(May 4, 2015 at 4:52 pm)AdamLOV Wrote: If what is good for the virus is not good for me as a human, then there cannot be a greater good that connects both of us. There is simply no common ground between the good of a deadly virus and the good of a human individual…there simply cannot be any overarching "good" that would transcend the individual interests of the components of the system… Conflict, in other words, is the rule, and we cannot discern a "right" and "wrong" side in absolute terms.I never claimed there was an overarching moral code that applies to every component of the physical universe, from electrons to elephants. You cannot draw such an absurd conclusion from my examples. There is no right or wrong kind of triangle. There are however better or worse examples of a triangle.
The same applies to humans. The average army ranger is a better man, i.e. more discerning, emotionally in control, and physically fit, than I am on my best day. It is not a moral question to discern how well a person displays the essence of what it means to be human. The moral question is whether the choices people make take them closer to or further away from their humanity: rational and loving animals.
Suppose someone substituted the concept of wise/foolish for right/wrong. Would their choices be any different? No, because anyone can see that making wise choices are what bring someone closer to his or her humanity and anyone can see that that is good.
(May 4, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: Since the thread has already correctly discounted pure essentialism as adequate fount for ethics, we now see why science, which does so well at questions of nature, is nearly helpless before questions of value.If based on the critique by AdamLOV, your dismissal in premature.
