"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> > But the epistemic relativist would just ask why you think the naturally
> > evolved morality is the objectively true one.
>
> To which the scientist would reply, Biologically evolved morality is not the
> objectively true one, it's the *only* one, because whatever moral system we
> evolve, it still comes from us, ie, biological entities.
>
> > I think you and me would
> > say something along the lines of "because it works", but that would not
> > convince the relativist.
The problem with this relativist stance is the same problem of the
relativist faced with the anthropic principle: if biological evolution
did not exist, we would not be having this conversation, therefore, the
biological paradigm is the proper one to evaluate and discard
evolutionarily disadvantaged moral systems. I do not dispute that my, or
your, moral system may not be the penultimate universally objective
morality, but it, or another, can be shown to be the MOST congruent to
it by the evolutionary process at this point in time in this local frame
of reference called "Earth".
A relativist would say that it is improper to judge by any means such
moralities (of course, unless they significantly offend their own sacred
cows), that all moralities are inherently worthwhile, etc etc etc, which
completely and wilfully ignores the 3.5 billion years of biological
development on this planet that says otherwise.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT