Re: virus: Logic... values

Richard Fawcett (
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:06:19 +0100

> > > Nathaniel Hall wrote:
> > > Not at all. I claim values are objective not subjective. The trick is to
> > > have an understanding of reality to the point that your values are close
> > > to objectivity if not right in sync.
> >

I understand the sentiments and try to do the same myself...

> > What if what your basing YOUR morals on turns out to be just as wrong in
> > 200 years?
> I don't know when someone figured out 2 + 2 = 4 but I'm
> positive that even 1000 years from now that will still be true.

You've stated a clear bit of Maths. I accept that there is a lot you can
"evaluate" logically from what we know as true but still I cannot understand
how you can put clear universal values on human issues.

Surely values come down to individual philosophies...
The Slavery issue is morally clear as "bad" in the eyes of people who respect
equality amongst humans.
There is a more challenging example in the case of genetic discrimination. Can
we justify breeding out genetic traits in humans on the grounds of preserving
our species. Surely if we take a scientific viewpoint, unlike Hitler, and breed
out dangerous genes we are just protecting ourselves. Preservation of the human
species is a perfectly acceptable moral view-point (e.g. deflecting ateroids on
collision course with earth, saving children from burning buildings).
How does this one stand with your "values"? What do your values boil down to? I
can't see how you get from "2 + 2 = 4" to your moral view-point.

> "Wow, your way out there, Nateman."

But where exactly is that?

(R. Fawcett)