Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
Message-ID: <1294@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 11:42:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1294
Posted: Tue Jul 23 11:42:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:33:29 EDT
References: <1311@uwmacc.UUCP> <397@utastro.UUCP> <941@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 52
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1856 net.religion.christian:942

>>>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. [DUBOIS]

>>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. [HOULAHAN]

> 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.

First, as so many people have already told you, HUMAN NATURE HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THIS EXCEPT IN YOUR OWN MIND!  The basis for that system has to do
with optimization, nothing more.  It would work just as well for fish
morality or bear morality if those animals could come up with such a system,
without relying on "fish nature" or "bear nature".  Second, there's been
plenty of supporting evidence, but you just choose to lift the "human nature"
flag for no apparent reason in response.

> 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.

I hate to overstate the obvious, because it always prompts Dubois to say
"Wow!  Profound!  Duhhhhh!".  But most people I know happen to enjoy surviving,
because they know that when they die, living is over, and all the benefits
associated with it disappear.  Thus, they seek to continue living.  Maximizing
the likelihood of that compounded with the additional benefits associated with
cooperation sound pretty strong to me.  Why doesn't it sound that way to you?

Amazing though, that the obvious is seemingly ignored by people like Dubois...
-- 
Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr