--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That murder stops someone from living (thinking, moving, communicating, > etc.) is verifiable and obvious. True, it is a belief that one shouldn't > stop someone else from living against their will, but it is a belief > that follows quite easily from comparison of empirical observation of > the results of murder with noting one's own will to live. The founding > fathers of America might have called it a "self-evident truth" instead > of a belief. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Founding Fathers considered the existance of a Creator to be "self-evident" as well, so I don't think that you are appealing to a source whom you want to consider authoritative. Moreover, isn't there a difference between "self-evidence" and "knowledge"? I don't see how you can describe the above as "knowledge." Indeed, if I was on an island society, and I was endowed with the only gun on the island, I might not consider a law prohibiting murder to be all-that-self-evident. But, if the island society imposed a law prohibiting murder on me against my will, would that law be evil? Most importantly, what about my other questions? What is your opinion of those other laws? Indeed, consider the following law - what about laws prohibiting incest and sex with minors? For example, what if a certain extended family believes that child development is furthered by arranging for the child to have an early sexual experience before puberty with a close relative, to "show them the ropes" so to speak. Would a law imposing the belief that incest and sex with minors is wrong on this family be evil? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
