On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote: > > So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the > naturalistic > fallacy is just that, a fallacy. But, if we don't go that route, > then where > does one ground basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, > better and > worse? >
Why do they need to be 'grounded'? Doesn't that just lead to an infinite regress? If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a valid basis? Because it's grounded in Y? And Y in Z? And ... Saying 'God did it' is just as useless a non-answer for ethics as it is for the origin of the universe. Bumper Sticker Philosophy Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
