[93] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Objectivist morals (was RE: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd) )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josiah D. Seale)
Fri Apr 20 10:06:04 2001
From: "Josiah D. Seale" <jdseale@MIT.EDU>
To: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@mit.edu>, <mit-talk@mit.edu>,
"Ray Jones" <rjones@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:09:11 -0400
Message-ID: <BLEJJJDGNEIJGAGOJNHNKEHHCMAA.jdseale@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200104201324.JAA06806@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
You make good points.
However, I suppose that I wasn't very clear in what I am arguing. What I
wrote stems mostly from an argument I came up with (as an agnostic).
The argument is:
a) The moral contracts exist because without them society breaks down
b) Without a higher being, there is no "purely objective" reason to follow
morals beyond your own convenience.
b')Without a higher being, the alleged "instilled morals" come from the
self-same evolutionary patterns that came up with social contracts (and I
should only follow them if doing so helps me in the Darwinian race.)
Therefore
c) I am best off being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Let everyone else live by
the social contracts; that way society still works. I, however, should do
whatever I can get away with.
Not everybody can live by this and society still function, certainly. If
everyone were wolves in sheep's clothing, there'd be no sheep to eat.
However, there are plenty of sheep out there.
Those are my axioms, that's my conclusion based upon them. Enjoy.
+>Josiah S.
