On Aug 24, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
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.
I disagree; I think you can look at effects of behavior and base ethics on those observations. For instance if I strangle an infant I'm likely to (at least) be shunned by my peers, since that's the kind of thing which is, in most cases, contrasurvival (specieswise). Since I don't want to be shunned, I shouldn't strangle infants. I don't have an "ought" there -- I'm just looking at likely outcomes of given actions and choosing what is justifiably the preferable behavior.
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.
I'm not sure how rape can be evolutionarily favored, actually; can you provide an example? And if one is a selfish brute who's essentially frittered one's life away, is it truly a favorable thing for one of one's kin to be self-sacrificing in *any* way on one's behalf? That is, is it possible for one to be such a burden that one is no longer worth the trouble?
-- WthmO
This email is a work of fiction. Any similarity between its contents and any truth, entire or partial, is purely coincidental and should not be misconstrued.
--
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
