LS Re: FAQ and Mark


clark (clark@netsites.net)
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:44:19 +0100


Mark,
  I agree with you when you say "Biological exercises of free will are
immoral when they negatively affect social values". To me it becomes a bit
more complicated when this is preceeded with "The hierarchy of values is an
ordering of morals".
  If we are speaking of the morals of the biological level at its most
basic. That is, if Biological Ethics is defined as those actions which tend
to encourage the survival of a species then that would include actions
which encourage the survival of most of our fellow species and by
extension, the biosphere since we need a healthy biosphere to encourage our
own survival.
  It is these thoughts that I am sstuck on at the moment. To my mind I am
wondering if the Biological level should not be placed above the Social
level and maybe even the Intellectual level since Biological Ethics is the
bedrock of morals that must be satisfied first if all else is to follow.
  I think it would be correct to say that most of our species thinking at
the social and intellectual levels take no account of Biological Ethics as
defined above, whereas, if our species approach to ethics and morals could
begin with an understanding and appreciation of Biological Ethics and
proceed to Social and Intellectual Ethics from there many of our confusions
and past mistakes would be cleared up. I think we are thinking along the
same lines. Ken Clark

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST