From: Tennessee Leeuwenburg (hamptonite@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 13 2005 - 23:32:46 MDT
> yeah, I admit my opinion is still (mostly) intuition,
> but that doesn't mean it's wrong. The idea that
> there's no objective morality is educated guess-work
> as well you know. Why should my guess by any more
> likely to be wrong than eli's guess?
You know, you've left yourself wiiiide open there! ;)
I get your argument. I however believe <a
href="http://melbournephilosopher.blogspot.com/2005/07/moral-relativism.html">
in moral relativism </a>. That argument is about human moral
relativism, so I'm arguing for a bounded relativism to account for
human psychology.
But I am being strongly opposed by people who believe in an objective morality.
If there is an objective morality, and it's also tied to practical
success, you could be right. Have you considered the option that
objective morality /does not/ present any practical advantages after
all?
You can have as much objective morality as you like, but if it's easy
to ignore, then you might find it does you no good at all when the
revolution comes... If UFAI doesn't have morality as a goal, where
morality is defined as some kind of scriptural designation of good
things and bad things, such as valuing human life, rather than being
directly tied to the pleasure principle, then we're still screwed.
Plato argued for an objective morality based on the best satisfaction
of the pleasure principle, which he argued came about through
self-discipline, moderation and fulfillment. But he was still killed
by pissed off Athenians.
Cheers,
-T
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT