Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:49:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
350 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> You seem to be assuming that an atheists moral view must derive from the
> naturalistic world, Steve. Why? It seems to me that morality is a human
> invention, and not part of the naturalistic world outside humanity at all,
> therefore it cannot be derived from it.
Steve can speak for himself but I think he's responding to me. I've said
that I had in the past foundered on trying to derive a justification for
natural rights from reasoning about how animals do things and about what
evolution has crafted. I said I'd foundered but I said I still held out
hope. Hence I suspect he's not necessarily saying that *all* atheist's moral
views derive from the naturalistic world, just this particular Lar-type of
agnostic (and I drew heavily on Rand last time I tried this derivation).
What I would say, perhaps tangentially, is that morality is indeed a human
invention, moreover that to be amoral (as (most?) all other animals are) is
to be less than human. Further in my past attempts at this I tried to draw
the distinction (without getting into the needs hierarchy) between kinds of
morality as being separate from animal urges. I am trying to avoid the
conundrum that Steve laid out, to wit, that if I say morality derives from
nature and specifically about what the most successful survival strategy is
(that is, that respecting property rights is a successful survival strategy
and part of being rational, and to not be rational is to not be human),
haven't I conceded his point because clearly heterosexual is more pro
survival (until you introduce technology to assist) as it furthers the species?
I seem to recall a certain amount of rather unsuccessful wiggling on my part
last time I was pinned by something like that. I still believe it's not
quite true but haven't been able to prove it. I just know it doesn't feel right.
All that aside, I reiterate my contention that the onus to prove the case is
on those who would impose preference rather than on those who would tolerate
all non rights abridging preferences such as you and I.
You have rather a stronger case than I do since Steve first has to prove a
premise to you which I mostly have accepted.
I think so anyway. (it's late and I have to get up at 4 am tomorrow so off
to bed (alone, btw, for those keeping score at home) for now)
+Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| Before leaping in to this part of the discussion, Steve, let me see if I have understood your point correctly: "Homosexual sex cannot naturally result in progeny, therefore it is immoral." Is that a correct restatement of your argument? If not, can (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
