The Superior Man.

A lawyer sees himself as the superior class in society.

What happens when a poor cashier robs him at gun point,knife or with his bear hands? Who is then considered superior or evolutionally fitter?

Isn’t having a police force or a set of laws against the strongest opposed to the very foundations of evolution?

Humanity is the only species that sets up groups opposing those who use violent methods of survival. All other species use violence in the ascension of survival and the only opposition is the creature being attacked.

I see a contradiction. ( Thoughts And Opinions Always Welcomed.)

The greatest human achievement in evolutionary standards was the development of civilization, particularily in the form of a cohesive society. When humans work together and delegate work within a group the overall productivity and thus utility is higher, allowing for higher survival rates and this greater gene donation to later generations. Anything that would harm human society could be viewed as an evolutionary setback, thus crime would not be an expression of positive evolutionary characteristics but negative ones.

Darwin actually goes into great detail as to why humans developed ethical codes in order to form more amiable and productive groups. When the needs of the group are served best then the individuals are served the best, this anything that detracts from that becomes morally impermissable.

It seems like you’re equating evolutionary preference with physical strength. This seems like it makes sense because a long time ago that’s what it took to survive. But since then the dialectic between man and nature has itself evolved and the superstructure is not what it used to be. In the current evolutionary climate in industrialised nations I think that the lawyer would be more suited for selection. There isn’t a need for individual physical strength these days. I dunno man…

:laughing:

Explain that more.

Man’s enviroment has changed but his nature is the same.

The same rules apply I believe.

Authority is the duty of protecting the weak. Is it not?

In civilization most human beings can’t hunt or provide for themselves…

How are we calling this an improvement?

The cosmos and nature is eternal man’s constructed civilization is not.

EVOLUTION doesn’t mean shit in modern society. all of our survival instincts have no real application anymore.

The nature of man is eternal.

Maybe the same rules apply as far as evolutionalry strategy are concerned, but the actions necessary to execute that strategy are different under new circumstances. Yes, man still has in his nature an instinct to survive natural selection, but that survival depends on something other than physical strength nowadays. Little puny lawyers are locking up the most ruthless of people every day.

Man’s nature is not that of civilized moral society.

It has application it is just that most people choose to ignore it for illusive imaginations of public life in society instead.

Only because they have constructed unnatural groups protecting them.

Take away the constructed groups of protection and they are like lambs of the slaughter in the evolutional sense.

Human beings are a anomaly in that they create groups of harrassing those fulfilling their evolutional obligations where in all other creatures and specimens such acts of violence are rewarded by nature.

A superior human is all that is ethically acceptable and yet can turn beast when needed IMO.

Knowledge and health are versions of certain societies superiority. But humans are strange creatures, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. The winner takes all, so when there is but one kind of human or two there will be a superior type of human, at least for a while.

Some societies think the superior human is overweight and wealthy. some societies put value on weak bodies strong minds. Some think its looks, some think of other things.

Who needs to be superior anyway, that is a crap load of work for very little return.

You can’t actually say that anything’s not natural unless you’re being descriptive and talking about something that’s not actually happening. Once we construct those systems and things start to happen in accordance with them, they become a part of nature. I think…

Synthesis does exist along with prosthetics.

I can indeed call somthing unnatural.

Do you know what a synthetic judgement is?

Personally I think terms superior and inferior are useless archaic terms.

I only use them in trying to explain my point of understanding to people with words of vocabulary that they are used to. My highest ideal of life is survival at all costs without a moral system since everything is relative to begin with.

I’m just saying that it’s gonna be hard to convince people that a lawyer isn’t doing better than a person who’s biggest assest is physical strength. At least not in most situations in civilised nations.

With all the willy nilly civic propaganda of course it would be hard to near impossible.

I’m sorry man. I just have alot of respect for lawyers. They’re ruthless, they take everything that they can, they make no apologies and everyone hates them until they realize that they need them. If that’s not Nietzschen then I don’t know what is.

Well that is fine and dandy but personally I think it is also Nietzschean to rob them at gun point when they get home from robbing other people in courts.

At lease we can agree that sometimes two wrongs DO make a right. I’m right with you on that one.

What is the difference between a lawyer and a carp?

One is a scum sucking bottom dweller and the other is a fish.

Do you know what a lawyer does, Smears?

Better yet, do you know what a lawyer doesn’t do?

He doesn’t make a bit of difference concerning the innocence or the guilt of a defendant.

If I steal a candy bar, I am either guilty or not. My guilt does not depend on what a rhetoritician with a briefcase and a BMW says.

The lawyer is an occupation which takes advantage of the general publics incompetence and promises to “defend” them for a price. Again, defend them from what?

How is a verdict decided by what a guy in a suit says?

Either I stole the candy bar or I didn’t. Why do I need “representation”?