> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:48 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. > > Dan M wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Taken on faith from what? The Bible? The Koran? A cereal box? That > doesn't work at all for me, Dan. For one thing it doesn't explain why > ethical values are constantly changing, not only within my own lifetime, > but > from decade to decade ore even year to year not to mention from place to > place; from culture to culture. > > I think Charlie's objection to the golden rule is spot on. I might like > my > back scratched, but it might be an offensive gesture in another culture or > even in my culture at a different time, so the do unto others thing just > doesn't work universally. > > I love how you minimize (ridicule?) the second option by using "just" as > if > one believes that they could find their ethics under a bush. Its also > interesting how you use the word politics which has negative connotations. > > Of course if I was to ask the question it would probably be something > like; > do you think ethics are created by magic or do you believe that they are > cultural constructs?
No, actually, I believe that there exists truth apart from us. That we have partial understanding of that truth. That the Critique of Pure Reason did a good job defining and a fairly decent job addressing the truth. There have been many social constructs in history. If one defines morality in terms of social constructs, and they contradict one another, which one is right? Is it the one that won? If that is the case, we only have to look at who won the three great wars of the 20th century: WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Take the US out of the picture, and there are only two real important players in WWII: the USSR and Germany. Take the US out of the picture, and Europe would have no power to resist the USSR. (Granted the UK may have survived for a while on Hitler's fear of water). If either Germany or the USSR won, they would have the dominant social construct. You could, I suppose, argue that Stalin would start to exhibit a sense of restraint and ethics in 46....even though he pushed as far as he could was was limited by the US during that time. You could be in the vast minority and argue that the North winning the Civil War was inevitable. But all of that is akin to arguing that humanity is the purpose of creation. Finally, it appears that you and others here old the viewpoint that realism. If realism is valid, how can there be a plethora of interpretations of science, each describing a far different reality, with no testable differences, (well unless something really weird happens and we do something like find the aether). The MWI interpretation of QM, the strongest "realistic" interpretation of QM posits a rich infinity of inherently unseeable universes created every infinitesimal unit of time. How are unseeable, unproveable, untestable universes which are really really there, but only exist to satisfy metaphysical demands realistic? That's the best chance realism has. As has been published multiple times in Physics Review Letters "Local Realism is Falsified." Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
