?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Journal of No. 118


March 24th, 2011

The opposite of wrong is wrong @ 09:55 am


So Sam Harris doesn't get the whole is/ought thing. Neither does anti-Sam Harris:
Is not Hitchens an ardent supporter of the tenets of Neo-Darwinism that necessitates the perpetual death struggle within all species at all times? Shouldn't he in fact believe the precise opposite of what he claims? Survival of the fittest does not suggest social harmony.

Just because the 'weak' do, in fact, die preferentially does not mean we ought to kill them. Is this so hard to understand?

The rest of the article is just as bad, if not worse.
 
Share  |  |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:kyrialyse
Date:March 24th, 2011 03:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's kind of like the argument some people make that extinction is natural, therefore it's OK for humans to contribute to other species' extinction. Um, everyone is going to die eventually, therefore we can murder at will? Not so much...

Journal of No. 118