tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post7833490588954770904..comments2023-04-14T02:12:08.928-07:00Comments on Tark Marg: Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).http://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-20199245533276031872019-05-26T08:12:01.627-07:002019-05-26T08:12:01.627-07:00You should really title your blog, "Towards a...You should really title your blog, "Towards a scientific analysis of society." That certainly <br />applies to the preliminary steps towards analyzing morality here.<br /><br />Of many possible examples, I choose the following:<br /><br />"Thus we see that for everyone, he himself is utterly normal and others are the zombies."<br /><br />The crux of the matter is just who those "others" are. There may be no overlap between the<br />"others" of Adolf Hitler and the "others" Martin Luther King, Jr. Where in your essay<br />do you address this difference?<br /><br />As a Professor of Mathematics with close to five decades of teaching experience, I<br />am better qualified than most to know which phenomena can be quantified, and which can not.<br />As you elaborate your ideas on morality, you should keep in mind Jeremy Bentham's failed<br />project to produce a hedonic calculus. <br />Peter Nyikoshttp://people.math.sc.edunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-12753736824362803772016-09-20T07:47:12.628-07:002016-09-20T07:47:12.628-07:00Dear Enquirer, I've resumed blogging after a l...Dear Enquirer, I've resumed blogging after a long hiatus (necessitated by various commitments and my own indiscipline). I have a new post up, which may clarify or crystallize our differences, and to which I would suggest we move our discussion, if there is still interest on Enquirer's part.<br /> <br />I also had a look at your blog (wideavenue.blogspot.com), specifically the first post. I couldn't find an option there to leave comments so here are my preliminary thoughts:<br /><br />1) Use of the term state seems confusing and does not seem to add value. Why not use terms like "basic necessities" or "essential services" etc?<br /><br />2) As you have noted, there is certain to be disagreement over what constitutes "essential". Ideally there should be a framework for resolving these disagreements in an objective manner.<br /><br />3) "Government", as I see it, is nothing more than a group of people deputed to run basic functions; and as such is simply a subset of society. There is no macroscopic rule to assume that it will always possess the resources needed to provide whatever is deemed "essential". The framework proposed, at least in the first post, does not seem to address this. For instance, in recent months, the government of Venezuela seems unable to provide enough food and medicine to many citizens. How does your model deal with this situation?<br /><br />4) There does not seem to be an empirically supported axiom underlying the notion that government (i.e. the rest of society) MUST provide what is deemed "essential" or "having state". In mathematics for example, based on everyday observation, we assume some statement to be true (i.e. axioms) such as "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points" or if A = B and B = C, then A = C.<br /><br />Is there such an axiom on the basis of which we may derive your implicit assumption?<br /><br />In Tark Marg for example, the observation that widespread instincts/norms like avoidance of injury/desire for sex/prohibition of theft all seem to align with an impulse for maximizing self-perpetuation is used to derive the Tark Marg statement. Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).https://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-24565740717816547862016-07-27T06:17:11.932-07:002016-07-27T06:17:11.932-07:00Thank you for your replies Enquirer, and I once ag...Thank you for your replies Enquirer, and I once again apologize for the delay in responding. Rest assured that the delay is not owing to a lack of appreciation of the value of Enquirer's criticism.<br /><br />I'm working on a subsequent post which I'd like to finish within the next 1-2 weeks. I'm forcing myself to desist from various online activity to avoid the distractions involved. Please allow me some extra time to respond, which I promise to do.Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).https://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-71130912205945484132016-07-10T17:17:57.432-07:002016-07-10T17:17:57.432-07:00Blogger's point of argument does not appear to...Blogger's point of argument does not appear to be simply that "murder or theft are widely prohibited in most societies", which is surely a banality. Blogger's point of argument is that "murder or theft are widely prohibited in most societies BECAUSE they promote perpetuation". <br /><br />Similarly, blogger's point of argument does not appear to be simply that "there is in humans a "widespread" love of sex, food, one's kin or aversion to injury or social rejection", which is also surely a banality. Blogger's point of argument is that "there is in humans a "widespread" love of sex, food, one's kin or aversion to injury or social rejection BECAUSE humans have evolved to