On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Ethics is a product of philosophy.
It's not a county in eastern England?
(Tom Holt reference, IIFC.)
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:21:10 -0700, Warren Ockrassa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the extent that you want to argue that scientific
pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything
else,
on ethics
is a faith statement (whether they admit it or not), I don't think
one can falsify it with data.
A less objectivist angle is that ultimately all actions are
self-serving, in one way or another, but that might be a sophistry to
justify apparent altruism.
I have real problems with that too
[I'll just amplify where necessary; there isn't much.]
On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the extent that you want to argue that scientific
pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything
else,
I'm likely to agree. At the
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001620.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved in part as a survival
mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage and an intellectual
advantage. For instance, a shaman that convinced his community that the
spirits punished those who killed their spiritual leaders would stand
On Aug 26, 2004, at 10:55 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved in part as a
survival mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage and an
intellectual advantage. For instance, a shaman that convinced his
community that the spirits punished those
I am cut'n'pasting from two other threads as well -
the Fascist and Mercies ones.
Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved
in part as a survival
mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage
and an intellectual
advantage
Dan Minette wrote:
But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?
Then, its not really evolution.
So once we become aware we are evolving, we stop evolving?
As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the
Russell Chapman wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?
An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that
adaptation is, but a human with a successful
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to
evolution: success?
No. Purpose presupposes intent. There is no intent in the
happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated
Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to
evolution: success?
No. Purpose presupposes intent. There is no intent in the
happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated
machines survive and self-replicate better than others.
We attribute intent to
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?
Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is.
Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution:
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: Religion based ethics
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see our morals
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Religion based ethics
Dan Minette wrote:
One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone
with
his
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
...
That gives me the impression that you think we're some kind of science
experiment.
I don't think that's a logical conclusion. The point is that solving one
mystery, such as the origin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
...
Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of
faith, and the rules as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant?
Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide
Doug wrote:
I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?
Depends on what exactly you mean by our morals evolving.
Some would say that right and wrong haven't changed, but our understanding
of right and wrong has, just as gravity has been the same for the past 12
billion years but
Nick Arnett wrote:
Doug wrote:
I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?
The existence of evolution, whether in biology, morality or whatever,
doesn't rule out the existence of God, does it?
No, not necessarily, but it trumps the need for any kind of faith to
understand
own standards because they have threatened our security
(not saying that's right, but it is being tolerated).
So yes, I do not believe that morals/ethics are static.
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been
comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its
just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it.
Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says
nothing
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 07:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've
been
comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it;
its
just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it.
Even if man
Dan Minette wrote:
One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with
his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his
greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for
ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements
23 matches
Mail list logo
