Re: Fucking Animals
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:23 pm
Wazza, you're missing the point totally.
Your green, and my green may be different because we see things differently. It has nothing to do with being taught the wrong words, nor the reflection of light, but on how the signal is processed.
There is no way of determining that anybody's green is the same as anybody else's green. The particular wavelength can be measured, but not an individuals perception. We cannot see through someone else's eyes -so to speak- so we cannot compare greens with eachother (ok, maybe the vegetable variety). I reiterate: Colour-blindness is different.
As for our 'moral' dilemma: Well I've discovered that this particular debate has been pondered between better people than us. You indeed have the 'constant' camp vs the 'relative' camp. Do a google on it; it passed on 30 mins!
I'm firmly in the 'relative' camp -if you'd not yet figured- and believe morality changes, relative to the society judging the morals within it's history & culture.
The 'constant' camp feel -as you do- that morality is constant, and that alternate forms of acceptability is just a rebuking of these constant morals.
The constant morality view seems very ignorant, with a religious-type standpoint to me. A constant morality would be a good basis for a God-like intervention within human behaviour. Sort of a constant feeling that some evil people ignore: thus ignoring the divine gift this God gave them.
The relative argument affirms an evolutionary-style history, in which morality evolves within; and benefits, the culture that slowly conceives it.
.....so around we go........
Your green, and my green may be different because we see things differently. It has nothing to do with being taught the wrong words, nor the reflection of light, but on how the signal is processed.
There is no way of determining that anybody's green is the same as anybody else's green. The particular wavelength can be measured, but not an individuals perception. We cannot see through someone else's eyes -so to speak- so we cannot compare greens with eachother (ok, maybe the vegetable variety). I reiterate: Colour-blindness is different.
As for our 'moral' dilemma: Well I've discovered that this particular debate has been pondered between better people than us. You indeed have the 'constant' camp vs the 'relative' camp. Do a google on it; it passed on 30 mins!
I'm firmly in the 'relative' camp -if you'd not yet figured- and believe morality changes, relative to the society judging the morals within it's history & culture.
The 'constant' camp feel -as you do- that morality is constant, and that alternate forms of acceptability is just a rebuking of these constant morals.
The constant morality view seems very ignorant, with a religious-type standpoint to me. A constant morality would be a good basis for a God-like intervention within human behaviour. Sort of a constant feeling that some evil people ignore: thus ignoring the divine gift this God gave them.
The relative argument affirms an evolutionary-style history, in which morality evolves within; and benefits, the culture that slowly conceives it.
.....so around we go........