Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Ayn  Rand's  definitions of force and reason
Message-ID: <1915@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 11:25:38 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1915
Posted: Fri Dec  6 11:25:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:32:05 EST
References: <1482@hound.UUCP> <1910@psuvax1.UUCP> <309@l5.uucp>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 50

> ....................................
> What else is there?  Ethics by general consensus?  Historically, there have
> been far too many instances when the general consensus was that it was
> moral to treat some subset of humanity as things for me to be comfortable
> with this one.  Ethics by divine insight?  And how are we going to get the
> Ayatollah to admit that his insight is not the only correcct one, and that
> all others are heresy?
> 
> Looking at all other ethical systems is a great idea.  After all, wise men
> have been investigating the problem for centuries.  And I would expect to
> find a lot in common in all theories of ethics, because of the common power
> of reason used by these men and the common problem they have of determining
> what behaviour is in keeping with human nature and the common desire to live
> well.
> 
> -- 
> Laura Creighton		

My point, if this was unclear, is the following:

  Ethics cannot be derived by reasoning alone.

Laura asks:
  What else is there?  Ethics by general consensus?  [not so good]
  Ethics by divine insight?  [not so good]

My answer is:

  Yes, it is a difficult problem.  General consensus may provide a lousy
  ethics, "divine inspiration" may provide a lousy ethics, and "reason"
  alone is insufficient.  Some people resolve this problem by claiming
  the existence of divine authority, which must exists, since otherwise
  the morality is not possible.  I am not convinced though that some
  being appears solely to solve our proble.  Similarly, I am not
  convinced that the new rules of inference appear to solve our problem.
  Thus creating an ethic is not a problem which may be solved once for
  all, like a mathematical theorem.  It is rather a problem which for
  ever will chalenge the human mind.

  I am not saying that nihilism is a solution, or that the reason is
  useless in looking for an ethic.  I am saying that to achieve this
  goal, one must make intoduce axioms (ethical postulates) and 
  examine the consequences, using reason.  With some postulates many
  people will agree, with some other, a few.

  Still, you cannot escape the following reality: to convince
  anyone, you must appeal not only to reason, but also to feelings.
  One of the goals is to achieve the harmony between the two.

  Piotr Berman