have them". <br /><br />In both cases, there is some abstraction on account of abstract concepts used in the assertion ('promote perpetuation', 'evolved'). But more than that, there is some abstraction arising from the imputed CAUSE-AND-EFECT relationships in the assertion. And this kind of abstraction takes the assertion to a different epistemic level; it is no longer a 'lay fact'. It now has to be regarded as a hypothesis. Experiments, field studies, simulations, research, evidence, peer review become called for. Variables have to be isolated, controls have to be established, data has to be collected, regression analysis has to be performed, conflicting data has to be evaluated, results have to be duplicated. <br /><br />So here is a research paper that reports studies of whether a human trait is CAUSED by nature or nurture - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063236 (identifying a possible cause of the ability to delay gratification in children). <br /><br />Tark Marg proposes to assign reasons and causes of phenomena, including the expansive claim that human ethics are determined by evolution (if they are determined by evolution, why is there so much controversy about them? do humans agonize about the other, more physical adaptations, as they do over moral questions?) <br /><br />It is hoped that the distinction is clear to blogger. No more can be said in the matter. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-17790499973570547882016-07-10T17:14:18.099-07:002016-07-10T17:14:18.099-07:00would it be sensible require consultation with sci...would it be sensible require consultation with scientific literature before asserting that "Equatorial Africans have more melanin content on average than North Europeans"... "On average men have more upper body strength than women"... "water is wet or that the sky is blue" <br /><br />102e<br />The above given assertions are no doubt in the character of 'fact', with the possible exception of "water is wet", which may be a tautology. The first may justifiably require some supporting studies, because 'melanin content' is an abstraction (unless blogger means to say that "Equatorial Africans have darker complexion on average than North Europeans", which is considerably less abstract); the second may not require 'studies' - it is a lay induction, low in abstraction, and it can be countered by other lay inductions by anyone aware of other facts, resulting in a balance of plausibility or an addition of nuance; the last may definitely not require 'studies', it is a raw observation that contains no abstraction, and therefore may not occasion an alternative viewpoint to be put. <br /><br />Coming to the point in question, when blogger says, "murder or theft are widely prohibited in most societies" and "there is in humans a "widespread" love of sex, food, one's kin or aversion to injury or social rejection", he/she appears to assert them in the character of fact; these are again lay inductions, quite low in abstraction, and they may be accepted without much demur, unless someone has knowledge or experience of the contrary and puts a counter, resulting in a balance of plausibility or an addition of nuance. <br /><br />For the record, enquirer shares blogger's perception that "murder or theft are widely prohibited in most societies" and "there is in humans a "widespread" love of sex, food, one's kin or aversion to injury or social rejection". Enquirer may not be asking for experimental evidence or research studies to support these 'facts', and may not view them as 'erroneous', as alleged by blogger. <br /><br />What, then, is enquirer seeking evidence for? Blogger is urged to read the following carefully. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-71831150483028214262016-07-10T15:58:54.921-07:002016-07-10T15:58:54.921-07:00One technical quibble, with blogger's permissi...One technical quibble, with blogger's permission: when blogger refers to "current Western conventional wisdom", he/she appears to have "liberalism" in mind. But neither is liberalism peculiarly Western, nor is it quite clear that there is a definite "current Western conventional wisdom". For the former, the hoary Upanishads of India exhibit a spirit of tolerance and embrace of diversity (e.g. 'for the large-hearted, the whole world is one family' - Mahopanishad VI.71-73), that they may be considered to have strands of what is now associated with liberalism. For the latter, please see "culture wars" in the USA; in the USA, and in Europe also, there is liberal wisdom and conservative wisdom, and a see-saw over time between liberal and conservative in popular opinion. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-63984374640413959812016-07-10T15:55:57.200-07:002016-07-10T15:55:57.200-07:00"extreme being a measure of insistence on ort..."extreme being a measure of insistence on orthodoxy, and quite a neutral term used by scholars"<br />But isn't Enquirer's position precisely an "extreme" (i.e. total) adherence to current Western conventional wisdom (i.e. orthodoxy)?