Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,net.philosophy Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Clothes Message-ID: <941@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 00:36:02 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.941 Posted: Mon Jul 22 00:36:02 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 05:43:22 EDT References: <1311@uwmacc.UUCP> <397@utastro.UUCP> Followup-To: net.philosophy Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 48 Xref: linus net.religion.christian:902 net.philosophy:1830 [followups going to net.philosophy, since this doesn't concern Christianity] In article <397@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> A good many of us know that this is in no way an unrepresentative >> statement. So we would expect that in the reply to Charley, we would >> see some reason and logic exemplefied. But instead we find: >> > Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >> > continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? >> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions >> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion, >> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic >> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen. >Why? This would be correct if Rich maintained that objectivity was the >sole arbitrator, in all cases. I got the impression that his view point >was basically that objective claims demand objective evidence. This >does not exclude subjective evidence from being useful in cases where >the claim is only presented as being subjective. >I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself, >has not been challanged. Perhaps so, but, by the same token, he is not in a position to demand objective evidence on the part of others, anyway. And besides, he IS making an objective statement: that the morality of "Non-interference" is an absolute moral imperative. It's not that I necessarily agree with him (although, since I subscribe to a particular form of situational ethics, I do disagree); it's that, if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you from human nature to this principle. Rich hasn't shown any. I find Mike Huybensz in a much stronger position, precisely because he's willing to wrestle with this problem. If you are willing to back off to "it's advantageous to species survival", and drop the moral imperative, then I think you can construct a consistent position. But its authority is quite different in character, and requires assent. On thing that characterizes moral principles is that they hold whether or not you agree with them. Mike's position, however, requires assent to the notion that the tendency to desire continuation of the species should not be fought. But then, it isn't really proper to try to persuade others of the resulting ethical system. It ceases to have anything but personal proscriptive power. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Better get used to those bars, kid."