@@> William Elliot on "Biological Morality"
 
 DM> @@> "THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF MORALITY" ?
 
 WE> Considering the genetic or evolutionary basis for behavior, behavior
 WE> is as complex as DNA.  Our attempts to codify human behavior will
 WE> consequently be as competent as our ability to understand the human
 WE> gene.
 
     We are actually addressing an "ONLY-PHYSICAL" basis of being!?.
  Complexity is relative and with enough memory and synthetic logic
 (mostly pattern recognition, algorithms ....and time), it would eventually
  reduce to what can be library reference, or creatable structure mechanics
  (whether genomes or morality or any other complexity of packaging). As for
  "competence", *ENOUGH* would be the measure of measure as always is.  We
  do not design a bird to carry 500 people at 700 miles an hour between
  NY and Tokyo; though we might have complete plans for both plane and bird
  in the library (future) ....perhaps even an impractical but fully designed
  bird that could do it (along with the steps necessary for nature  to
  do it if she thought it wise *ENOUGH*). With some room for bumps n warts,
  anything we can think of is only a matter of resources and time expended
  to "make happen". In the meantime we muddle along ......
 
 WE> What I dislike about all of this bio ethical or theo-ethical method
 WE> is the abstraction that it presumes for it's keystone.  Unlike the
 WE> sciences, human endeavor is human centered.  Assuming an abstract
 WE> theoretical or theological, is to miss the central human concern
 WE> to replace it with an inhuman construct. A significance ethical
 WE> discussion demonstrating the need for a human centered view point
 WE> is the hazards and utility of irrational convictions.
 
     We be a small mess of fleshy parts with bits of logic, mostly
  throwaway. "Human centered/concerns", "inhuman constructs"
  "abstractions" etc,etc. have no present meaning beyond the hardly
  understood *flesh organism* that seems define us. Somewhere between
  an amoebic fate; and an unknowable "whatever" that *might* bootstrap
  out from our imaginations ........any options and confusions of will
  are possible (and negotiable). Your "hazards and utility of irrational
  convictions" would play as well a virtual recording as any other myriad
  combinations of possibles. A biological basis (predisposition within a
  proper "nature-arrived-at" range) is LIKELY-likely and in keeping
  with Her past habits of design and materials usage. I admit She might
  have some few novel tricks not yet shown us....! Whatever "abstractions"
  are "presumed as keystones" we've not the foggiest notions and can only
  tease along Her habits, and whispers from Her CREATION mentor.......
 
  Please forgive my use of "Nature/Her/She" to represent the poetic working
  elves of Creationism. It is hard to find an ideal and simple expression
  for that "no-mans-land" complex of relationships between chaos and order.
  Nature "feels" a reasonable temporary standin......
                                                    ^_
                                                    @@>---Dave
 
    We work mightily to build God in our image but can't quite agree on
    OUR image         ..........!!! May take awhile to get it right (or
    get ourselves kicked in the ass trying !!!) !!! 
 
    Nature invented humor to keep morality flexible.....
 
 
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------