creature - introducing such concepts as threat associated unknowns, temptations and foreshadowed martyrdom - we arrive at the fact that there is still not a coherent conceptualization of what exactly social responsibility is, in the light of Evolutionary discoveries. Part of the problem is that Evolution typically eschews telos and effaces the identity of the individual, but I think you can still make a case.
The case can be made for a theory of consequentiality in the context of martyrdom. This is basically what any parent does, when they lay out the rules of the house for their kid. It is instinctive and relies on action related deterrent that is applied to every threat level activity that is possible. There is a selection pressure for the house to maintain order, so the house rules emerge. And there we have it, the theory of consequentiality in the context of martyrdom is emergence (of rules).
So what specifically do you say is right and wrong, in the light of "emergence". It seems worse than relativity right. Not only are you taking that something relevant will substantiate completely for granted, you are assuming that random association will attribute the correct consequence to the action over time, if it is even correctly perceived as a threat before it has wiped out the species. This is bare bones! But on the other hand, there is a great deal of flexibility in something that addresses threats according to the level of consequence that is perceived, because the martyr who correctly perceives threat most of the time - as a consequence of their bound relationship to specie threat - is therefore the greatest possible authority on what the consequences should be, from a position of honest about how easy it is to face the greatest perceived threat.
I will stop there to see how you argue with my logic, that in effect Jesus should determine our morality.
Thoughts?
So I see Evolution right, and I think "ok, that basically amounts to being a martyr for your genes" (passive ("safe"?) terrorism, what have you). But there is a problem, despite being able to coherently espouse a smooth transition from slime to civilized creature - introducing such concepts as threat associated unknowns, temptations and foreshadowed martyrdom - we arrive at the fact that there is still not a coherent conceptualization of what exactly social responsibility is, in the light of Evolutionary discoveries. Part of the problem is that Evolution typically eschews telos and effaces the identity of the individual, but I think you can still make a case.
The case can be made for a theory of consequentiality in the context of martyrdom. This is basically what any parent does, when they lay out the rules of the house for their kid. It is instinctive and relies on action related deterrent that is applied to every threat level activity that is possible. There is a selection pressure for the house to maintain order, so the house rules emerge. And there we have it, the theory of consequentiality in the context of martyrdom is emergence (of rules).
So what specifically do you say is right and wrong, in the light of "emergence". It seems worse than relativity right. Not only are you taking that something relevant will substantiate completely for granted, you are assuming that random association will attribute the correct consequence to the action over time, if it is even correctly perceived as a threat before it has wiped out the species. This is bare bones! But on the other hand, there is a great deal of flexibility in something that addresses threats according to the level of consequence that is perceived, because the martyr who correctly perceives threat most of the time - as a consequence of their bound relationship to specie threat - is therefore the greatest possible authority on what the consequences should be, from a position of honest about how easy it is to face the greatest perceived threat.
I will stop there to see how you argue with my logic, that in effect Jesus should determine our morality.
Thoughts?
