Re: Evolutionary history of rape

From: Richard Wein (tich@primex.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2000 - 19:45:01 EST

  • Next message: Tedd Hadley: "Re: Marxism and Darwinism"

    From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>

    >> > 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 see no conflict there. if someone claims that something is immoral, they
    mean that it offends against the moral code that they hold to, regardless of
    whether that moral code has been arrived at by subjective or objective
    means.

    >> >(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: Tedd Hadley <hadley@reliant.yxi.com>
    >> From a materialistic perspective (or humanistic), morality is
    >> concerned only with maximizing human happiness.

    I doubt whether most materialists and humanists would share that view. I
    wouldn't. I think that moral issues are much more complex than that.

    >> 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.

    But do they claim that there is an *objective* basis for their 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.

    I don't agree. It can't be demonstrated that happiness is the proper goal of
    morality. That's a subjective judgement.

    >If you deny this and all other bases, no moral outrage can be
    >justified

    Yes it can, but the basis of my moral outrage is as subjective as the basis
    of my moral code.

    >(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).

    Richard Wein (Tich)
    See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 19:44:52 EST