From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 12:20:25 MST
This is one of those mostly pointless perennial threads that
washes up onto these Extropian (we hope) e-shores periodically.
"Absolute" Right and Wrong has no place in a
naturalist/scientific worldview. Only an "Absolute Being" could
force such. Right and wrong are of necessity contextual in that
the terms are only meaningful in the context of real beings with
the power to choose. Further, the "right" or "wrong" of their
choices can only be defined in the context of what is the "good"
for that type of being which very much depends on the context of
the nature of the beings in question. Now, it might be possible
to speak of what is universally for the good of all human beings
or even (at a stretch) what is universally for the good of all
sentient beings or what most services some projected notion of
what the "Good" is. But this gets to be a bit strained. In any
case the term "Absolute" concerning morality should be relegated
to the dim past when philosophy was considered the handmaiden of
theology.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:34 MST