in short:
1: from MG "a memetic viewpoint on laws would be fairly free of moral
judgements about behaviour" I agree, it should.
2: I think most memeticists would look at laws as only a reflection on the
current or recent dominant memetic structures - currently Christianity. Not
"should or shouldn't"
3: I would agree with your last statement completely: "seeing a group's
morality as a complex of ideas dominant in their meme pool"
Bill Roh
Sodom
Martin Glover wrote:
> Looking at eric boyd's post (may've been someone else's originally) about
> laws against people damaging themselves, i was struck that the post was
> phrased in terms that sounded quite moralistic to me: what people OUGHT or
> OUGHT NOT to be allowed to do.
>
> I would've thought a memetic viewpoint on laws would be fairly free of moral
> judgements about behaviour (including making laws etc), but rather phrased
> in terms of questions like "why are these ideas more widespread than their
> opposites?"
>
> I'm not trying to police the list, but it interests me as to whether
> memeticists genuinely see laws as a matter of "should and shouldn't". The
> complimentary standpoint might be something like seeing a group's morality
> as a complex of ideas dominant in their meme pool.
>
> Is there a concensus on the list about that?
>
> Cheers
>
> MG