To recap our exchange, Samael posts:
>[Dick writes:]
>>Samael writes:
>>>I don't have a right to live. I have a very strong 'wish' to live.
>>What if I have a very strong wish to terminate your life? Is my wish not
as
>>valid as yours? Can I rightfully implement my wish? If not, why not?
>I have repeatedly stated that I don't believe in objective morals. So in
>the above statement 'valid' and rightfully' do not make syntactic sense.
>There is no 'right', 'wrong', 'valid', 'invalid', 'good', 'evil' except
>within moral systems.
Really?
There's no "right" or "wrong" way to construct a bridge, say? We can achieve our purposes in any arbitrary fashion?
A logical deduction is neither valid nor invalid?
Eating (or the alternative, starving) is neither good nor evil?
>Please define ethics in some sort of objective way. Show me the
>logical, non-emotional basis for ethics.
I believe Mike Lorrey has proposed a satisfactory approach to an objective standard.
>So, I like Flu shots. Becasuwe I recognise their long term value. Liking
>something is not necessarily an instaneous thing. You can like the
outcome
>of something.
Liking the outcome of something is not the same as liking the something.
I asked:
>Why should anyone else care what you like? Why are you entitled to
>something just because you like it?
Samael responds:
>i'm not _entitled_ to anything. I have no rights, except as a social
>construct agreed between two or more people. Rights are an _invention_.
>You can't point to one, or hold one up or stick a needle into it. It's a
>theoretical creation of the human minds.
There are any number of things we can't point to, hold up or stick a needle into. Love, cooperation, life, the mind, to name an important handful. Are all these just theoretical creations of our minds?
>I keep pointing out that I don't believe these things exist and then you
ask
>me where they are.
>I feel like I'm stuck with a bad copy of Eliza:
>Me: I don't believe in morals
>You: That's a rather immoral thing to say.
>Ack!
:-) Point taken, but that's not quite what I've been trying to do. I've given what I consider grounds for believing in objective ethics.
>Sorry, if I'm causing offence, but I'm still waiting for one example for a
>purely logical basis for morals or ethics that does not depend on what
you,
>I or anyone else thinks or feels.
No offense taken. Again I'll point out that I've proposed the evolutive point of view as a starting point for developing an objectively verifiable ethical code. While incomplete in itself, I think that, when combined with game-theoretical considerations, it may make possible an approach with considerable persuasive power for most reasonable people, at least in broad outline.
More on this when I have time to get my thoughts together.
Dick