[Vision2020] Re: Evolution and cruelty

David Douglas ddouglas@pacsim.com
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:42:30 -0400


Ralph:

You say:
"There is no life after death, so we have to live as harmoniously as
possible with our fellow beings in our life before death."


Looks like a non-sequiter to me.  How does the asserted fact of "no life
after death" lead by logical necessity ("so") to the requirement/obligation
("have") conclusion that  "live as harmoniously as possible with our fellow
beings in our life before death."?


The point of these discussions is that the lack of any authoritative moral
accountability (a just God who will judge) means it pretty much doesn't
matter what moral  or ethical conclusions we come to, at least with respect
to any ultimate consequences.  It's fine if you want to be a nice guy,
according to however you want to define it, but what's that got to do with
me?  Who died (and stopped existing) and left you king to make these "we"
statements?


You might mean to implicitly add  "or we won't ever be able to live in
harmony..."  or some such.  To which I would ask, "So?"  Of what difference,
ultimately, are anyone's so-called good or bad deeds.  How can a mass
murderer be considered wrong (let alone wicked) and a soup kitchen worker
good when they are both ultimately going to be former complexes of molecules
forgotten (by all the former molecular complexes who knew them) in an
impersonal, empty, amoral universe?




--
David Douglas