Re: virus: bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?

Robin Faichney (robin@faichney.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:15:29 +0100


In message <35C1F15D.6D463BD3@qlink.queensu.ca>, Eric Boyd
<6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca> writes
>Robin,
>
>Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Moral judgements are always a substitute for understanding.
>> To judge someone as morally wrong, is factually wrong. To
>> cling to a moral judgement is to cling to a delusion, and
>> therefore to prepare the way for your own defeat.
>
>My understanding of moral judgments is that they are similar to emotions --
>that both serve as intellectual shortcuts that can give quick answers. If
>one has too many false ideas heavily ingrained into ones emotions, of
>course, such a system can give wrong answers.
>
>So yes, moral judgments are a substitute for *thinking* -- but if you have
>trained them properly, they will not be delusions. (note that coercion is
>the primary way this system gets screwed up)

I think you're confusing emotions with judgements. The primary
problem with moral judgements is that they are based on
emotions, but "pretend" not to be. Emotions are great --
absolutely essential to our survival, in fact, as well as being
terrific fun, in many cases. But to pretend that there's
something objective about a moral judgement -- as moral judges
generally (always?) do -- is to entertain and propagate a
delusion. Ain't no such thing out there. To suggest that the
moral status of believers is inferior to that of atheists is to
play the same silly games as the believers, because there's
*really* no such thing as moral status, just as there's no hell
below us, and above us only sky. The only reason to make a
moral judgement is to feel superior. And I'm no better than
those who do so. I don't cling to that particular delusion,
but I'm no better. Just better off.

-- 
Robin