Re: Evolutionary history of rape

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2000 - 21:20:50 EST

  • Next message: John E. Rylander: "RE: Evolutionary history of rape"

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

    Well, I said I'd need some qualifications. And, it can be a subjective
    judgment, but it need not be, just as the belief that the Earth is round may
    be a subjective judgment, but need not be. This depends on the basis for the
    judgment.

    Why do you think it can't be demonstrated that happiness is the proper goal
    of morality? Put another way: What is the objective criterion
    (epistemological) for determining whether something is or is not the
    objective basis for morality? Once you establish this and the objective
    *context* in which the question of what the basis of morality is, the rest
    is easy. But, usually, this is ignored or glossed over or treated quite
    shabbily, so that the results end up being arbitrary or only half-right.

    Why do we need morality at all? What do we need it *for*? What would be the
    consequences of not having a morality? What would a "Crusoe Ethics" be like?
    (Would Crusoe need ethics or morality at all?) If a morality is a code of
    values and principles for guiding our actions, why do we need to guide our
    actions? Why *not* just act randomly? Why act at all? Why not just stop
    where one is, crumple to the ground and never again deliberately do anything
    at all?

    I'm not here attempting to prove that happiness is the proper goal of
    morality (in any case, I would not normally phrase it that way), but I'm
    trying to suggest lines of inquiry that can lead one to important insights
    about morality and the basis of it.

    I will end with an analogy. Just as there is an objective basis for medicine
    or engineering, there is also, and for very similar reasons, an objective
    basis for morality. If you claim that there is no objective basis for
    morality, you are very nearly (though just barely not) claiming that there
    is also no objective basis for engineering or medicine.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 21:30:59 EST