Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Gregory Allen-Anderson <barrysremovebeau@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:14:03 -0500
Joseph H wrote:
I don't find it troubling. I just find it as extreme - on the other
side of the argument - as Scott. I take it for granted that we base
morality more and more on knowledge and on capability. These are
objective entities. I'm not saying the morality is itself objective -
but it has an objective basis.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If what you mean is that our preferences are not simply made up, but reflect some aspect of our nature as humans, then we don't disagree at all. I think the objective of morality is to make it possible to live together, and that certain rules crop up again and again in cultures simply because rules of that nature are necessary for communal living. It doesn't follow from that though that there is a particular rule or rules that are CORRECT and that other rules derive their value from the approximation to these CORRECT rules.
At any rate, if I have correctly interpreted your statement, then we are not in disagreement at all. If I have, and you wish to continue the conversation, then please restate it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- References:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Gregory Allen-Anderson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Barrysbeau
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Barrysbeau
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Barrysbeau
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Barrysbeau
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- Prev by Date: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by Date: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Previous by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|