From: Alejandro Dubrovsky (s335984@student.uq.edu.au)
Date: Sun Jan 10 1999 - 12:28:08 MST
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Terry Donaghe wrote:
> >
> > Do you honestly believe in objective, universal standards of right
> and
> > wrong? If so, please state where objective unioversal standards of
> eright
> > and wrong come from and what makes them so. You may well
> revolutionise a
> > large chunk of philosophy (I doubt it, but I'd love to be proved
> wrong).
> >
> > Samael
> Samael, please explain how you can, in good faith, follow a philosophy
> which can be construed to justify anything. Your subjectivist
> philosophy implies that it may, under certain circumstances, be
> morally okey dokey to nuke a newborn in a microwave. Hey, there's no
> wrong or right! We can do anything!
>
> I'm not a philosopher and I have no grand justification of objectivism
> other than the fact that your subjectivism can justify all of what
> most of us consider evil in the world - genocide, murder, rape, child
> abuse, etc etc.
>
But even if it is most of you (us?) it is still not objective. I think it
is quite likely that Hitler and other fellow nazis of the time would have
agreed to genocide, murder happens relatively frequently so i'm assuming
there are is a sizable (0.001%?) chunk of the population that doesn't find
murder to be evil. Rape, i might have even talked to some people that
agree with this form of conduct, and about 15% of parents worldwide seem
not to be offended enough with child abuse to stop practising it (this is
a wild guess/extrapolations from local statistics/rumours/easily
memorisable slogans ("1 in 8, etc") but even if this is out by an order of
magnitude, which i'm pretty sure it's not, it is still a huge amount of
people). So according to objective morality, do these people not exist?
are they explainable as noise in the data?
chau
Alejandro Dubrovsky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:46 MST