> > > > 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.
>
Before you can decide what is moral you must first ask why have morality at all. As
living creatures we have two basic alternatives: dead and alive. What choices or
values are required to keep us from being dead? We are creatures that live by
THINKING, the moral is that which allows us to think, the immoral that which
hinders it. ( Which is why I consider faith a vice: thinking ends where faith
begins )
> 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.
So do you or do you not think slavery is immoral? Does it really matter what your
excuses for it are?
> 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.
No. The Individual is always the last judge of what reality is to himself. Moral
judgments therefore are not something one should let others make for you, (Unless
your truly incapable of doing so, such as a child or a lunatic). If you want to
breed that's your business (and of course your partners)
> 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
If one preserves the species at the price of stomping out who we allow ourselves to
breed with (and therefore our capacity to THINK and to choose) then I'm in favor
of extinction.
> (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.
>
My values boil down to this: I am therefore I shall think!
> > "Wow, your way out there, Nateman."
> But where exactly is that?
Well from Tim's perspective "Yes Nate I really *believe* that it's logical to be
illogical" I am way out there from him. But my feet are planted firmly here on
Earth whereas I can't say where he's flew off to.The man with the Nametag of The
Nateman.