> "Chris Cogan" writes
> in message <002801bf8bd6$7d173b80$d5000ed8@default>:
>
> [ On conflating statistically "normal" with morally "normal" ]
>
> > I think, though, that there is a kind of "natural" reason for
> > committing it. Many people, especially scientists, reject
> > traditional views of morality, but they have no rational
> > alternative (and, in fact, generally believe that there is none),
> > so they fall back on the idea that whatever is normal in some
> > biological sense must also be normal in a moral sense. It's a
> > pitiful line of reasoning, but it's all they have.
>
> I don't see how this can possibly be anything but the extreme
> minority. Consider that the most normal thing in biological
> history is extreme pain followed by death. Only the most
> superficial and poorly thought-out system of morals can call
> that "good".
That's a good point, but I was talking mainly about actions. *However*, let
me add that many Christians and some others hold a view similar to the one
you describe. Many Christians, for example, refer to life on Earth with
phrases like "a vale of tears," etc., and some people (mostly men?) have
regarded the pain of childbirth as something that is not to be ameliorated
(or at least not suppressed altogether).
>
> > Oddly, many people don't see any conflict between claiming that
> > there is no objective basis for morality *and* simultaneously
> > claiming that something *they* dislike is immoral (I've even
> > seen such people become morally outraged by the claim that there
> > *is* such a thing as an objective basis for morality -- if there
> > is no such basis, then such outrage cannot be justified).
>
> From a materialistic perspective (or humanistic), morality is
> concerned only with maximizing human happiness. Therefore, it
> is perfectly consistent for a materialist to be morally outraged
> by acts or beliefs that do not rationally lead to that goal.
Not if there is no moral significance to them nor any objective basis for
morality at all. If you deny that there can be an objective basis for
moraltiy, then there can be no objective basis for moral outrage.
Yes, many humanists and other materialists hold that happiness is the proper
goal or purpose of happiness. I agree (with some qualifications, having
mainly to do with semantic issues), but that would be an *objective* basis
for morality. If you deny this and all other bases, no moral outrage can be
justified (though you may say that there is then also no moral basis for
regarding such hypocrisy as immoral -- except that people in the midst of
such outrage obviously believe that they are morally *right*, not merely
that they are doing something with no moral signficance).
>
> <agree with the rest>
Then you must have misunderstood it. (Kidding! :-) )
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 16:29:52 EST