----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
>
>
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
> > Do you know of a theology which treats fairies and
> unicorns in this type of
> > fashion?
> >
>
> Haven't there been theologies based on multiple deities for
> far longer than monotheism has existed. Whether the deities
> were unicorns and fairies or nyads and dryads, or inanimate
> things like the sun and the moon - the details don't really
> matter. Didn't the believers in those religions consider
> their gods to be transcendent?
>
Well, that's an interesting question. The Greek and Roman religions tended
to have mixed messages on the true transcendence of the gods. They were
subject to higher powers after all. Idol worship is also sort of a mixed
bag, its attributing transcendent properties to a very mundane piece of wood
or stone. So, in a sense, I would agree that pantheistic religions were ways
of expressing an understanding of the transcendental. I have significant
theological differences with many of the older pantheistic religions...much
greater differences than I'd have with Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam. But,
by the same token, it is clear to me that those are theological differences,
not differences
> >
> > Do you really believe that ethics are simply an arbitrary
> > cultural construct...that might makes right?
> >
>
> I believe that life has created a system of ethics that
> best allows for its continued survival. I'm not sure that
> that makes them arbitrary.
Survival of individuals, survival of family units, survival of packs,
tribes, herds? I don't think that there is any biological reason to look
out for the welfare of "the other.", whether it be another tribe, or another
nation.
> Neither am I sure if that means I believe might makes right. I guess it
depends on how you
> define might.
Let me give an example. Nation A using its military power to take the land,
rape the women, and kill the men of nation B. Since that behavior increases
the probability that the genes of the men of nation A who engage in this
behavior will be passed on, does that make it the ethical thing to do?
Would someone who argued for peace be unethical?
>In other words, I'm not sure its possible
> to convince people that genocide is OK no matter how
> successful you are at it, because the ethics that have been
> violated have evolved with us from the beginning of life on
> earth (but IMO did not exist beforehand.)
OK, then just killing the men and raping. Or, just enslaving them all, and
having the women bear your children instead of the children of the men
involved...and make the men work for the upkeep of your children. That is
evolutionarily favored, right? (Zimmy, feel free to jump in and show how
this is evolutionarily disfavored.)
I suppose that
> means that I think that under different circumstances, a
> system that approves of genocide could have evolved, but it
> doesn't seem (from my culturally biased point of view) as if
> it would be a very successful strategy.
>
OK, enslaving people for generation upon generation may be more favored than
genocide. But, I know of many mass killing in history, so I don't see how
you can argue that this is unnatural. Indeed, in many ways, ethics are
unnatural. The natural tendency is to look out for you and yours. The
unnatural tendency is to love your enemy.
BTW, I'm not accusing you of believing that any of the above is good. I'm
just arguing that is evolutionarily favored behavior.
Dan M.
