Smoke and Bounce

4:00 am EST

"FALLACY OF NATURALIST ETHICS"

if an ethical code is based upon rationality, then it requires a set of individual life forms to whom it applies. hence, there is a set of individuals to whom it does NOT apply. hence, a "rational" ethical code depends upon a group agreement of their own specific taxon's criteria of identity. BUT: the law of evolution DICTATES that taxons split and form 2 or more new taxons; i.e., families, species, races, varieties, etc. therefore, rational ethical codes can only be rational upon a temporary basis before they must be reinvented and revitalized. hence, no rational ethical code is eternal. hence, a sacred ethical code -- if we are to define sacredness as necessarily implying timelessness -- cannot be subject to empirical or naturalist scrutiny. if it were, it would look profoundly IRRATIONAL no matter HOW attractive.

disprove me!

(ok, some chick claimed my premise was "unproven". but it is proven. WHY? here's why: a "rational" idea requires the exercise of "rationality". hence, there must be 1 or more individuals to perform it, if we are to assume that rationality involves a biological process of any sort, e.g., a nervous system's. furthermore, anything "ethical" cannot be exercised without the "other" to whom one must treat ethically. lastly for now, i can't help but point out that it is common in philosophy to not haggle over a premise itself, but rather the argument that follows the premise. since when was this otherwise?)