"Chris Cogan" writes
in message <002801bf8bd6$7d173b80$d5000ed8@default>:
[ On conflating statistically "normal" with morally "normal" ]
> I think, though, that there is a kind of "natural" reason for
> committing it. Many people, especially scientists, reject
> traditional views of morality, but they have no rational
> alternative (and, in fact, generally believe that there is none),
> so they fall back on the idea that whatever is normal in some
> biological sense must also be normal in a moral sense. It's a
> pitiful line of reasoning, but it's all they have.
I don't see how this can possibly be anything but the extreme
minority. Consider that the most normal thing in biological
history is extreme pain followed by death. Only the most
superficial and poorly thought-out system of morals can call
that "good".
> Oddly, many people don't see any conflict between claiming that
> there is no objective basis for morality *and* simultaneously
> claiming that something *they* dislike is immoral (I've even
> seen such people become morally outraged by the claim that there
> *is* such a thing as an objective basis for morality -- if there
> is no such basis, then such outrage cannot be justified).
From a materialistic perspective (or humanistic), morality is
concerned only with maximizing human happiness. Therefore, it
is perfectly consistent for a materialist to be morally outraged
by acts or beliefs that do not rationally lead to that goal.
<agree with the rest>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 12:37:13 EST