On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Iain,
>
> You're quite right - there IS a big difference between (A) believing that
> evolution has happened vs (B) basing one's ethics on it.
>
> BUT;
>
> (1) Regardless of the distinction between (A) and (B) (above) people still
> do (rightly or wrongly) take evolution as the starting point for ethics. I'm
> merely observing that medical ethics might not correspond to historical
> precedent in such a case.
Why not? Let me walk you through a plausible argument: We are all
familiar with species protecting their off-spring which makes sense
from an evolutionary perspective. Now add to this the studies on
reciprocal altruism and you may come to understand that in
evolutionary theory and practice, it may not always be that 'survival
of the fittest' involves a laissez-faire attitude towards others.
> (2) it is a historical fact that evolutionary theory HAS been taken as a
> point of departure for medical ethics and that the consequences have been
> quite disturbing - to say the least.
Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.
> (3) when one is a thoroughgoing evolutionist of the sort Dawkins is, then
> one's only option IS to base ethics in evolutionary theory - either directly
> or indirectly. To do otherwise is to smuggle in assumptions which aren't
> justified on the basis of one's original starting point.
I would argue that such a position should not be presumed to be unique
to people like Dawkins and includes religious people as well.
> Here the analogy is Descartes' philosophy: Descartes simply couldn't get
> past "I think therefore I am" - itself a highly questionable claim - without
> the arbitrary introduction of God into his philosophical schemata thereby
> undoing his entire rationalist project.
>
> In Dawkins case it's true that he need not ground his ethics in his
> evolutionary theory - but only if he introduces some arbitrary ground of
> ethics which "transcends" evolution. This is pretty hard to do when one so
> strongly insists on evolution as a total theory of everything.
Have you ever studied how people like Dawkins deal with these issues?
> Of course, if Dawkins wants to concede that evolution is NOT a theory of
> everything, I will quite happily agree. After all, I'm not the one claiming
> that the natural order is all that exists. But if Dawkins does want to
> introduce something outside of evolution, then I'll be very interested as to
> what that something is and how that introduction is itself to be justified.
> Absent such arbitrary introductions, however, and we are left with evolution
> as the basis of any ethical claim which evolutionists of Dawkins' sort may
> wish to make. In which case, I think my original reservations re the medical
> ethics of doctors who are evolutionists are not lightly to be set aside.
I disagree as they are based on a flawed presumption
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
>
> Iain Strachan wrote:
> > Hi Murray ,
>>
>> I don't think i can quite buy in to your speculation. Surely there is
>> a big difference between believing that evolution as a process has
>> happened, and believing that it is the best principle for intelligent
>> humans to base their decisions upon.
>>
>> I believe Richard Dawkins once said "if I were God I wouldn't have
>> done it by evolution". Atheists often use evolution as a reason for
>> disbelieving in god because of the staggering amounts of suffering and
>> waste involved.
>>
>> Doctors seek to reduce suffering and to preserve human life; something
>> deemed much more important than survival of the fittest.--
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 1 15:02:22 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 01 2008 - 15:02:22 EDT