Alias wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am
That's actually the unfocused version of the same question. "Better" is non-specific and impossible to assess, whereas health, intellectual attainment and athletic prowess are comparable on scales that already exist and are in use.
Comparable relative to what? Health and athletic prowess are just as relative as race when it concerns 'human evolution'.
My argument is that the fight to overcome problems makes humanity stronger. From such a perspective, actual health may be found in 'potential' for resilience, to win in unforeseeable circumstances, in any condition.
Alias wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 1:37 amOr in
any way? That depends on what you want the outcome to be and how you go about achieving it.
There is no absolute or universally accepted goal.
The applicability of the moral question "
what is 'good'?" is evidence that the concept 'optimum' is applicable.
From a short term human perspective,'optimum' may be found in 'flow' and its corresponding mental
extasis (an ultimate state of performance as a human being).
As a specie, and even as 'part of Nature', there is logically a similar 'optimal' state. For longer term survival, it may be important that the human is able to achieve synchrony with the optimum state of Nature.
Morality would enable humans to achieve such a state, by addressing the simple question "
what is 'good'?".
Alias wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am
What does that mean? What is the "fundamental level" of the issue? How can
one address a universal?
An individual's unique perspective could be taken into account - but
every individual's might take too long to catalogue. Perform what? Survive how long?
Fundamental level would be "a priori" or "before value". One can address it using philosophy.
Man cannot know the value of what he cannot know beforehand (a priori), which explains why it can be difficult to formulate a reason why, for example, morality is worthy of consideration.
The assumption that the laws of physics (Nature) are static and that facts differ from truths on a fundamental level is a dogmatic belief in
uniformitarianism. Therefor, all that can be seen in the world is
value.
Morality as a concept is a retro-perspective (of an implied 'goal' or 'purpose') for the origin of valuing which cannot be value because of the simple logical truth that something cannot originate from itself. Therefor, while it can be made evident that morality is worthy of consideration, it cannot be said that it 'exists' in an empirical sense.
Emannuel Kant argued that although it is not possible to have knowledge of morality, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind rational faith. In answer to the question, “
What may I hope?” Kant argues that morality is evident.
"
What may I hope?" is a question that is posed in light of "
what is 'good'?" relative to the individual.
Alias wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am
What 'method'? I merely said the people who can do it are too few to matter.
Method such as the choice for 'embryo selection' for eugenics motives. Like a butterfly effect, a practice or idea can have profound implications.
Alias wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am
My argument would be: "one cannot float towards success on a cloud", i.e. "life is a fight".
Who made that an unbreakable rule?
My footnote provides an explanation. It is evidence that it is required to put striving to 'good' practice, i.e. to 'fight'. (I do not mean something physical, it could be with the mind / intelligently).
The validity of the argument may come down to the debate determinism vs free will.
My logic shows that free will is evident despite that free will may not stand on its own as something that isn't determined beforehand.
arjand wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 3:00 pmBy the same logic, one can pose that since it can be stated that "good" per se cannot be valued,
one cannot pose that one is not free to choose with regard to the appropriation of "good". If one would not be able to choose it would imply that the indicated "good" per se has been valued, which is impossible.
Alias wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am
No top-down control would ever put
easy life for the peons at the top of its agenda. The elite already have an easy life - exactly because the peons don't. If the elite wanted everyone to have an easy life, we'd have it already.
I do not mean an easy life as in humans enjoying an easy life, but easy as in 'given' in the form of properties that are intended as they are given. The properties provide advantages within a limited scope of the human perspective. Emperically, the human may look strong and healthy. From a resilience perspective however, it may become desastrously weak.
Evidence my be cows that have been driven to extinction due to how humans have applied eugenics. It is a different type of eugenics, but it does provide evidence of what I intend to denote with regard to the essentially of resilience.
Cows Have Gone Extinct
WASHINGTON—In a deeply disturbing finding that has sent shockwaves throughout the nation and the world, officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed Thursday that cows have gone extinct.
https://www.theonion.com/cows-go-extinct-1825018199
The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/