Date sent: Mon, 24 May 1999 23:28:23 -0700 To: email@example.com From: Dan Plante <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: virus: Cow Send reply to: email@example.com
> At 04:15 PM 24/05/99 -0400, James Veverka wrote:
> >Hermit.......Isnt post-religious morality really ethics anyway? I have
> >been using morality incorrectly then. I should be refering to ethics?
> >or simplify it to "values", whatever the realm it corresponds too. What
> >I am refering to has genetic base so what is the best "label" (cringe)
> >for use to communicate the ideas. Considering pre-conceived definitions
> >among people. jim
Ethics is about abstract systems; morality is about fuzzy versions of them instantiated in individuals.
> I was under the impression he meant it in the sense of "morality as a
> purely social construct", which, taken memetically, _could_ be rather
> arbitrary, upon surveying a number of different cultures, whereas ethics,
> taken genetically, would not (i.e. a code of conduct approving of random
> killing by its constituents would not be a benefit to the cultural entity
> under _any_ circumstances). Or maybe that's not what he meant. I hope we
> don't slip into another Websterian Pergatory on this one. Perhaps we can
> just agree on a virian definition - a characteristically memetic one?