Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism)

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:07:50 -0700 (PDT)

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging
> the
> notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by
> my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it
> as shorthand for "Moral Truth".
> I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it
> cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to
> children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have
> strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book
> that you find).
> As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I
> do
> not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be
> a bit more complex than we currently appreciate). Regarding *specific
> statements* on external reality (e.g. the photon has zero mass, the
> Earth is flat, the temperature of the background microwave radiation
> is approximately 3K, the Moon is made of Emmenthal cheese, etc.), I
> follow the classic scientific method and consider them open to
> experimental confirmation or refutation. So I think a scientist is
> free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but
> not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently.

The problem, Giulio, is that in stating that it is wrong to murder
fellow scientists who think differently, you are making an objective
moral judgement. You may claim you have no moral basis for doing so,
but that is merely a concious claim. The fact is that you have been
unconciously acculturated over your life in the western judeo-christian
post-enlightenment ethical outlook, tempered by a flavoring of other
philosophical systems, clearly belies the fact that you have been
programmed to feel the way you do. To paraphrase Ceasar describing
Brittannus, you take the prejudices of your tribe as universal truth,
despite denying such.

Making the leap from stating that other scientists are wrong to having
them executed for thinking 'improperly' requires acceptance of two
moral judgements as objective maxims which history clearly has shown
multiple times are most definitely NOT objective or even more objective
than others. Because history has shown this, it is therefore
objectively wrong to assert otherwise to rationalize unobjective acts
or policies.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:44:46 +0200

I am making a moral judgement indeed, and one in which I believe quite
strongly, but I am not claiming any objective status for it.
Of course I appreciate that this moral judgement is a product of my
life-history including the culture I was raised in, but so what? - I
am still willing to defend it.
Now if by "objective morality" we mean a shorthand for something like
"the ensemble of moral statements on which the vast majority of sane
individuals raised in civilized societies would probably agree", I can
use the term without problems (even if we would have to define much
more precisely the terms "sane" and "civilized").
But please let's not mix morality with (meta)physics. Morality has
just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and
logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really
fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science.
Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4" and "Thou Shalt
Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so fundamentally
different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying to
mix them.
G.

On 5/5/05, Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > So I think a scientist is

---

From: Jef Allbright <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:04:56 -0700

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and
Giulio -

Then how can you possibly evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of 
the moral values you hold dear?

Do you also consider yourself to operate outside the physical realm?

I've been reading and trying to give your words the benefit of the 
doubt, but this is so blatant I just have to ask whether you really mean 
what you seem to be saying.

- Jef