<br /><br />104e<br />Enquirer is unaware that any identifiable "position" or "wisdom" was presented from his/her side in this debate; it is felt that there was presented only a critique of blogger's ideas and buttressing of the critique. In other words, enquirer did not view this debate as a match-up between two ideologies, but rather as an ideology on the one hand and a critique of it on the other. Perhaps blogger feels that enquirer's critique was motivated by "adherence to orthodoxy"; this may indeed be the case - or it maybe be the case that enquirer has some hope in the principle proposed by blogger, and is playing the devil's advocate to be either more convinced of its merits or the opposite. But in any case, enquirer's own ideology and enquirer's motivations have little to do with the SUBSTANCE of this debate, it is felt. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-81233053745379281342016-07-10T15:52:22.535-07:002016-07-10T15:52:22.535-07:00But this seems to be a contradiction of Enquirer&#...But this seems to be a contradiction of Enquirer's own point; gay marriage is a very recent "inversion" of thitherto accepted moral norms. <br /><br />104e<br />It may be an "inversion", or it may be an "expansion" of the accepted moral norms (akin to giving women the right to vote); either way, supporting gay marriage does not call for inverting the bulk of existing norms and practices, it merely chips at the edges. For this reason, it has minor significance in the scheme of things, and also exactly for this reason, opposing gay marriage on the grounds that it does not promote perpetuation has major significance in the scheme of things, because it allows or even calls for opposing whatever does not promote perpetuation, and thus has the potential to upend many existing norms and practices. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-62482617350274857392016-07-10T15:50:34.660-07:002016-07-10T15:50:34.660-07:00When blogger avers that it simply is not the case ...When blogger avers that it simply is not the case that Tark Marg makes in principle moral slavery, genocide..., one tends to assume that he/she is being moderate in applying the principle. But perhaps blogger will agree that more extreme interpretations are possible, and persons other than blogger may embrace them. <br /><br />It may be noted here that "moderate" and "extreme" are judged by the extent of departure from a standard, whatever be that standard. For liberals, the Christian belief that God made the world in literally six days is an extreme view from the standpoint of science; the other Christian belief that God made the world in six stages, and not necessarily in six days literally, is a "moderate" one. Of course, for a Christian, support of abortion rights would be "extreme" liberalism, whereas support for abortion only till such time that the fetus does not become viable would be a "moderate" liberal position. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-75706236279957253152016-07-10T15:34:01.291-07:002016-07-10T15:34:01.291-07:00When a moral principle is proposed, the proposer t...When a moral principle is proposed, the proposer tends to assume that the moral 'cut' it makes will fall roughly along the lines that the proposer would be comfortable with. It may be justified to point out in critique that there are consequences that perhaps the proposer has not yet considered, and that perhaps may not be comfortably embraced by the proposer. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-65428486299337115032016-07-10T15:24:54.782-07:002016-07-10T15:24:54.782-07:00"Tark Marg makes in principle moral slavery, ..."Tark Marg makes in principle moral slavery, genocide... "<br />But this simply isn't the case; at least Enquirer should mention that these points are Enquirer's interpretation.<br /><br />104e<br />It is not for no reason that enquirer in the beginning sought an explicit and unequivocal embrace by blogger of the perceived consequences of the TM principle. And at that time blogger appeared to undertake the embrace, allowing slavery, genocide & c "if they were favorable to perpetuation". <br /><br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-26941064354674284302016-07-06T05:15:51.481-07:002016-07-06T05:15:51.481-07:00"Tark Marg makes immoral contraception, selfi..."Tark Marg makes immoral contraception, selfies, women's right to work ... Tark Marg makes in principle moral slavery, genocide... "<br /><br />But this simply isn't the case; at least Enquirer should mention that these points are Enquirer's interpretation. Moreover, Enquirer/traditionalists may themselves be accused of accepting slavery/genocide applied to animals etc.<br /><br />"banning gay marriage rights"<br /><br />But this seems to be a contradiction of Enquirer's own point; gay marriage is a very recent "inversion" of thitherto accepted moral norms.<br /><br />"refusing to treat animals with kindness"<br /><br />This is a misrepresentation; the point is not that animals SHOULD be subjected to unkindness arbitrarily, but that given their inability to reciprocate, they not be accorded the same concessions as fellow humans. This may be turned around to suggest that Enquirer/traditionalists should allow animal voting rights or marriage. Should this be allowed, and if not, why not?<br /><br />"extreme being a measure of insistence on orthodoxy, and quite a neutral term used by scholars"<br /><br />But isn't Enquirer's position precisely an "extreme" (i.e. total) adherence to current Western conventional wisdom (i.e. orthodoxy)?<br /><br />"There are after all strands of moderate thought in the Middle East"<br /><br />How would Enquirer judge that these strands are "moderate"? Moreover, "moderate" is not the same as "correct".Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).https://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-67291997963210218582016-07-06T04:55:29.698-07:002016-07-06T04:55:29.698-07:00102b
