From: Rob Harris (rob@hbinternet.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 29 1999 - 05:01:05 MST
>I would quibble with two things here. First, I do not think "morality" as
>such is something only applicable to social beings. See Rand's "Philosophy
>Who Needs It" -- the title essay in a book of hers of the same name. Her
>basic notion is that philosophy and morality (which is part of philosophy
by
>her reckoning) are guides to living life. As such they do not just apply
>when one has company over.:) They would apply to Crusoe before Friday
shows
>up. Of course, Crusoe would need no social morality or politics before
>Friday shows up, but he would still need guidance in living.
Only if he were kind of person that required "guidance" from some external
dictator. This was not the point that Dan made, though. However useful
certain arbitrary concepts are to our everyday lives, they exist only in our
head. No humans - no human morality. The stars and dust left behind really
doesn't give a flying toss about the abstract subjective tools once used by
a long dead race - hence an absolute morality is a pipe dream born out of
our desire for cosmic "importance". Exactly like nematodes "looking" up at
us, and trying to tie their existence into ours. It is most illogical,
captain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:53 MST