[ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs

[Kevin H]

On Dec 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over
> > > > non existence
> > > >
> > >
> > > Preferable according to whom?
> > >
> >
> According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation please
> see here:
>
>
> http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices
>

Well, I'll just tell you my view.  It is only concrete human beings, like
you and me, who make evaluations.  So given that many people disagree on the
worth of existence, I'd suggest that your premise is flawed.  I've taken a
cursory look at your paper and, like most ethical systems that I've seen
proposed, the first thing I look at is how you move from natural statements
to normative ones; that is, how do you bridge the gap between facts to
value?  To myself, I think the naturalistic fallacy is a basic logical
error, one that I don't see addressed in your paper.  And if you want to
engage in this kind of ethical speculation you should be incredibly clear on
how you derive values from facts and where you do so.  Most ethical systems
I've seen have been very obscure on this point, thus hiding their underlying
invalidity even to their author.

*Kevin*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071216/a814ec08/attachment.html>