From: fudley (fuddley@fastmail.fm)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 08:37:54 MDT
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:07:14 +1200, "Marc Geddes"
> sometimes the meter would correspond to human
> wants and sometimes it wouldn't.
And sometimes they would correspond to the flip of a coin and sometimes
they would not, I’m sure out of 6 billion people on the planet you could
find somebody who thought putting on a green hat on Thursday was evil.
> You were assuming that there would be absolutely
> no correlation between objective morality and human wants.
No I don’t assume that at all, there is a correlation and it’s exactly
what you would expect, from chance.
> The meter is supposed to indicate objective morality.
> By definition it would not indicate that something is
> 'horribly evil' without very good reasons.
By definition? Objective good is supposed to be an end in itself and is
complete in itself, it needs no reasons. The true saint is supposed to
do good because he should do good, not because it will aid him or
anybody else.
> If putting on a green hat on Thursday really had no consequences
> for you or anyone else, the meter could not possibly designate
> this as 'horribly evil'.
The positive or negative consequences to a person are irrelevant, people
have nothing to do with it, good and evil are objective not subjective
remember. The meter says putting on a green hat on Thursday is evil and
that’s just the way things are, it’s like complaining that a voltmeter
reads 6 volts. However if that is true then I see no reason not to be
evil. I mean, what’s so good about objective good?
> a German living in Nazi Germany might have checked the meter
> about Nazism and the dial might have swung to 'horribly evil'.
The suffering produced by Nazi Germany mean nothing because good and
evil are not subjective, so the meter could just as easily say it was
wonderfully virtuous, and that is why I have no use for such a meter.
John K Clark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT