Are Ideology and Morality like AIG and Citibank?

[coberst]

Are Ideology and Morality like AIG and Citibank?


Are AIG and Citibank too big and complex to fail?

Can our high tech capitalism, where extraordinary power rests in ordinary hands, survive such a situation?

How can capitalism adjust?


Are ideology and morality too big and complex to be encompassed by science?

Can our high tech species, where extraordinary power rests in ordinary hands, survive such a situation?

How can the human species adjust?


I am really only interested in this later sequence of questions.

[Boerseun]

"Ideology" and "Morality" falls squarely in the lap of Philosophy, and, as such, has very little to do with Science.

We can, in extension of your analogy, declare someone a "Moral Person", or a "Morally Bankrupt Person", but from a Scientific point of view, it would be meaningless. A "Moral Person" and a "Morally Bankrupt" person would fall at the same rate in a vacuum, as far as Science is concerned.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

"Ideology" and "Morality" falls squarely in the lap of Philosophy, and, as such, has very little to do with Science.

We can, in extension of your analogy, declare someone a "Moral Person", or a "Morally Bankrupt Person", but from a Scientific point of view, it would be meaningless. A "Moral Person" and a "Morally Bankrupt" person would fall at the same rate in a vacuum, as far as Science is concerned.

Darwin informs us that the species that fails to adapt to its changing environment will soon become toast. If we lack the intellectual sophistication required to make a science of these two concepts then we lack the sophistication required to adapt to our changing environment and thus will shortly become toast.

[Boerseun]

A rapist is clearly an immoral person.
A non-rapist would clearly be more moral.

From a biological, Darwinian perspective, the immoral person above has a much greater chance of spreading his genes to the next generation.

Therefore, I fail to see how you can equate the two.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

A rapist is clearly an immoral person.
A non-rapist would clearly be more moral.

From a biological, Darwinian perspective, the immoral person above has a much greater chance of spreading his genes to the next generation.

Therefore, I fail to see how you can equate the two.

Whoo! Now that is a bewildering example of Darwin's theory of natural selection and morality. I shall have to pass on trying to equate the two.