"So here is the crux: is there any scie...102b<br /><br />"So here is the crux: is there any scientific paper published in a science journal that provides support for the claim that "mankind has evolved to have certain traits ... ""<br /><br /><br />The points referred to as evidence for Tark Marg (that there exists a "widespread" love of certain behaviors like sex, food, peer approval and aversion to injury or social rejection) are (admittedly subjectively) of such a general nature that to require published literature for backup is akin to requiring published literature to support the assertion that water is wet or that the sky is blue.<br /><br />Another class of assumptions are that murder or theft are widely prohibited in most societies (i.e. the social equivalent to an individual trait). These are of course based on personal observation and general knowledge. Would Enquirer disagree with these?<br /><br />Moreover, there is also an opportunity cost in terms of time lost and effort spent which could have been used elsewhere. To turn the argument around, would it be sensible require consultation with scientific literature before asserting that "Equatorial Africans have more melanin content on average than North Europeans" or that "On average men have more upper body strength than women"?<br /><br />Moreover, arguments must stand on their own factual and logical legs; publication in scientific journals, while quite likely to be indicative of reliance on empirical method, is neither strictly necessary nor sufficient for establishing correctness. To suggest that one may not form an opinion based on one's observations unless this has been published in the literature is not tenable.<br /><br />Nonetheless, it is an interesting epistemological issue. What constitutes correctness? What is the threshold for sufficient evidence?<br /><br />"Then perhaps it may be better to keep the cart of morality in abeyance and attend first to the horse of fact; otherwise it may appear to be pre-judging"<br /><br />As mentioned in the post, the "facts" being relied upon to draw the Tark Marg inference are that there is in humans a "widespread" love of sex, food, one's kin or aversion to injury or social rejection, as well as "widespread" social prohibition of acts such as murder or theft. Admittedly this is personal observation. Perhaps Enquirer can elaborate why these assumptions are erroneous?Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).https://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-42648399542162842652016-07-06T02:57:34.222-07:002016-07-06T02:57:34.222-07:00Do excuse the slip-up Enquirer, I apologize.Do excuse the slip-up Enquirer, I apologize.Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).https://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-76520578728743213942016-07-06T02:50:23.439-07:002016-07-06T02:50:23.439-07:00"blogger may be expected to share their conce..."blogger may be expected to share their concern that homosexuality is anti-perpetuation."<br /><br />It would certainly seem to be case. Although it is true that I haven't looked at relevant data (assuming it exists), it would certainly seem to be a straightforward inference. Perhaps Enquirer has data to prove otherwise?<br /><br />"appears to ignore the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature, in species other than human, and there is a POSSIBILITY that it somehow promotes perpetuation in some unknown, indirect way"<br /><br />Quite possibly. For precisely this reason, Enquirer may recall this sentence from the post <br /><br />"...Thus, the rational path, Tark Marg would be to modify the current arrangement and provide tax rebates/subsidies/exemptions etc to parents or guardians, including homosexual and single parents etc, whose children meet a minimum threshold..."Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).https://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-10621406487818851082016-07-06T02:41:56.246-07:002016-07-06T02:41:56.246-07:00112b:
