>christopher susi wrote:
>
> or maybe challenge
>others to think in a way they hadn't considered before.
you are aware, of course, that the way *you* think on this topic in this discussion is the predominant way of thinking about these issues? it's called utilitarian individualism, the ethical philosophy at the center of philosophical liberalism (Locke, et al). every single USer in this discussion and on this list, i'll bet, has actually grown up thinking much like this and sometimes *still* finds it hard to drop this way of thinking.
there is no equivalence here, as you presume. there are plenty of assumptions about the world that lefties and marxists make and should be challenged on. members of this list who post seem to do a pretty good job of holding one another's feet to the fire.
your assumption that people need to be shown the error of their ways--that they've not considered these arguments before--is not arrogant really. as a description, arrogant would be too kind, i believe.
so, i don't know exactly what to call it, but it is rather odd for you to think that a group of people (lefties and marxists) holding marginalized political positions--political positions that some of us have lost jobs over, that some of us have been scolded for by deans and colleagues, that some of us have been denied funding over, that some of us have been arrested and jailed for--have somehow never encountered the claims you make.
the claims you make are, as doug pointed out about libertarian views, the views of *most* USers. they are not marginalized, they are not special, they are not even revolutionary. they are the predominant views. therefore, it is hardly likely that anyone in this convo needs to be exposed to them. WE ARE EVERY SINGLE DAY! we grew up, just like you, learning them, believing them, and, occasionally morally agonizing over them--just like you!
hopefully the folks who know darwin and evolutionary theory far better than i will step in an explain just how wrong you are about this stuff or, at least, show you that what you say is by no means uncontested.
miles' point is that evolutionary theorists have contested the claims about human nature and evolutionary progress that you're making.
people who are starving in other countries are not another species. they are not starving because they are unfit.
kelley