----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:42 PM Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
> But then, that's *always* my problem when I come across the word > "immoral" (or "moral"), which is why I prefer to think in terms of > ethics. Morality, to me, suggests the presence of an all-powerful > superbeing dictating absolutes, which is something I'd be hard-put to > accept as even a rational conjecture. Since there is no basis for "ought" in phenomenon, it is hard to envision ethics being based on anything but unverifiable postulates. In other words, the basis for ethics must be taken on faith. For example, there is no experimental reason why rain "ought" to fall during the week instead of on the weekend. Both things do happen, both are natural. The same is true for human actions. Both rape and self sacrifice for one's kin occur. Both can be evolutionarily favored. One is immoral; one is moral. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
