Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA04652 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:16:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.222.132] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:12:17 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F285rVyyqv59mTetXoc000042ba@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2002 18:12:17.0881 (UTC) FILETIME=[522AC490:01C1A827] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <unicorn@greenepa.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger
>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:50:36 -0500
>
>Frankie said:
>
>>>.... offering well-reasoned statements laying out your beliefs in a
>>>way that people can see the value of your point.
>
>Stephen said:
>
>>"Reason" will have limited effect. Some reasons for this include:
>> 1) There is too much momentum, too much invested in the
>>mainstream view, in order to willingly accept change. People will
>>only change their views when they WANT to change them;
>> 2) There is a tendency, particularly in the West (as I see
>>it) to defer judgement to higher authorities. Self-evident "truths"
>>are of limited value for us, unless they bear the stamp of approval
>>from the relevant authority (academic institution, popular author,
>>etc).
>>
>>Any of the prominent feminists, such as Germain Greer and the like,
>>attained notoriety less through reason than through rocking the
>>establishment. Generally, particularly at the cutting edge of
>>feminism, their ideas were ignored until a certain critical mass of
>>public opinion was reached. People do not base their views on reason
>>alone. Far from it.
>
>Ah hah, this explains your aversion to it. :) (sorry, I couldn't
>resist)
>
>>>>And if their answer is based in materialism or "security", or if
>>>>it is based in attention-seeking
>>>
>>>But these are all adaptive motivations, in the sense of natural
>>>selection, however distasteful you might find them.
>>
>>If so, then in this context, patriarchal oppression of women is
>>similarly an adaptive motivation and shouldn't women, according to
>>your reasoning, accept their role as acquiescent doormats?
>
>I don't see how this necessarily follows from what I said. Killing
>off competitors is an adaptive strategy, that doesn't mean we should
>just shrug our shoulders and have at each other. There are better
>ways.
>
>
It's been a while since I read G.E. Moore's _Principia Ethica_, but I think
that, in short, justification of anything as being adaptive, therefore right
or good is a possible case of the naturalistic fallacy.
There's also Hume's "is/ought" distinction.
How does one make moral prescriptions from descriptions which apply to the
factual sphere?
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 18:24:51 GMT