From: Phil Goetz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 29 2005 - 22:06:32 MST
> So I was continuing to try to come up with ideas to
> make objective morality work. And eventually it
> seemed to me that the only possible way it can work
> to directly tie the laws of morality to the laws of
> physics in order to define an 'ultimate goal'
> that is truly universal (holds at all times and
> places). The goal 'move towards the Omega Point in
> the optimal way' is the only possible one I know
> could fit the bill.
It seems to me that "morality" inherently has to be
something that goes AGAINST natural inclinations
rather than something that is in tune with them.
At least, "morality" as commonly used is associated
with concepts like "self-control", "discipline",
"self-denial", and so on. The term "morals" are
used only for those rules we follow that we are
tempted to break. People don't call you moral
for eating your breakfast, or sleeping, even though
those are essential steps in accomplishing anything.
It has to run partly against the grain to be "moral".
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT