Re: Is Obama About To Become Just Another War Criminal?pw201November 25 2009, 12:30:37 UTC
I'm guessing the problem is with "fund" here: if there's corruption, the money ends up in the hands of drug traffickers, who are happy to take it in addition to their drug profits.
I read the 36 Arguments the other day. For an article so heavily grounded in logic, there's a bit too much circular reasoning and assuming one's conclusion.
The rebuttal of the free will argument particularly struck me: as I understand it it's "In my atheist/materialist worldview, there are only two categories, deterministic and random. Therefore if your actions are not deterministic, they must be random; therefore free will is meaningless."
"Flaw 2" to the Argument from Altruism is also very circular. "Blah blah blah allows us to act in a way that we can justify as maximizing everyone's well-being." But the question it's supposed to be answering is why we would want to maximise everyone's well-being, rather than just our own, in the first place.
I don't think the argument given is circular (perhaps poorly expressed, but it's hard to be both succinct and precise).
The Argument from Altruism says that altruistic behaviour cannot have evolved by natural selection, because natural selection only favours selfish behaviours.
The response in "flaw 2" points out that altruism is not necessarily an adaptive behaviour. It could be a non-adaptive consequence (what Stephen Jay Gould calls a spandrel) of another feature, namely, general intelligence.
We don't have to explain why general intelligence leads to altruism in order to establish that this is a flaw in the Argument from Altruism, merely observe that it does.
Perhaps an even clearer way to explain this flaw would be to note that the Argument from Altruism has the underlying premise:
Every feature of an organism either (a) evolved by natural selection or (b) was created by God.
When stated baldly like this, it’s clear that it’s a false dilemma: there are plenty of other possibilities: spandrels, founder effect, genetic drift, genetic linkage, etc.
Comments 7
and we're sore because too much of our money goes to Karzai's cronies to fund the drug trade
...so the drugs trade is not in fact inherently lucrative but requires subsidy?
Reply
Reply
The rebuttal of the free will argument particularly struck me: as I understand it it's "In my atheist/materialist worldview, there are only two categories, deterministic and random. Therefore if your actions are not deterministic, they must be random; therefore free will is meaningless."
"Flaw 2" to the Argument from Altruism is also very circular. "Blah blah blah allows us to act in a way that we can justify as maximizing everyone's well-being." But the question it's supposed to be answering is why we would want to maximise everyone's well-being, rather than just our own, in the first place.
Reply
The Argument from Altruism says that altruistic behaviour cannot have evolved by natural selection, because natural selection only favours selfish behaviours.
The response in "flaw 2" points out that altruism is not necessarily an adaptive behaviour. It could be a non-adaptive consequence (what Stephen Jay Gould calls a spandrel) of another feature, namely, general intelligence.
We don't have to explain why general intelligence leads to altruism in order to establish that this is a flaw in the Argument from Altruism, merely observe that it does.
Reply
(Maybe you should rewrite the article - your comment is as concise as the original, and clearer and more precise.)
Reply
Every feature of an organism either (a) evolved by natural selection or (b) was created by God.
When stated baldly like this, it’s clear that it’s a false dilemma: there are plenty of other possibilities: spandrels, founder effect, genetic drift, genetic linkage, etc.
Reply
Leave a comment