From: Jef Allbright (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 08:46:48 MDT
>>To me, the concept of Objective Morality is an obvious oxymoron.
>>Obviously there is not, and can never be, an "objective morality." The
>>whole idea of morality is to impose some value system, some criterion
>>regarding how things "should be." But objectivity is about how things
>>ARE not about how they should be. The very nature of should-ness
>>implies diversity, as opposed to singularity (in the sense of
>I must insist that when you break a finger, there is something as
>fundamental as physical law, as fundamental as bread and vinegar, that is by
>its quality "negative" and it says "I should not be! I should not be!" :-)
>That is the arrow of morality, nobody chose it yet it's there as clear as
>sunlight, an asymmetry just like time flow.
The subtle difference here is that morality is conventionally thought of
in terms of human (group) values apprehended and stated as if they were
The arrow of morality"" concept is that there really are certain
approaches that *work* better than others, that with increasing
intelligence we broaden our *understanding* of what works, with
increasing scope of interdependence we broaden our *agreement* of what
works, and there is a universal tendency for these conditions to
continue to expand as with thermodynamics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT