Ethics (was Re: Science and Ideals.)

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Ethics is a product of philosophy. It's not a county in eastern England? (Tom Holt reference, IIFC.) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ethics L3

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:21:10 -0700, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To the extent that you want to argue that scientific > >> pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than a

Re: Ethics L3

[I'll just amplify where necessary; there isn't much.] On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To the extent that you want to argue that scientific pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything else, I'm likely to agree. At th

Ethics L3

he problem there is that there are plenty of examples of >strategy that works in opposition to that argument. There is no doubt that the "law of the jungle" view of evolution was myopic, and that cooperative and even altruistic behavior can be seen as evolutionarily favorable. But, s

Machiavellian Ethics: Fertility Slavery, Mortality, Morality and the State

<> ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ethics (and morals, and free will)

I am cut'n'pasting from two other threads as well - the Fascist and Mercies ones. > Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved > in part as a survival > mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage > a

Re: Ethics

On Aug 26, 2004, at 10:55 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved in part as a survival mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage and an intellectual advantage. For instance, a shaman that convinced his community that the spirits punished those

Ethics

It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved in part as a survival mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage and an intellectual advantage. For instance, a shaman that convinced his community that the spirits punished those who killed their spiritual leaders would stand a

Re: Religion based ethics

Russell Chapman wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovati

Re: Religion based ethics

Dan Minette wrote: But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? Then, its not really evolution. So once we become aware we are evolving, we stop evolving? As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriq

Re: Religion based ethics

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to > > evolution: success? > > No. Purpose presupposes intent. There is no intent in the > happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicat

Re: Religion based ethics

> Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to > evolution: success? No. Purpose presupposes intent. There is no intent in the happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated machines survive and self-replicate better than others. We attribute intent to o

Re: Religion based ethics

- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 2:32 AM Subject: Re: Religion based ethics > Dan Minette wrote: > > - Original Message - >

Re: Religion based ethics

Doug Pensinger wrote: But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately rec

Re: Religion based ethics

Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is. Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution: suc

Re: Religion based ethics

- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Religion based ethics > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > One of the conclusi

RE: Religion based ethics

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... > That gives me the impression that you think we're some kind of science > experiment. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. The point is that solving one mystery, such as the or

Re: Religion based ethics

s violation of our own standards because they have threatened our security (not saying that's right, but it is being tolerated). So yes, I do not believe that morals/ethics are static. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

Nick Arnett wrote: Doug wrote: I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? The existence of evolution, whether in biology, morality or whatever, doesn't rule out the existence of God, does it? No, not necessarily, but it trumps the need for any kind of faith to understand morality.

Re: Religion based ethics

Doug wrote: I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Depends on what exactly you mean by our morals evolving. Some would say that right and wrong haven't changed, but our understanding of right and wrong has, just as gravity has been the same for the past 12 billion years but o

RE: Religion based ethics

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... > Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of > faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? >

Re: Religion based ethics

Dan Minette wrote: One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements

Re: Religion based ethics

On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 07:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote: I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it. Even if m

Religion based ethics

I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it. >Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God'

Medical Ethics (was: Re: Child abuse)

do* make it unethical not to fight to the very last breath, either turn their living-will-holding patients over to others (since refusing treatment is the prerogative of a competent adult), or have patients with the same outlook/belief. > Let's say that my differences with "conventional&