From: Martin Striz (mstriz@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 08:13:12 MDT
On 7/14/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> *sigh*
>
> How many times do I have to tell you all...
>
> there... is...no...threat...from ... unfriendly..ai
>
> objective...morality....exists
>
> I swear I'll prove it if it's the last damn thing I
> ever do
>
> yeah, I admit my opinion is still (mostly) intuition,
> but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Why do you so glibly make assertions that you admit you can't back up?
How many times do you have to tell us? ONCE, as long as you can
demonstrate it rationality. Otherwise don't bother saying anything at
all.
Personally, I believe the exact opposite. An "objective" morality is
utterly meaningless. Ethics are always relative because all goals,
meaning, evaluations, judgements, etc., are dependent on the entity
making it. Words like right, wrong, good, bad, have no intrinsic
meaning. The only sense in which morals are "objective" is that a
universal moral sense is hardwired into healthy adult humans, but that
moral sense isn't "objective" in the abstract sense. It is, however,
probably the reason why you feel the unwaivering intuition that some
moral system must be objectively right. Hell, successful societies
are predicated on most people submitting to that illusion.
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT