An Interesting Flight (Part 2)

The conversation shifted towards morality, which he believed did not exist. He "reasoned" from what we observe in nature there is no difference between animals and humans. Since the theory of evolution points to gradual evolution (which assumes a probable link between animals and humans) then there is no morality. Is there morality when the lion eats the gazelle? No. The lion eats the gazelle to survive, because that is the lion's nature. Since humans are animals (according to him) and survival of the fittest is real—then morality is only an illusion. He talked about all the killing done by mankind in order to rise to power, which comes from only the strong survive mentality. Unfortunately for him he cannot account for ethical epistemology, and it is something he even denied (he said morality was an illusion). Yet we find the notion of ethics in the likes of Richard Dawkins as he writes:

Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). [1]

What? So we are to "construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it." Based on what? We are to care for the poor and so forth, but all this is based on what? To my mind these people have nothing to ground their ethical propositions other than illusions, which they themselves have set up by their own conclusions. Yet, my new found acquaintance supposes he can tell me that we are to be regarded the same as animals. What? If we (humans) are at the top of the food chain according to his own worldview, how can we be or should be compared as equals? He implied that we should have some regard for animals. Huh? Why should we have any regard for anything other than ourselves under his worldview? I am not sure how he can ground his premises on epistemological grounds that are non-fallacious.

Nevertheless, the conversation continued, though, I really did not want to continue, since no progression was happening. The topic reaches its peak when he tells me, "There are no absolutes!" I told him that such a statement is an oxymoron, because such a statement is an absolute statement. There is a difference in humans being limited and producing theories that are incomplete with claiming there are no absolute truths. Even if absoluteness eludes us it makes practical sense to me that we seek truth because it is there to be found, and not because there is none to be had. The latter supports an infinite loop which leads to truth never being found. It very well could be that there are no absolutes and we are children of the absurd. I told him to read Richard Swinburne as he could do a better job than I could in the realm of philosophy for proofs for the existence of God. And so, we went our marry way onto our lives...

__________________________
[1] Richard Dawkins