Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Brent Meeker):
>>>> Bruno:
>>>> Because ethics and aesthetics modalities are of an higher order than
>>>> arithmetic which can be considered as deeper and/or simpler.
>>>> Classical arithmetical truth obeys classical logic which is the most
>>>> efficient for describing platonia. Good and bad is related with the
>>>> infinite self mirroring of an infinity of universal machines: it is
>>>> infinitely more tricky, and in particular neither classical ethics nor
>>>> aesthetics should be expected to follow classical logic.
>>> That seems unnecessarily complicated.  Good and bad at the personal 
>>> "Whahooh!" and "Ouch!" are easily explained as consequences of 
>>> evolution and natural selection.
>> Here is perhaps a deep disagreement (which could explain others). I can 
>> understand that the 3-personal "OUCH" can easily be explained as a 
>> consequences of evolution and natural selection, for example by saying 
>> that the "OUCH" uttered by an animal could attract the attention of its 
>> fellows on the presence of a danger, so natural selection can ....
>> But, and here is the crux of the mind body problem, if such an 
>> explanation explains completely the non personal "Whahooh/Ouch" then it 
>> does not explain at all the first personal "OUCH". Worst: it makes such 
>> a personal feeling completely useless ... And then it makes the very 
>> notion of Good and Bad pure non sense.
>> Of course platonists, who have grasped the complete reversal (like the 
>> neoplatonist Plotinus, etc.),  have no problem here given that "natural 
>> evolution" occur "logically" well after the platonis true/false, 
>> Good/bad, etc. distinction. The personal feeling related to  "ouch" is 
>> "logically prior" too).
> Evolution explains why we have good and bad, but it doesn't explain why 
> good and bad feel as they do, or why we *should* care about good and 
> bad 

That's asking why we should care about what we should care about, i.e. good and 
bad.  Good feels as it does because it is (or was) evolutionarily advantageous 
to do that, e.g. have sex.  Bad feels as it does because it is (or was) 
evolutionarily advantageous to not do that, e.g. hold your hand in the fire.  
If it felt good you'd do it, because that's what "feels good" means, a feeling 
you want to have.

>beyond following some imperative of evolution. For example, the Nazis 
> argued that eliminating inferior specimens from the gene pool would 
> ultimately 
> produce a superior species. Aside from their irrational inclusion of certain 
> groups as inferior, they were right: we could breed superior humans following 
> Nazi eugenic programs, and perhaps on other worlds evolution has made such 
> programs a natural part of life, regarded by everyone as "good". Yet most of 
> us would regard them as bad, regardless of their practical benefits.

Would we?  Before the Nazis gave it a bad name, eugenics was a popular movement 
in the U.S. mostly directed at sterilizing mentally retarded people.  I think 
it would be regarded as bad simply because we don't trust government power to 
be exercised prudently or to be easily limited  - both practical 
considerations.  If eugenics is practiced voluntarily, as it is being practiced 
in the U.S., I don't think anyone will object (well a few fundamentalist 
luddites will).

Brent Meeker

> Stathis Papaioannou
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
> > 

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to