h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am inclined to disagree with the idea that a good way to develop an alternative ethical framework is to agree on some postulates and deduce everything else.

Yes, it is a good idea to state your values clearly in terms of simple principles, but you will find from time to time that principles will conflict, or that the consequences will seem wrong.

In those cases the principles will have to be revised, usually by adding detail or qualifications.

This seems unattractive because it may appear to lead to relativism. If the principles can change, how are we to say that any particular principles are better than any others? This is a common logical fallacy. Just because principles, rights, beliefs, laws etc can change (which they clearly can) does not mean that all possibilities are equally good (which is clearly nonsense).

I suppose what this implies is that a moral framework is more likely to have the character of a legal system, than that of a logical system. If you want to contribute to the development of a secular moral framework, I suggest involvement in politics, rather than logical exercises.

"I suppose what this implies is that a moral framework is more likely to have the character of a legal system, than that of a logical system. If you want to contribute to the development of a secular moral framework, I suggest involvement in politics, rather than logical exercises."

You have a point. This was mostly intended to prove a point, but I never got around to finishing it and probably won't.

Part of the basis I was planning was based on the Zeroth Law of Robotics--a robot shall not harm humanity, nor allow it to come to harm.

Yes, some interesting ideas here even if you don't go ahead:

Non-religious - but in what way is a religion any basis for a moral system? For humans the choice of adopting a moral system is itself a moral choice not a logical one. The idea that all moral choices must be made on the basis of a moral system thus leads to infinite regress. Religion avoids this problem by defining morality in terms of whatever "God" wants of us or instructs us to do. I think this makes religious morality meaningless.

Non-absolute - also difficult. You can claim that your system is not perfect, and perhaps this amounts to the same thing. But doesn't any moral system adopted, or blindly stumbled into, by society, has to claim to be absolute (at least absolute given the social context), or it is failing to define right and wrong. It would be like every definition in the dictionary ending with the words "or it might mean something else".

I think the zeroth law of robotics idea is fascinating, but so far removed from current belief, that it is difficult to see the implications. We don't regard failing, say, to prevent an injury as equivalent to causing that injury, but this would be the implication of the zeroth law basis. It would create a duty to interfere in stark contrast to our "mind your own business" culture.

"Space Rock Destroys Siberian Forest, Again

As The Times of London put it, if the meteorite that crashed through Earth's atmosphere last September were aimed at central London, "Britain would no longer have a capital city." But London was spared, as the space rock was drawn to what could almost be called a hot spot for asteroid strikes: Siberia.

The large object -- its size has yet to be pinned down -- soared into a remote region of eastern Siberia on Sept. 25, rattling windows and setting off flashes in the sky seen by only a few. Ground tremors similar to those of an earthquake were felt 60 miles away. The U.S. Department of Defense tracked the incoming object by satellite.

Scientists later began a hunt for ground zero, but weather and snow hampered the search.

The devastation has now been examined, the Interfax news agency reported late last week. Trees were toppled and burnt across some 40 square miles of forest. Pieces of the meteorite have been found, and scientists expect them to be valuable for studying the object's composition.

Researchers speculate that this may be the largest space rock to hit Earth since one in 1908, which fell, ironically, in the Tunguska region of Siberia. As in 1908, however, it appears the 2002 rock exploded before it hit the ground, scientists said. So while the event had tremendous impact, technically speaking the rock did not impact the Earth."

Its from Space.com @
http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html

Sorry, wrong thread.