RE: virus: Cow

Dan Plante (
Mon, 24 May 1999 23:28:23 -0700

At 04:15 PM 24/05/99 -0400, James Veverka wrote:
>Hermit.......Isnt post-religious morality really ethics anyway? I have
>been using morality incorrectly then. I should be refering to ethics?
>or simplify it to "values", whatever the realm it corresponds too. What
>I am refering to has genetic base so what is the best "label" (cringe)
>for use to communicate the ideas. Considering pre-conceived definitions
>among people. jim

I was under the impression he meant it in the sense of "morality as a purely social construct", which, taken memetically, _could_ be rather arbitrary, upon surveying a number of different cultures, whereas ethics, taken genetically, would not (i.e. a code of conduct approving of random killing by its constituents would not be a benefit to the cultural entity under _any_ circumstances). Or maybe that's not what he meant. I hope we don't slip into another Websterian Pergatory on this one. Perhaps we can just agree on a virian definition - a characteristically memetic one?