Hi Platt!
PLATT:
Values being "biologically inherent" makes me wonder just how much
you ascribe to Robert Wright's thesis in "The Moral Animal" where he
argues that social morality (the subject of our conversation here) is an
adaptation designed to maximize genetic self-interest, a function
hidden from our conscious experience? In other words, he claims our
moral principles are intuitive. I don't buy the genetic explanation
completely, but do think entities possess an innate judgment sense
that is tied so closely to experience that the two are inseparable.
ROG:
I loved *Non Zero*, but I disagree with Wright's cynical position in *The
Moral Animal.*
My 2nd favorite book on morality is *The Moral Sense* by James Q Wilson. He
provides great empirical evidence that we have broad and fairly adaptable
innate moral sensibilities partially offset by some innate tendencies toward
selfishness, with the whole thing accented by our culture. He has nothing
but contempt for postmodern relativists.
P:
A good, pragmatic view. To summarize briefly: Moral authority is a
misnomer in that the only true "authority" is within each individual.
Recognition that the world is a moral order with competing levels of
values (as described in the MOQ) gives an individual a better
understanding of his own and others behavior, and can lead him or her
to make better personal decisions.
Is that about right, recognizing that I could be wrong?
R:
Well said!
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST