Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA05892 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:14:56 GMT X-Sender: unicorn@pop.greenepa.net Message-Id: <p0432041cb87bdbdd8fc9@[192.168.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <F285rVyyqv59mTetXoc000042ba@hotmail.com> References: <F285rVyyqv59mTetXoc000042ba@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:11:12 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <unicorn@greenepa.net> Subject: Re: Rogue Males/moral prescriptions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Scott said:
>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?
But I like Grant's idea of the win-win situation, and looking at the
*results* of a meme to determine it's "morality." It fits nicely
into my line of work which is counseling - since it allows me a
fairly non-judgemental stance, and by exploring the consequences of
their beliefs and actions with clients, it allows them to develop a
highly-personalized way of evaluating things. I must confess to
having read neither of these books, so I don't know how well this
response fits with what you were trying to say.
frankie
===============================================================
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 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 05:23:44 GMT