Alberto Monteiro wrote:
I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals,
so that you can define what is "good" and what is "evil". If the
goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity,
or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies
is "evil".
But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists
are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied
with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.
In the absence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to any
other? I might have one goal. You might have another. If they are
contradictory, then the strongest man's goal is the right one. Or in
other words, the concept of right and wrong in regards to goals become moot.
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************
Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe
we can play together.
*******************************************************
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
