From: fudley (fuddley@fastmail.fm)
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 10:14:37 MDT
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 "Metaqualia" <metaqualia@mynichi.com> said:
> Your point seems to be the following:
> "Since whatever we mean by objective morality
> is a (by)product of evolution,
No no no, that was not my point at all! And despite the use of quotation
marks I did not write the above.
If objective morality exists it existed long before life or evolution
did and was made in the Big Bang, perhaps before. If objective morality
exists and is of any interest it influenced evolution; evolution did not
influence it. With subjective morality the situation is reversed.
> The human mind can formulate thoughts and create patterns
> that, although running on evolved wetware, go beyond the
> original purpose of the neural circuitry that supports
> them. Take condoms for example.
But that was exactly my point, nature may say the use of condoms is evil
because genes want to get into the next generation, but my much more
important subjective morality tells nature to take its objective
morality and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
> the ability for moral reasoning evolved because we needed
> to correctly simulate other agents' behaviors, figure out
> whether our actions will piss them off, will make them
> our friend, and so forth.
I agree, if subjective morality didn’t enhance survival it would never
have evolved, and if objective morality did enhanced survival after 3
billions years of evolution evil would now be extinct. It isn’t.
> Everyone on this list has a different objective morality.
I agree again, but that doesn’t seem very objective now does it, I think
we could find a better word for it, subjective.
> The ultimate point to a long chain of whys is not a sentence in the english language.
True, it is a thought not a sentence, but an English sentence is the
best I can come up with. Sorry.
John K Clark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT