Re: Logic makes a comeback: morality and materialism

Adrian Teo (AdrianTeo@mailhost.net)
Thu, 29 May 1997 22:35:36 -0700

Russell Stewart wrote:
>
> Adrian wrote:
> >> Jim's argument is that materialist morality is neither objective, logical,
> >> or consistent. I don't disagree with the first point, since morality by
> >> definition is something that cannot be objective.
> >
> >By your personal definition, which may possibly be invalid.
>
> Fine. Prove that it is. You and Jim are the ones claiming that there is such
> thing as a truly objective morality, so the burden of proof is on you.

Prove that your definition of morality may be invalid? I don't need to.
As long as you have not shown conclusively that your definition is
valid, the possibility exist that you may be wrong.

And mind you, the burden of proof is really on the person who most wants
to persuade. I, for one, realize that lives do not get significantly
changed through views expressed electronically - it is just too
impersonal. If you wish to persuade, then you shoulder the burden of
proof.

> >> the most rational and moral course of action for me is to behave in a way
> that,
> >> shall we say, maximizes the amount of happiness in the universe.
> >
> >This begs the question - why is it the "most raitonal and moral course
> >of action" to behave that way?
>
> Because, as I explained, I know that when I am hurt it is a bad thing, and
> it is logical to assume that it is the same for others.

Yes, it may be rational to assume that people are like ourselves in
general, but my question was why it necessarily follows that we should
treat others the way we like to be treated, instead of simply taking
advantage of them? You have not shown why maximizing happiness is
rational, nor have you shown why it is moral.

> >> There we go. The smallest details are laid out for everyone to see. No
> >> "moral capital"
> >> has been borrowed from any other belief system. And, more importantly, it
> works.
> >
> >Russell, my respect for you has grown considerably since the time I read
> >your disparaging remarks against Bill.
>
> I never made the slightest disparaging remarks towards Bill.

You suggested that Jim had a problem with reading comprehension, which
is somewhat insulting, don't you think? Of course, with a subjective
view of morality such as yours, who's to say the remark is disparaging,
and even if it is, who's to say that it is morally wrong. You can't say
it, but I can, because I am not held to your subjective views. ;-)

-- ******************************Adrian TeoInstitute of Child DevelopmentUniversity of MinnesotaE-mail: AdrianTeo@mailhost.net******************************