MitF,
You will note that I neither said there WAS 'chaos' or that I agree there is 'natural order'.
I was asking, very simply, for you to explain what you mean by 'natural order'?
If you are saying a certain genetic combination can produce under certain conditions, a clone of another living creature, no one is claiming the clone will also have the same personality. Personality is dependent so very much upon the affective nature and nurture of the clone, and its native ability to understand and learn.. intelligence, just like any other human being...
This is indicative of 'order', natural or otherwise. If there was no order in the DNA... a clone of a living creature would be an impossibility.
With due respect, you appear to have misunderstood what I actually wrote about 'chaos'.
I do not know... I have said this before. I was asking questions.
======
Re: morality:
Again , you seem ti imply somehow, that there is a 'moral' base outside of reason and rationality.
Surely any ethical base could be based in any 'given set' of dogmas, themselves based in some cultural or social or religious context?
All I am saying is that one developed and based in Reason and rationality, with logically defined statements as guides to moral behaviours is infinitely preferable to arbitrary ones developed as a result of some irrational beliefs?
What people like Einstein have said, and others today say, should happen is that human behaviours be understood, psychologically, anthropologically, biologically, rationally and logically reasoned through...
Socio-ethical, Religious-ethical and cultural-ethical principles must be constantly reassessed... there are no 'ultimate' sets of ethics upon which to base a 'morality'.
Human beings are essentially selfish, which is why we have words like altruism to indicate the basis for behaviours that are other than selfish.
Not only are our genes 'selfish', the evidence for human selfishness is all around you... is it likely we will ever be able to develop a reasoned and rational base for a morality and a devleoped ethical base from that? NO. Irrationalist personal/religious views do NOT produce 'ultimate' moralities or ethics derived from them. The obnly logical approach is through rationality and logic.
Einstein said that was the way, and I agree it is a possibility we have to work with and towards, as all other moralities and their ethical systems, certainly from the time of the ancient Greeks, through masses of corrupt monotheism, to the present day, singularly have failed.
Loving one another as ourselves is sometimes claimed as a religious view/moral view/and a base for a derived ethic, but no one seems to ever explain WHY that should be so. No one seems to examine it rationally to see if it works ethically..in a pragmatic way!
Let me ask you..."Do you think it works?"
I am not asking if it is a 'nice' affective concept or not!
There is no morality in 'natural order'... unless you begin with basic human selfishness, greed, power-seeking and the 'easy' way.
Morality can only, it seems to me, be based in human rationality, reason and logic... a humanistic based set of concepts that need careful definition, which will never represent other than a methodology to control human behaviours contrary to human nature as it really is. The only way out of the impasse is 'Intelligence and Rationality. There is no way out through bases built upon the irrationality of personal affective concepts, religious or vague metaphilosophical stances. They are always superceded anyway by the 'ruling groups' with power over the lives of others, who will use the irrational dogmas, statements about 'ultimate' truths from suspect doctrinal bases in order to commit further indoctrination of the populations they endeavour to control.
Considering how I have revealed here a set of reasonable explanations for my stance, I would ask you to answer some of these points, and the points-questions- in my previous post, to make your stand on all this clearer. I do seem to be speaking to a set of statements that do not show anything to really discuss.
If you wish to discus, MitF, a particular moral and ethical problem, to higlight our views, let's begin with the moralities and ethics of today and throughout history, concerning killing another human being... or lots of other human beings. After all this latter type of behaviour is being conducted/authorised by Christians and Islamic people today... using ethics grounded in their religious and cultural natures.
There are no moralities concerning this problem that can have a convincing base from an irrational religious or personal affective standpoint.
Each case can only be viewed on its own, with reason, rationality and logic... in my opinion, as someone who has killed during his life so far.
King Solomon had great wisdom... and reading of some of his purported judgements do show a leaning, shall we say, towards rationality and logic, do they not?
This is not something new we are discussing.