Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
Message-ID: <632@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 16:01:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.632
Posted: Mon Jul 22 16:01:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 23:57:02 EDT
References: <1311@uwmacc.UUCP> <397@utastro.UUCP> <941@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 56

In article <941@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> [followups going to net.philosophy, since this doesn't concern Christianity]

Not a bad idea.

> ... 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.

Exactly my opinion.

> I find Mike Huybensz in a much stronger position, precisely because he's
> willing to wrestle with this problem.

Thanks once again.  I was wondering why my response received such a thundrous
silence.  (What, me pompous? :-)  I assumed it was because most Christians
couldn't begin to rebut it.  I guess that's why Paul Dubois was assailing
Rosen instead.  (I'll probably read his rebuttal in the next note.... :-()

> 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.

Eeek!  I never said anything like that!  And neither does evolutionary
theory.   Natural selection can occur on several levels: in humans the
primary levels (recently) seem to have been individuals and tribal-size
units.

> 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.

Evolution and natural selection don't require assent: they happen
willy-nilly (be sure to look that word up to see all the definitions.)

> 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.

I don't understand your ideas of why my position requires any sort of assent.

I haven't tried (here) to derive a moral system, but rather to explain how
moral systems are a natural evolutionary phenomenon with adaptive power.

A system that discourages persuading others of that system (all others,
including children) would be as adaptive as a gene for sterility,
because adaptation is not measured in individual survival, but in
transmission of genes (or memes) to the following generation(s).

A system that is only passed to children might be more adaptive than a
system that is freely passed to anyone.  And in a different environment
(or niche) it might not.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh