Quoth Jacob Meuser, on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:51:16 -0700: > it is not amoral to understand reality. it may be amoral to say,
Okay, then, let's clarify a bit. Your "reality" is actually only one, relatively base level thereof. As part of animal nature, the example of taking something just because one wants it is perhaps a default behavior even among humans, but it won't get us very far. On top of that, you see, is built this concept of civilization, sometimes called "morality"--working together for the common good, in a word. It's something we've been hacking on for many centuries now, and I like to think it's more, at this point, than a twinkle in my own, bestial eye. In fact, if you consider how far we've come, civility is actually as real as any other human behavior. To deny that would be fairly regressive, don't you think? > "Well screw it, it's just human nature. I'm gonna get mine and > screw the rest of y'all!" and then go on to knowingly steal, kill, > maim, what have you. No, that would be rather "immoral", with "just human nature" thrown in as a rationalization. "Amoral" means pretending that "reality" doesn't include what we know as right and wrong. --Jason Van Cleve -- There are 3 types of people: those who can count, and those who can't. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
