RE: Evolution of morality
March 11, 2011 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2011 at 2:51 pm by lilphil1989.)
(March 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm)corndog36 Wrote: The applicable definition of "moral", I believe, is: Doing what is right, just or fair. (I'm open to other interpretations.)
None of those three principles (right, just and fair) are objective.
If I were to disagree with you about the rightness of a certain action, there would be no way to judge which one of us is correct without referring to either of our moral frameworks.
(March 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm)corndog36 Wrote: So would the fundamental principle of morality be; "All human beings have the right to peacefully co-exist"?
The very idea of a fundamental principle of morality is logically circular.
You want to build a moral code based on a fundamental principle, but that fundamental principle has to be defined by your moral code.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
