[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

Hi Laird, 

> [Laird]
> The phrase "survival of the fittest" is closely tied to Darwin, but the
> concept is not bound exclusively to biological issues. It's the
> underlying belief that people must rise to meet the situation
> (biological, social, or intellectual), and those who fail to do so must
> suffer the consequences - biologically (death), socially (outcast), or
> intellectually (fool). The relationship to Darwin's theory of evolution
> is so close it's considered synonymous. It's quite unabashedly
> individualistic (risks and outcomes are completely in the hands of the
> individual), which is partly explains why I make the connection.
> 
> Advocates see success or failure itself determining morality and 
> justifying the consequences. Those who hunt and gather deserve life,
> those who don't gather food deserve death. Law-abiders deserve
> community, lawbreakers deserve imprisonment and isolation. This
> fundamental premise is the key building block to much of evolutionary
> morality, including the "everyone is basically selfish" idea recently
> discussed here.
> 
> So what I was saying is that I see quite a lot of this "survival of the
> fittest" background in your statements. I think it's very compatible
> with Pirsig's moral ontology, no worries there. Just making the
> observation, putting a stick in the sand and measuring the distance.

A very clear and cogent explanation of applying "survival of the 
fittest" to the higher levels. I can see how you apply it to my stance 
on certain issues and to Pirsig's evolutionary morality. Thanks for
explicating your meaning. A pleasure to read such an articulate answer. 

Incidentally, and probably not news to you, the phrase "survival of the 
fittest" was coined not by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. 

What grabbed my attention in Lila as Pirsig was talking about Darwinian 
evolution was his question:

"But why do the fittest survive? Why does any life survive? It's 
illogical. It's self-contradictory that life should survive. If life is 
strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature then 
why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive? 
Either life is with physical nature or it's against it. If it's with 
nature there's nothing to survive. If it's against physical nature then 
there must be something apart from the physical and chemical forces of 
nature that is motivating it to be against physical nature." (Lila, 11)

I wonder how Dawkins and other radical evolutionists would answer? 

Regards,
Platt