From: Charles D Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2006 - 11:01:02 MDT
Jef Allbright wrote:
> On 8/14/06, Anthony Mak <anthony.mak@iname.com> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> ...
>>
>
> ...
> It is important to note that this measurement of morality would be
> strictly relative to the snapshot of values and point of view of the
> population. Thus you can certainly detect relative progress, an arrow
> of morality ratcheting forward, but to the extent that value matrices
> are incongruent, you can't assign any objective scale or direction to
> the progress nor make any objective comparisons of morality between
> different populations and their values.
>
> The good news is that morality doesn't have to be objective for US to
> evaluate our actions for expected progress in terms of OUR subjective
> goals. The arrow points outward in the direction of what works.
>
> - Jef
It's also based on a scale that's fixed in time. I.e., it won't change
in response to changing facts, circumstances, options, etc. Thus, to
pick an appropriate example "If a woman contradict her husband her teeth
shall be bashed with bricks." would be a moral statement. (There was a
time, place, and population, that considered it one...so it would still
be one.)
That gives you an objective measure of *something*, but I would hesitate
to call it morality.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT