Originally Posted by Festus

Anyway, if Darwin's theory holds true, couldn't any animal have evolved and gained better abilities than ours?

Originally Posted by Odlov

He said morality, not mortality...

Originally Posted by Odlov

We have a choice, but not in the sense many people like to imagine.
Under a given set of circumstances, we can only choose one course of action, which was determined by countless external and internal factors beyond our control.

Here is a good interview with a neuroscientist:
http://m.wired.com/wiredscience/2008...-free-will-an/

Originally Posted by Murmayder

He is saying that sentience has nothing to do with free will. Moreover, Gorman clearly ignores the entire school of thought that is Determinism. To answer your question I would say this: "Stop it."

Originally Posted by Murmayder

You will have to start asking for opinions rather than the answers, due to the subjectivity of morals and whether or not there can be a system of law/responsibility in a deterministic universe. That is, if we assume that God, being the only ultimate authority, isn't going to give us the answers himself.

Originally Posted by Odlov

However, if we are lucky and get plenty of time, we will probably develop resilience which will surpass even bacteria.

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

Very interesting read. It does seem that the system holds onto morals and explains how we can be subjected to them as well as the law, but it doesn't account for irrational behavior, or actions motivated by emotions. As emotions are undoubtedly irrational, our selections of actions based on practical reasoning doesn't really hold together too well.

Originally Posted by Odlov

Citing emotions as the offender is not that different from citing your whole brain as the offender. Your emotions are just like your reasoning ability: they are a part of your brain processes. You can't externalize them and point a finger. Not all computers are made equal. Some may need repair to function as desired; some can't be repaired.

The playing field is not equal, and neither are the players. Does it mean society can't judge and filter out hazardous agents? I don't think so. Life is not fair, and all we can do is try to deal with it.

Originally Posted by NinjaBent

I personally think that the humanbeeing has become an individualist. We all think to much about ourselfes. I am not accusing anyone for anything. This is just the human nature now a days. When Jesus was alife it was more about the society. He took the trash for everyone, and gave us a chance to start up a new life. We returned the favor by global warming, and an individualistic and contaminated world.

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

I'm not taking them as an external force, I'm just saying that some, if not the majority of people today are motivated by emotions. Most of the time, for most people, it's guided by emotions, love, hate, joy, sorrow, the list goes on, but very rarely do you see someone motivated by pure reason.

But, the way our society works, by saying that we can judge and filter out hazardous agents, would you mean that we are within our rights to exile or dispose of irrational people?

If so, on what basis do we define irrational? (The opposite of rational, yes I know.) What I mean is, if it's the majorities decision, then it seems like a certain religion will win out over the rest, and will have the ability to deem those who do not conform to their beliefs as irrational people.
It's a different topic, but what I'm trying to say is we should try to keep freedom of speech and ideas.

Originally Posted by Odlov

Indeed, I would even add that reason is not a driving force at all.
Reason is just a means for achieving goals we find emotionally and physically satisfying.

Rights...rights and responsibilities are people's inventions, no matter how entitled we may feel to some of them. Over here you have these rights; over there you don't.

What I meant by filtering out hazards is imprisoning criminals.