Re: "Morality?" - Composite Reply

Lee Daniel Crocker (
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:43:03 -0700 (PDT)

> >Where I depart from Mr. England is that while we agree that we cannot
> >rationaly derive moral values, he then tries to derive moral values
> >from that failure--even more irrational. He says, in effect, that
> >since your morals cannot be rational, be less judgmental of others
> >and less committed to your own.
> Judging from a couple of your posts, I thought you would be inclined to
> understand my presentations more than some of the others. With no disrespect
> intended, I sadly say I was mistaken. Numerous times in my posts, I stated
> quite clearly and uniquovically that I reject the concept, morality, as
> myth. What was it in my post that led you to conclude that I really didn't
> mean it, that I was must be promoting my own brand of "morality?"

>From your post of October 9:

>> It is my personal preference that the terms, ought and should, be
>> entirely eliminated from the language. Getting rid of these non-
>> scientific terms would no doubt aid in holding focus upon the reality
>> of a thing or situation.

That sounds like a moral prescription to me, and if it sounds like a
duck, and walks like a duck, your insistence that it's not a duck
doesn't impress me.

Like you, I utterly reject all claims I have seen of a supposed is-
ought bridge; I have no evidence on which to decide whether, as you
claim, it is because such a thing /can't/ exist, or whether. as Eli
claims, it does exist and we just haven't found it or are incapable
of finding it.

But it doesn't really make much difference to me. I'm not attached
to this failure, it's just part of what is, no more and no less than
the fact that dogs have four legs. There's no objective morality.
Big deal--I can get on with my chosen one just fine, thank you.
I don't know what important revelation you might be communicating
that you don't think I've gotten, but from your copious words so far,
it's nothing more than I knew a year ago. There's no objective
morality. You're right. So what? Any reaction you would have me
make from that is just your own normative preference, and I'm no more
interested in your values than God's.

> >I also have to agree with Max that this is pretty esoteric stuff,
> >irrelevant to everyday use.
> Then so is individualism and freedom.

If you mean "convincing the world that individualism and freedom
are the right thing", then yes, they're just as irrelevant. If you
mean convincing them of it so they'll stay out of my way, that's
important to me, because I want them out of my way--and even better
if they cooperate. But I don't care one whit whether they do it
because it's "right" or not, only that they do it.

Lee Daniel Crocker <> <>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC