On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:53:51 -0500, TB wrote:
> Ahhh, you're reading too much into it. Even without a god, our
> ethics/morality can be boiled down to some form of "You don't hit me in the
> nose and I won't hit you in the nose", which keeps us, most of the time,
> from walking around with sore noses... So, that's a good, assuming that our
> general happiness here on this world is a good. Whether or not there is a
> purpose to us outside of this world is a separate question...
I can see why, following that logic, you might say *one's own*
happiness is a good, but why then should one worry about others who
aren't in a position of influence? The argument only holds as long as
the other person is in a position and of the inclination to return the
favor.
And what about the con man? If I can--in cowbird fashion--fool others
into treating me well while I'm actually using up their own survival
resources, is that good or bad? Think of the televangelist duping
little old ladies out of their life's savings. Avoiding a country
full of bloody noses doesn't seem to address that type of moral
turpitude.
But back to the main question...is such behavior good or bad? By what
authority can one say? If one is a strict naturalist, then one cannot
say it's either good or bad. The words have no ultimate meaning, but
only an individual meaning--I can say its good for me (meaning it
serves my current desires) or that it's bad for me (meaning it
doesn't), but the crooked televangelist is free to interpret it
according to his or her self interests as well.
For the naturalist there is no good or bad apart from individual self-interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment