Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter Jones writes:
> > Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree. Let me see
> > can summarise:
> > Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs for a reason,
whether that be
> > evolution, what their parents taught them, or what it says in a book
believed to be divinely
> > inspired. Perhaps all of these reasons can be subsumed under "evolution" if
that term can
> > be extended beyond genetics to include all the ideas, beliefs, customs etc.
that help a
> > society to survive and propagate itself. Now, we can take this and
formalise it in some way
> > so that we can discuss ethical questions rationally:
> > Murder is bad because it reduces the net happiness in society -
> > Murder is bed because it breaks the sixth commandment - Judaism and
> > (interesting that this only no. 6 on a list of 10: God knows his priorities)
> > Ethics then becomes objective, given the rules. The meta-ethical
explanation of evolution,
> > broadly understood, as generating the various ethical systems is also
> > it is possible for someone at the bottom of the heap to go over the head of
> > evolution, even God and say:
> > "Why should murder be bad? I don't care about the greatest good for the
> > I don't care if the species dies out, and I think God is a bastard and will
shout it from hell if
> > sends me there for killing people for fun and profit. This is my own
personal ethical belief,
> > and you can't tell me I'm wrong!
> > And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him on a point of
fact or a point of
> > logic.
> The psychopath is wrong. He doesn't want to be murdered, but
> he wants to murder. His "ethical rule" is therefore inconsistent and
> really ethical at all.
Who says his ethical rule is inconsistent? If he made the claim "do unto others
as you would have
others do unto you" he would be inconsistent, but he makes no such claim.
He doesn't get to choose about that.2+2=5 is wrong because it leads
to inconsitistencies. No-one gets to wriggle out of that by saying
doesn't need to be inconsistent.
Billions of people have
lived and died in societies where it is perfectly ethical and acceptable to
kill inferior races or inferior
They have lived in societies where it was believed to be. They may
well have believed the Earth was flat, too.
If they accept some version of the edict you have just elevated to a
self-evident truth it
would be "do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they are
foreigners, or taste
good to eat, or worship different gods". Perfectly consistent, even if horrible.
It is not consistent. The inconsistency has been built in with the
> > In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or
logic, and if it seems
> > that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere.
> Everything starts with assumptions. The questions is whether they
> are correct. A lunatic could try defining 2+2=5 as valid, but
> he will soon run into inconsistencies. That is why we reject
> 2+2=5. Ethical rules must apply to everybody as a matter of
> definition. Definitions supply correct assumptions.
So you think arguments about such matters as abortion, capital punishment and
what sort of
social welfare system we should have are just like arguments about mathematics
and with enough research there should be universal agreement?
They are a lot fuzzier. But economics is a lot fuzzier than
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at