But it is also oversimplified, which cuts out many of the important
details.
>The point that I want to
>make is that this type of logic is not sufficient to build a rational
>argument for morality. Simply change "hurt" to "eating chocolate" and the
>logic makes no sense since we all recognize that eating chocolate is
>generally not a moral issue.
Exactly -- we all recognize, without even having to think about it, that
eating chocolate is not a moral issue, whereas the livelihood, well-being,
and individual rights of humans are moral issues. We *know* this, because
we all have emotions and the ability to extrapolate from our own emotions
to understand those of others. That is the basis of my morality, and it is
my personal opinion that it is the basis of almost everybody's morality,
whether they realize it or not.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.