The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
5 added 315 characters in body
source | link

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness that can differentiate between objectively fit and unfit individuals, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid. My suspicion is that such an objective definition of individual fitness is impossible, because fitness changes depending on the environment, which means for a single individual, there are as many definitions of fitness as there are environments.

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid.

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness that can differentiate between objectively fit and unfit individuals, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid. My suspicion is that such an objective definition of individual fitness is impossible, because fitness changes depending on the environment, which means for a single individual, there are as many definitions of fitness as there are environments.

4 added 69 characters in body
source | link

*(Kant 1785) Refers to The Metaphysics of Morals

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human natureeither an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid.

*(Kant 1785) Refers to The Metaphysics of Morals

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid.

*(Kant 1785) Refers to The Metaphysics of Morals

*(Kant 1785) Refers to The Metaphysics of Morals

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid.

3 added 163 characters in body
source | link

Suppose lying were always justified and that all people lied constantly without ever telling the truth. Since lies are all that exist in this scenario, you couldn't logically define what the truth is to another person, because your definition must be untrue (everyone, including you, always lies.) So, in your attempt to define the truth, you produce another lie. Thus, communication becomes an exercise in fantasy where even describing what the truth is becomes impossible; there would be no need for a word like "truth." Without a concept of truth, the concept of a lie being the(the absence of truth) no longer makes sense either. This is a contradiction in terms: assuming everyone always lies, lying then becomes impossible.

However, if everyone told always told the truth, we would not have this same contradiction in terms, because. I could simply prefix any lie with the statement, "This is a lie: (insert lie here)." In this scenario, where everyone tells the truth all the time, the logical definition of a lie still makes sense, because one person can reliably communicate the properties of a lie to another person; the fact that everyone always tells the truth guarantees this.

Let's suppose you're talking about probability of survival (with fertility assumed equal for all individuals.) If that's the case, survival in what context (On Earth, Mars, the tropics, the arctic)? Some adaptations that are helpful in some environments can be detrimental in others. An additional complicating factor is the role group selection has in an individual's survival. To what extentWhen each individual in a group is helped by others in, the group, as a whole, generally increases totalhas a better survival rate than any lone individual. But, sometimes individuals can cheat to increase their own potential for survival (perhaps by hoarding resources.) Who's more fit, the team player or the cheater?

It's not really possible to have a conversation about the validity of this maxim, until the maxim is better defined. However, I'll anticipate where I think you were going with this with a discussion of "positive duties." It's been taken, in perfectionist ethics, that Kant generally supported the idea of improving one's self:

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid.

Suppose lying were always justified and that all people lied constantly without ever telling the truth. Since lies are all that exist in this scenario you couldn't logically define what the truth is to another person because your definition must be untrue (everyone, including you, always lies.) So, in your attempt to define the truth, you produce another lie. Thus, communication becomes an exercise in fantasy where even describing what the truth is becomes impossible; there would be no need for a word like "truth." Without a concept of truth, the concept of a lie being the absence of truth no longer makes sense either. This is a contradiction in terms: assuming everyone always lies, lying then becomes impossible.

However, if everyone told always told the truth, we would not have this same contradiction in terms, because I could simply prefix any lie with the statement, "This is a lie: (insert lie here)." In this scenario, where everyone tells the truth all the time, the logical definition of a lie still makes sense because one person can reliably communicate the properties of a lie to another person; the fact that everyone always tells the truth guarantees this.

Let's suppose you're talking about probability of survival (with fertility assumed equal for all individuals.) If that's the case, survival in what context (On Earth, Mars, the tropics, the arctic)? Some adaptations that are helpful in some environments can be detrimental in others. An additional complicating factor is the role group selection has in an individual's survival. To what extent each individual in a group is helped by others in the group generally increases total survival. But, sometimes individuals can cheat to increase their own potential for survival (perhaps by hoarding resources.) Who's more fit, the team player or the cheater?

It's not really possible to have a conversation about the validity of this maxim, until the maxim is better defined. However, I'll anticipate where I think you were going with this with a discussion of "positive duties." It's been taken, in perfectionist ethics, that Kant generally supported the idea of improving one's self:

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia.

Suppose lying were always justified and that all people lied constantly without ever telling the truth. Since lies are all that exist in this scenario, you couldn't logically define what the truth is to another person, because your definition must be untrue (everyone, including you, always lies.) So, in your attempt to define the truth, you produce another lie. Thus, communication becomes an exercise in fantasy where even describing what the truth is becomes impossible; there would be no need for a word like "truth." Without a concept of truth, the concept of a lie (the absence of truth) no longer makes sense either. This is a contradiction in terms: assuming everyone always lies, lying then becomes impossible.

However, if everyone told always told the truth, we would not have this same contradiction in terms. I could simply prefix any lie with the statement, "This is a lie: (insert lie here)." In this scenario, where everyone tells the truth all the time, the logical definition of a lie still makes sense, because one person can reliably communicate the properties of a lie to another person; the fact that everyone always tells the truth guarantees this.

Let's suppose you're talking about probability of survival (with fertility assumed equal for all individuals.) If that's the case, survival in what context (On Earth, Mars, the tropics, the arctic)? Some adaptations that are helpful in some environments can be detrimental in others. An additional complicating factor is the role group selection has in an individual's survival. When each individual in a group is helped by others, the group, as a whole, generally has a better survival rate than any lone individual. But, sometimes individuals can cheat to increase their own potential for survival (perhaps by hoarding resources.) Who's more fit, the team player or the cheater?

It's not possible to have a conversation about the validity of this maxim, until the maxim is better defined. However, I'll anticipate where I think you were going with this with a discussion of "positive duties." It's been taken, in perfectionist ethics, that Kant generally supported the idea of improving one's self:

However, this has little to do with notions of perfection relating to "Darwinian Fitness" and more to do with with an individual achieving Eudaimonia. Supposing you had a working definition of "Darwinian Fitness," you would need to argue that maximizing fitness is either an objective good or that fitness is somehow an expression of human nature. But again, it all starts with the definition; without a clear-cut definition of fitness, any argument (Kantian or otherwise) is invalid.

2 added 163 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link