""murder" is immoral only in...112b:<br /><br />""murder" is immoral only in the extent that it attenuates perpetuation... empathy for the aged, the terminally ill...the mentally retarded..."<br /><br />It is a forced conclusion which does not follow. Empathy being misplaced is not the same as undertaking murder. Moreover, the aged can nonetheless be of great help. Regarding the mentally retarded the onus is on their caregivers, who should have the option of terminating an existence that only draws resources (e.g. from other children) who could do much more with those resources. It is certainly not someone else's prerogative, considering that unilateral action from outside is an invitation for retaliation.<br /><br />"blogger's insistence now that "murder" is a global prohibition appears a little inconsistent"..."The gays in the night club definitely did not retaliate"<br /><br />But they could and would. Retaliation will inevitably follow from relevant entities competent to do so (like caregivers of mentally retarded persons or gays), if violence is not closely regulated. <br /><br />Although this must be stated in a more formal manner, in general violence (and other actions) must be exercised only when its likely perpetuation benefit is much greater than the costs, which does not seem to be the case in the issue under discussion.<br /><br />Tark Marg (The Path of Reason).https://www.blogger.com/profile/11483749076367687661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-70438393829443561182016-06-27T04:50:57.851-07:002016-06-27T04:50:57.851-07:00And the countries that are exhibiting the highest ...And the countries that are exhibiting the highest population growths NOW figure at the bottom of quality-of-life rankings NOW. It is hoped that this absence of correlation on the one hand, and presence of a significant counter-correlation on the other, persuades blogger to ponder whether the factors in human perpetuation are well-understood (and this was raised on day one); no more can be said in the matter. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-28307842098861262982016-06-26T18:21:27.336-07:002016-06-26T18:21:27.336-07:00112e
Blogger is gently requested to entertain any ...112e<br />Blogger is gently requested to entertain any "possibilities" of an ad hominem nature in private, as airing them in the discussion may add little or no value to the merits of anybody's case. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-41324506002260847792016-06-26T18:20:06.531-07:002016-06-26T18:20:06.531-07:00112e
"I reject the implied notion that the nu...112e<br />"I reject the implied notion that the number (people) or the prominence (the pope) of those advocating a position is a good reason to toe the line oneself. One's reactions should be based on principles, which I have stated above. Indeed the normalization of homosexuality is owed to exactly such an attitude." <br />Enquirer's interest is in neither numbers nor prominence of people. Enquirer's point is that when people, whoever they be, are acting unmistakably on their moral convictions, it is natural to expect blogger to express unmistakably his/her own moral take on the matter. If there is moral conviction, an expression of it would not be held back, and should not be held back if one aspires to bring others round to one's way of thinking. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-68901003902452174902016-06-26T18:18:02.095-07:002016-06-26T18:18:02.095-07:00112e
It is a great concern of the guardians of ...112e<br />It is a great concern of the guardians of 'family values' that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more people taking it up as a lifestyle choice, and thereby perpetuation will be attenuated. This is one of their rallying cries. Now as is typical in such cases, this claim is made without any reference to evidence. But that should not hinder blogger, because he/she seems to have decided not to wait for evidence to get in the way of morality. Therefore, blogger may be expected to share their concern that homosexuality is anti-perpetuation. <br /><br />Blogger's averment that homosexuals, by their nature, are likely to leave little trace in subsequent generations, appears to ignore the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature, in species other than human, and there is a POSSIBILITY that it somehow promotes perpetuation in some unknown, indirect way. Please see enquirer2000 on 27 May 2016 at 19:12 So homosexuals may not die away like dynasties; nature may keep on making them as it has been doing. Bottomline is that we cannot tell for sure that gays will die away. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-5188764661712796802016-06-26T18:15:22.779-07:002016-06-26T18:15:22.779-07:00112e
When closely analyzed, "murder" is ...112e<br />When closely analyzed, "murder" is immoral only in the extent that it attenuates perpetuation, according to Tark Marg. Therefore, as agreed by blogger on 20 May 2016 at 11:26, empathy for the aged, the terminally ill...the mentally retarded... is misplaced according to Tark Marg (making such individuals ripe for extermination), and further blogger recommended euthanasia for severely deformed children. <br /><br />So blogger's insistence now that "murder" is a global prohibition appears a little inconsistent. If murder is prohibited 'globally', pray why not 'global' marriage rights? <br /><br />And the given rationale that murder is prohibited because it may lead to a war of all against all, is annulled by blogger's agreement to "empathy is misplaced for any being that cannot co-operate, cannot retaliate, cannot comprehend and cannot participate in the enterprise of collective self-perpetuation". The gays in the night club definitely did not retaliate, and the shooter was liquidated by the police, who would not even be there if shooting gays were considered quite moral by Tark Marg, and hence no law against it. He would have walked out to a hero's reception. <br /><br />If avoiding a war of all against all to promote perpetuation is to inform morality, then why not accomodate gay marriage on that count? It would certainly reduce one source of social tension and focus diversion. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-74985693702487999502016-06-26T18:13:33.805-07:002016-06-26T18:13:33.805-07:00112e
