-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Peter Singer - An Interview
>Question: If evolution is responsible for our morality is anything
>immoral? How does one decide? If evolution is our source of morality, is
>evolution itself moral, and is being non-evolutionary immoral?
Sure, anything which goes contrary to evolutionary/ecological rules (laws?
I'm not sure). The point is that anything outside the context of an
organisms ecological role could be considered "immoral" in some strange use
of the word sense. You "could" say (I wouldn't) that a lion who refuses to
eat antelope was a "bad" lion. I think the issue is more akin to Leopold's
statement of right and wrong.
Humans are capable of doing lots of things which are outside of our
ecological/evolutionary role. When we do that, we are doing bad things. The
trick is figuring out what is and what is not our role.
Steven
>
>
>Ed Barker
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|