Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 18:12:17 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: Abstractism"

    Received: by id SAA04652 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:16:30 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger
    Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:12:17 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2002 18:12:17.0881 (UTC) FILETIME=[522AC490:01C1A827]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <>
    >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,
    >>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
    >>>>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
    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:

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 18:24:51 GMT