View Single Post
Old 03-19-2005, 09:27 AM   #11 (permalink)
roachboy
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
1. you can find commonalities in any set of variables if you are willing to ignore enough to do it.

2. you still did not define morality in any real way. you conflate it withe social norms in general. this conflation does not seem to me justified. you certainly do not justifyu it in your post, will.

3. that there needs to be social norms is obvious. there does not need to be morality. the christian notion of morality is a particular development, the result of a particular history, a particular set of philosophical assumptions, etc.

4. i do not see the logic that could possibly link the need for social norms--which are simply functional--to anything remotely like intellegent design. you do not need to posit some god to explain that it might occur to groups of human beings to work out for themselves that killing each other (within the boundaries of a group, however that is defined) is probably not functional--to figure out that kinship relations get hopelessly muddled if incest is permitted generally. etc.

5. things get even worse for your position if you start taking account of actual history in thinking about this--for example thet strictures against types actions are usually tied to particular types of property laws (inheritance patterns, etc.)

6. i do not know what--beyond pain avoidance--could possibly be understood as an innate human capacity. say you carried out the analysis you claimed to have carried out in your last post, will--and you find that killing people within a given community is understood as being a problem by most communities. except in particular situations, of course (sacrifice, etc)...this could follow from the fact of community, from the fact of making a distinction between inside and outside...how would you go from this to a claim about innateness? i dont get it.
[[btw your religious position is not an argument in this regard. because there is no way to move beyond the predictable conflict that woudl seperate the assumptions predicated on belief in a particular system from the viewpoints that do not--there has to be a logic to this shift that can be argued apart from a priori linkages that follow becuase you might be a fundamentalist protestant, say--not that you are, will--i am just using it as an example]]
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360