Webster's Online Dictionary - maximal
adj...112e<br />Webster's Online Dictionary - maximal<br />adjective<br /> Of, relating to, or consisting of a maximum.<br /> Being the greatest or highest possible.<br />noun<br />Mathematics - An element in an ordered set that is followed by no other. <br /><br />Also, 'maxima' and 'minima' are properties associated with mathematical functions. <br /><br />Hope enquirer's meaning of 'maximal' in 112e is clear. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-31765965131038392492016-06-26T17:06:23.681-07:002016-06-26T17:06:23.681-07:00109e
As already noted in 109e, on killing of kin, ...109e<br />As already noted in 109e, on killing of kin, the question does not arise because the kin also have a right to a high quality life and to be there for their kin and friends. The morality of not killing kin is derived not from the fact that one would desire to have offspring as an essential constituent of a high quality life, but rather from the logical implication of the demo principle, that EVERYONE is entitled to a high quality life; the demo principle, deliberately, is designed to apply not to any individual or group, but to anyone at all. <br /><br />Also, "kin" may matter if a person desires to have "kin" for companionship and allying (just like 'friends', who are non-biological allies and companions), as an element of a high quality life, rather than for "perpetuating". So the demo principle makes killing any person's kin immoral, because it denies that person a high quality life. <br /><br />And also, as already noted 109e, framing this choice does not appear to be a legitimate argument: there appears to be no inherent impossibility of having a high quality life and having high perpetuation as an element of high quality life (though perhaps it requires higher effort than in the case of having either one or the other). <br /><br />On the question of "Who should matter and who should not?", blogger may like to see 'kin selection' and the work of R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, W.D. Hamilton etc. The subject is now quite mathematized, and become known as "Hamilton's rule". Simply put, given that a person shares half her genes (on average) with either parent, and any sibling; quarter of her genes (on average) with cousins, one eighth of her genes with second-cousins etc., the one who matters most to a person is herself, parents and siblings matter half of that, cousins matter a quarter etc. <br /><br />Enquirer would not like to presume to suggest any readings to blogger, but it may perhaps help blogger with the Tark Marg principle to read Darwin's 'Origin of Species' and 'Descent of Man', Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene', Brooks' 'Darwinian Fairytales' (as a critique of Dawkins), Freud's 'Civilization and its Discontents', Wilson's 'Sociobiology' and Cosmides-Tooby's 'The Adapted Mind'. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-73703793481118028482016-06-26T16:26:00.267-07:002016-06-26T16:26:00.267-07:00108e
Yes, and what about 1950 to 1960, 1960 to 197...108e<br />Yes, and what about 1950 to 1960, 1960 to 1970 and so on? The developed countries, which have a yet higher quality of life NOW than in 1700-1800, are NOW in demographic decline. So blogger's argument appears to be that "high quality quality life promotes perpetuation, except when it does not". So the deficiency enquirer sees is "cherry-picking". But enquirer also stands willing to be corrected. <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1092783772697518655.post-40893727293637518652016-06-26T16:15:26.500-07:002016-06-26T16:15:26.500-07:00107e
The Tark Marg position is that mankind has EV...107e<br />The Tark Marg position is that mankind has EVOLVED to have certain traits, which, therefore, presumably constitute the human 'natural essence', and yet therefore, indicate what is moral and what is not (as in 102e). If this position is pursued to its logical conclusion, it will demand a return of mankind to the state of nature, to an animal existence in the jungle. <br /><br />If this is not seen as something to be avoided, we may agree to disagree here and discuss other matters. <br /><br />It is purposufully requested that blogger not see it as tit-for-tat if enquirer were to urge blogger to consider this issue at some depth. Human civilization IS a move away from the state of nature, and it DOES come into conflict with and restrain 'instincts'. Sigmund Freud may be recalled with profit on this point: "It is difficult to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct". <br />enquirer2000http://enquirer2000.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com