Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:

> peterdjones wrote:
> > Moral and natural laws.
> >
> >
> > An investigation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence
> > of ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some
> > extent, of science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ,
> > but there is no convincing some people).
> <snip>
> > As ethical objectivism is a work-in-progress
> > there are many variants, and a considerable literature
> > discussing which is the correct one.
> I agree with the thrust of this post and I think there are a few key
> concepts which can further clarify thinking on this subject:
> (1) Although moral assessment is inherently subjective--being relative
> to internal values--all rational agents share some values in common due
> to sharing a common evolutionary heritage or even more fundamentally,
> being subject to the same physical laws of the universe.

That may be so, but we don't exactly have a lot of intelligent species to make
the comparison. It is not difficult to imagine species with different 
heritages which would have different ethics to our own, certainly in the details
and probably in many of the core values.

It isn't difficult to imagine humans with different mores to our own,
particularly since the actual exist... the point
is not that they might believe certain things to be ethical;
the point is , what *is* actually ethical.

There is a difference between mores and morality
just as their is between belief and truth.

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