[FoRK] interesting electoral concept
aaron at bavariati.org
Wed Aug 31 15:43:00 PDT 2011
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:58:30PM -0700, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 12:26 PM, Damien Morton wrote:
> >Why not answer his question then?
> About why I believe there are moral absolutes? The same reason I
> believe there are scientific absolutes...they've been tried, tested,
> and succeeded in multiple iterations. So maybe the confounds are a
> little more ephemeral, but that doesn't mean there are no empirical
The least moral and most relative form of moral relativism.*
It's a great way to choose your morals, though, as long as you can find a
good figure of merit that everyone can agree on, handle the corner-cases
and perverse incentives before too many folks take advantage of them, and
smite all before you who disagree with your formulations.
I've just been reading _Free and Unequal_ by Roger J. Williams**. His
1953 criticism of Communism and its misguided notion of the uniformity of
human needs and behavior leaves me ill-disposed to your view.
*Least moral: it is not concerned with goodness, merely utility.
Most relative: Any moral can be tested, found wanting and thrown out.
**Biologist who studied individual variations in nutritional needs. His
work was mostly forgotten until some of us Blood-Type and Paleo-Diet
cranks noticed it. Some of his work is being recapitulated by modern
genetics and molecular biology research.
More information about the FoRK