From: Sebastian Hagen (sebastian_hagen@gmx.de)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 13:42:19 MDT
Metaqualia wrote:
> But morality is inherently about what feels good.
According to WordNet 2.0 (August 2003):
morality
n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right
and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: {immorality}]
2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: {ethical
motive}, {ethics}, {morals}]
Whether feelings are inherently (i.e. aside from being physical processes)
relevant for an arbitrary morality depends on the morality.
> without "feelings" of some sort, morality isn't needed.
A sentient being needs a goal system of some sort to determine which actions to
take. Morality seems to me as just a (somewhat muddled because of historical
attempts) way of thinking about goal systems.
> If something doesn't feel like something, then it is irrelevant.
That's one of the assumptions of the kind of morality you personally believe to
be correct (one based on qualia). This assumption shouldn't be made for
discussions of moralities in general since it is not shared between all possible
moralities.
Sebastian Hagen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT