Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA05892 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:14:56 GMT X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-Id: <email@example.com> In-Reply-To: <F285rVyyqv59mTetXoc000042ba@hotmail.com> References: <F285rVyyqv59mTetXoc000042ba@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:11:12 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Rogue Males/moral prescriptions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>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
>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.
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 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 05:23:44 GMT