RogerLeeCooke

From my point of view, when I say something is "right," I mean it promotes the kind of society I want to live in. Let's analyze your hypothetical case from this point of view. Let's say some group is provably more intelligent than other groups. How does it then follow that it is "right" for them to rule? That is, how does it follow that I want them to rule?

You see the fallacy of the argument? If morals are subjective and a moral statement is a statement about the speaker's wishes for society, *no* fact whatsoever can prove anything is right or wrong.

As for your second question, we don't need to hypothesize. Lots of people DO decide to spend their life in sensory indulgence, and lots of people DO consider themselves members of a superior group. I disagree with those people, and I'd like to get as many people as possible to agree with me instead of them. That's all there is to it. I don't need to prove the universe endorses my position, any more than I need to prove that my preference for Bach over heavy metal is a reflection of some absolute standard of taste.

You slanted the question as if it was the subjectivist who is in a quandary here. I submit you might better reflect on why Christian churches supported the institution of slavery for so long. If slavery is unquestionably a moral wrong, how come these people with a direct pipeline to the ultimate source of morality didn't know it?

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: RogerLeeCooke ]</p>

echidna

No, we can’t. It comes down to the nurture vs nature debate. Certainly some cultures are more economically successful than others, but one needs to be very careful if you automatically want to attribute that to genetic race. I am not aware of credible scientific evidence to support this. For instance take the previous 2 millennia. Does this mean that genetic superiority has somehow shifted between each economically dominant race ? No, the specific cultural circumstances dictated superiority in each case.

Female brains are 10% smaller than male brains. Does this mean females are 10% less intelligent ? (maybe we’d better not go there …)

Clearly large physical brain differences are possible without any reduction in performance or ability.

Toto

Whoever admitted the possibility of one race being smarter than another?

There is no scientific definition of "race." Race is an arbitrary social construct invented a few centuries ago, not even comparable to breeds of dogs, so your ideas fall apart right there.

Not to mention that the right to rule is based in most secular countries on a democratic election, not on the average IQ score of people you consider part of your "race".

The IQ-race connection has been thoroughly demolished.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0613181301/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387949860/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve</a>

luvluv

Fine, there may not be a superior race now, but is it unreasonable to assume that, if we were able to gauge mental ability, and formulate a mathematical average for the different races (defined solely by color) that one racial group would not have a higher average than the others? Is it unreasonable to assume that the difference between some racial groups might not be substantial?

I also think it avoids the question to simply say that we do value human beings that we consider to be inferior. The Nazis didn't. So were they right, wrong, or neither? If I can choose my morals, why should I value people who are a drain on my finances? Certainly, I could be in their position one day, but what if I am simply of the opinion that a life of poverty and degredation is not worth living even for myself? Suppose I would rather die than be poor or live on public assistance?

At best, what you guys are saying is that it is moral to give human beings intrinsic value because that is what we are used to doing. That is not a reason. Why wouldn't I be justified in believing that humans only have value as they can benefit me personally, and that beyond personal gain they have no value whatsoever?

pug846

luvluv, please...do us all a favor and repeat this phrase after me:

I will look up the naturalistic fallacy and try to understand what it means.

I will look up the naturalistic fallacy and try to understand what it means.

I will look up the naturalistic fallacy and try to understand what it means.

I will look up the naturalistic fallacy and try to understand what it means.

I will look up the naturalistic fallacy and try to understand what it means.

tronvillain

luvluv:
While it could be true, the evidence does not indicate that it is true.

I will not agree that certain races are certainly smarter than others, for the simple fact that as far as I know, the evidence does not show that is the case. Oh, it is possible that there might be some average difference, but nothing too significant. Also, while crows may be smarter than most other birds, they are a different species than other birds, and "races" are not species.

Doubting Didymus

Luvluv, everyone who believes in subjective morality has their own reasons for believing in the value of humans. Some people choose to believe that humans have no value, and the people who believe otherwise try to restrict their actions.

Personally, I believe in objective morality. The Nazis were wrong to do what they did because it caused suffering and unhappiness. To act differently would have cause less suffering, and so their actions were immoral. In this sense, racism and social darwinism are wrong because they cause unneccesary suffering and unhappiness.

My perception of morality may be culturally conditioned and variable, but whatever IS right is right for all people everywhere.

Like mathematics, I may reach an incorrect result from an equasion, but whatever the true result of the equasion is is true for all people.

Subjectivists may speak for themselves.

tronvillain

luvluv:
It is possible that one "race" might have a higher average than the others, but it might not be statistically significant. Even if it was statistically significant, what part genetics played in the difference would be difficult to determine. Anyway, as far as I know, the evidence does not indicate that there is a significant difference.

echidna

Yes, I arbitrarily give humans intrinsic value, and I arbitrarily value consciousness. I don’t think I can objectively prove why I should do so, I just do. Is that so mistaken ? “Because God says so” hardly strikes me as a better alternative.

You can choose to value humans in a utilitarian sense, that they’re of worth as long as they’re useful, & I would consider you to be anti-humanistic and immoral from my perspective. Your choice.

echidna

What do you mean by superior ? Superior mental ability ? Superior economic prowess ? Well, let’s forget the race issue altogether. Today there are clearly people who are more intelligent (under each individual definition) than others. Does this mean that today you value them more than those less intelligent ?

FWIW I don’t. I see flaws in intelligence & I think the human persona requires the full range of human characteristics. I value the diversity of the Rich Tapestry of Life & I value pluralism. There is so much more than just intelligence, but to try & apply some kind of equation to prioritise some characteristics above others is utterly wrong IMO.