-----Original Message-----
From: Billy Brown <bbrown@conemsco.com>
>Its unavoidable, once you look at the problem from a certain perspective.
>Once you decide to look and see if there is an objective morality, you have
>(broadly speaking) three possible results:
>
>1. You find external, objectively verifiable proof that some particular
>moral system is correct. Then you're pretty much stuck with following it.
>
>2. You find external, objectively verifiable proof that there is no such
>moral system. You can do anything you like, and it doesn't mean anything.
>
>3. You find that you can't tell for sure if such a system exists or not.
>This is where most humans give up, because the problem seems intractable.
>However, in our current age the correct response would seem to be: "If I
>can't figure it out, I need to improve my ability to figure things out and
>then come back to the problem." With IE already on the horizon, it begins
>to make sense to think in terms of preparing to search for a real answer
>instead of just contemplating our navels.
Asking what is moral effectively boils down to asking "What should I do in
situation X?". The answer is that the question is meaningless. A
syntacticalyl similar question that is meaningful is "What should I do in
situation X do achieve Y." If you do not know where you are going, you
cannot ask for directions. (Aaaah! Too much Zen! Must resist!).
The main problem with most philosophical enquiry at a low/uneducated level
is incorrect usage of the word 'why'. Frequently if you rephrase the
question without using 'why'
But I digress.
Samael