From: barrysremovebeau@yahoo.com   
      
   Joseph H wrote:   
      
   > Agree. No claim in my writing that anything is CORRECT, in your sense.   
   > I think I steer a course between Scott and Barrysbeau. Scott seems to   
   > pine for some objective standard - or certainly he dismisses all claims   
   > that any morality might be better than another. Barrysbeau seems quite   
   > happy to accept this. I don't accept it. I think our growing body of   
   > knowledge and the comparative civility of most of our lives must prompt   
   > us to incorporate some element of surmise about what we would consider   
   > a desirable human society of the future into our evolving morality.   
      
   I am Barrysbeau, I was using google groups to post because Scott said he   
   was not receiving my posts from my regular server, since he seems to   
   have dropped from the conversation I have resumed using my standard   
   newsreader, which is much more convenient.   
      
   I certainly agree that there is much that humans can agree on.   
   Ultimately I don't think its possible to determine that one morality is   
   simply better than another.  Good is meaningless by itself.  For an item   
   to be good it must be good for something.  As long as we agree on the   
   goal, more or less objective moral decisions are possible.  If we can't   
   agree on the goal though we cannot.  I do believe though that we can   
   arrive at common goals, and that in fact this is happening.   
      
      
      
      
   > Al of this is not to imply any fixity of morality. On the contrary: we   
   > must develop and adapt  continuously. It does, however, imply some   
   > sense  of an accumulating body of knowledge, up to a limit, in a   
   > mathematical sense, a finality never reached but always becoming   
   > closer.   
      
   Closer to what?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)