I wrote to Pim:
> >I think
> >your grandparents were *better* than their philosophy, or rather that
> >their philosophy, in encouraging self-sacrificing virtue, is inconsistent
> >if based on materialist foundations (materialism: all there is is
> >matter).
Russell:
> But it is not inconsistent if it is based on humanist foundations, which
> it clearly is.
Gene:
> >I am just saying I can't see how the
> >philosophy that they presumably followed can logically reach the
> >conclusions that motivated your grandparents.
Russell
> I explained that in my post "Logic makes a comeback", a while back.
Gene:
Perhaps your philosophy is not as radical as Pim's "only observations
count", but for the life of me I can't see how an *is* can become an
*ought*. The observation that I have certain feelings doesn't tell me
whether I should obey the feelings or not. When they incline me to
protect the life of my children should I obey them? Why? When they
incline me to rape a woman should I obey them (supposing I could avoid
negative repercussions from the law) Why not?
How do I go about finding your previous posting on this subject?
Gene
-- ____________________________________________________________Gene D. Godbold, Ph.D. Lab: 804 924-5167Research Associate Desk: 804 243-2764Div. Infectious Disease/Dept. Medicine Home: 804 973-6913and Dept. Microbiology Fax: 804 924-7500MR4 Bldg, Room 2115 email: anselm@virginia.edu300 Park Place Charlottesville, VA 22908 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""