> Olin wrote at the end > These are all scientific questions though. If the answers don't come form > there, where will they come from? >
Sorry for cutting almost everything, Olin, but your last question is a great lead-in to my next post discussing the basis of ethics, better, worse, good and bad. This post has proven the most difficult to write, because there are so many aspects and ways to get it at it, it has become hard to write something even as limited as L3. Although it is posted fairly soon after the previous section, there were days between the finish of the first and the start of the second. But, after a bit of thinking, I've found a way to go about it. And, after the last bit of discussion, I found a way to (I hope) improve its connection to our present discussion. So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the naturalistic fallacy is just that, a fallacy. But, if we don't go that route, then where does one ground basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse? I've seen two clear alternatives to this question, and a whole lot of stuff that I can't make heads or tails of: denying both of the clear alternatives, not falling into the naturalistic fallacy, yet not saying anything I can get may hands around. (BTW, I don't need to agree with an idea to understand it; I just need to see the worldview._ The two clear views are these: morality, better, worse, etc. are based on axioms that are posited (i.e. taken on faith) or they are just tools of politics. The latter is post-modernism, especially as espoused by Michel Foucault. I read Discipline and Punish fairly thoroughly, was active for a while (around the Skokie hoax) on the Postmodernism newsgroup, and while definitions are slippery, this understanding keeps on reoccurring. Truth is simply a tool of politics and power. The former view was the understanding of the Enlightenment. It is most famously espoused in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence A number of atheists as well as theists have ideals they hold to be true. They believe in human rights. For example, most atheists that I know accept some form of the Golden Rule. I think its accurate to say that most folks on Brin-L believe in the Golden Rule in one form or another. Now, IIRC, Charlie had some quibbles with "do onto others as you would have them do unto you." He noted, correctly, that others may want and need things differently from your own needs and wants. (Reminds me of the old story of the monkey who killed a fish while "saving it from drowning)." But, I think taking that statement in a more general and not literalistic sense is all that's needed. One should try to understand the truth that (according to my memory) Charlie wrote on this topic in one of our previous discussions. My personal favorite version is "love your neighbor as you love yourself" because this balances the importance of neighbor and oneself. I know people who are so self-sacrificing that they neglect themselves. How best to do this can be the subject of tremendous debate, since we do not have enough information to know outcomes. But, that's not my central point here. My central point is that the Golden Rule is an axiom; inherently unprovable. The only way to prove it is as a theorem from another axiom that's not provable: e.g. because we are all made in the image and likeness of God we must love one's neighbor as oneself. Well, that wasn't as long as I feared. So, let me end with some general questions. Who here accepts the Golden Rule (even with some quibbles) as valid in at least one of its forms? How many folks are true post-modernists, who think there is no better, no worse, just personal desire and politics? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
