On Apr 21, 2005, at 4:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[me]
The change in what we consider ethical has evolved over human history but theThat is, since we're not (on the whole) caught up in an urgent need -- a constant, driving need -- to (1) fend off starvation and (2) guard against enemies literally at the door at all hours of the day and night, we're able to be considerably more magnanimous to others than our forebears were. We're not in "survival mode" -- and I think that the only way for broad-based inclusive idealism to flourish is in an environment that is reasonably stable, secure and affluent.
basic notion; that one should be honest and fair with all of your own kind;
that you not kill or mame them; that you not cheat them and the expectation
that they will behave in the same way; is not changed.
What has changed is the
definition of the group to which you extend these "rights and obligations".
Ah, so you're of the opinion that in-group ethics is innate, and that what's really become different is our idea of what comprises an in-group. It's expanded, more or less. I think I see where you're coming from now; it makes sense.
I was thinking of more abstract concepts, I suppose; however even these innate (in-group) ethics get overridden pretty regularly. Maybe sometimes it's because we seem to be very easy to persuade that some group or other is an *out-group* and therefore our ideas of human rights don't apply (obviously they wouldn't, since those out-groupers aren't human, after all). And what we define as being out-group is still, I think, a matter of public opinion.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
