>All I can say is that I've yet to hear anyone demonstrate from the
>evolutionary worldview why killing fellow humans is wrong. I would go
>further - I would say the theory implies benefit in doing so.
>
>I'm speaking only of *naturalistic* evolution, determinism.
I am going to answer this one, in spite of my deep desire not to get
involved again with this raging discussion I started. While I would not
base morality on evolution, there are very good evolutionary reasons not to
kill your neighbor.
First, statistics show that you are more likely to kill members of your
family than strangers. Thus by killing a member of your family, you are
eliminating your own genes from the gene pool. Thus assuming your genes are
the fittest, you with your gun have eliminated those fit genes. (an
argument can be made on a materialistic basis that murder removes the unfit
genes, because anyone having a murder gene, who is murdering his kin, is
removing that gene from the gene pool).
If a man kills his wife, he makes life hard on his kids and makes them less
able to survive. His own genes are lost.
If a woman kills her husband for stealing the covers at night, she makes it
less likely that her kids will receive food, threatening the passing on of
her genes.
If a person kills a cousin, aunt, etc, they are wiping out their own genes.
So, while I do not think that morality can be based upon a scientific
theory, there is good evolutionary reason for outlawing murder.
Secondly, since even a mutant with no legs and an IQ of 50 can pull a
trigger eliminating Einstein, murder provides no basis for natural
selection. The technology of murder today makes everyone vulnerable and no
ability for humanity to evolve armour plating sufficient to stop a bullet or
a bomb. Back in the old days, when men had to kill hand to hand, there was
an advantage. The physically strong would survive. But they might not be
the real fittest, because they might be like some football players and not
be too quick upstairs. This is no longer so. Without such a selective
advantage, murder provides no benefit in the evolutionary scheme of things.
This is the identical fact that a meteoric impact killing half the world's
population would take out the best and the worst, equally. Bullets take out
athletes, computer nerds, fast runners, good bread winners, lousy
breadwinners, members of all races and creeds equally quickly if the bullet
strikes the same lethal spot on all these people.
Now you have heard a demonstration "from the evolutionary worldview why
killing fellow humans is wrong." If you reject this demonstration, you will
have to modify your statement to say that you have never heard an
explanation that you agree with. But now, you have heard one.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm