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
My philosophy is not that observations only count. I stated that absent
observations why believe in something that cannot be observed ? Faith ?
But how can we then be sure that fairies do not exist or what about the
many other mythical figures ?
Gene:
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?
Perhaps instinct like animals ? What is the difference between being
against the law and being against my belief in god ? Other than that the
first on is very definite, the latter one open to intepretation.
More importantly we observe self sacrificing acts and some might be
enforced by religous beliefs others by purely humanistic beliefs. So
perhaps religion or absence of such is not an essential ingredient to self
sacrificing acts ? And for that matter how self sacrificing is it when one
is guaranteed of eternal life compared to when one does not believe in
such eternal life ?
Regards
Pim