On 2 Sep 2008, at 23:36, Dan M wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:53 PM
>> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Dis
On 2 Sep 2008, at 23:47, Dan M wrote:
> This is actually at the heart of my point. As you said, it has to
> stop
> someplace. Different people have different stopping places when they
> develop ethical systems. Systems have been developed that I would
> guess
> most of us would find repugn
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Olin Elliott
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:11 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
>
> >If ethics is valid because
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:53 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
>
>
> On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM,
On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote:
>>
>> I accept a variant of the "golden rule", I just don't accept that
>> it's
>> anything other than a personal and social contract.
>>
>
> OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal
> contract is
> actually better than any other.
On 1 Sep 2008, at 15:34, Olin Elliott wrote:
>> The question 'where do our ethical ideas come from' has the answer
>> 'our nature as social mammals'.
>
>> The question 'how do we tell good from bad' does not have the answer
>> 'our nature as social mammals'.
>
>> Category Mistake Maru
>
> I'm not
On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Dan M wrote:
> A number of atheists as well as theists have ideals they hold to be
> true.
> They believe in human rights. For example, most atheists that I
> know accept
> some form of the Golden Rule. I think its accurate to say that most
>
- it stops somewhere as it does with axioms ...
Olin
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: Science and I
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that the same thing is true of a lot of our idealistic ethical
> systems -- and the systems I hold most precious, democracy, the open
> society, etc. almost certainly fall into this category -- they do not come
>
On 2 Sep 2008, at 15:53, Dan M wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
>>
>> Of course if I was to ask the question it would probably be something
>> like;
>> do you think ethics are created by magic
>
> I accept a variant of the "golden rule", I just don't accept that it's
> anything other than a personal and social contract.
>
OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal contract is
actually better than any other. (Clearly there have been a number of social
contracts on h
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Ethics is a product of philosophy.
It's not a county in eastern England?
(Tom Holt reference, IIFC.)
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:48 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
>
> Dan M wrote:
>
> >
On 02/09/2008, at 11:40 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
>> The only way to prove it is as a theorem from another axiom that's
>> not
>> provable: e.g. because we are all made in the image and likeness of
>> God we
>> must love one's neighbor as oneself.
>
> Or it could be a social contract.
OK, ji
On 02/09/2008, at 11:18 AM, Dan M wrote:
> Now, IIRC, Charlie had some quibbles with "do onto others as you
> would have
> them do unto you." He noted, correctly, that others may want and need
> things differently from your own needs and wants. (Reminds me of
> the old
> story of the monkey
On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote:
> My personal favorite version is "love your neighbor as you love
> yourself"
> because this balances the importance of neighbor and oneself. I
> know people
> who are so self-sacrificing that they neglect themselves. How best
> to do
> this can be the
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?
>
On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote:
>> Olin wrote at the end
>> These are all scientific questions though. If the answers don't
>> come form
>> there, where will they come from?
>>
>
>
[snip]
> So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the
> naturalistic
> fallacy is just t
Dan M wrote:
>
> The two clear views are these: morality, better, worse, etc. are based on
> axioms that are posited (i.e. taken on faith) or they are just tools of
> politics.
>
> Taken on faith from what? The Bible? The Koran? A cereal box? That
doesn't work at all for me, Dan. For one thi
are
slippery, this understanding keeps on reoccurring. Truth is simply a tool
of politics and power.
The former view was the understanding of the Enlightenment. It is most
famously espoused in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence
A number of atheists as well as theists have id
from?
Olin
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
On 1 Sep 2008, at 04:17, Dan M wrote:
On 01/09/2008, at 6:56 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
> The question of how we come to have ethical ideas is a different kind
> of question, with a different kind of answer, than the question of
> what is good.
>
> The question 'where do our ethical ideas come from' has the answer
> 'our nature as
On 1 Sep 2008, at 04:17, Dan M wrote:
> That all sounds reasonable to me. But, if one also Googles Social
> Darwinism,
> one finds numerous references that list a number of folks who
> believed in
> it, including a number who clearly spent more than 10 minutes
> thinking about
> ethics. Now
On 01/09/2008, at 1:17 PM, Dan M wrote:
>
> Well, having looked at Hume and having read several reviews of
> Moore's work
> that discuss the Naturalistic Fallacy, it appears that you and I may
> actually agree on a philosophical point: that one cannot deduce
> ethics from
> nature.
Neither ca
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of William T Goodall
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 1:17 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
>
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 18:04,
On 31 Aug 2008, at 18:04, Dan M wrote:
> Having brought up science earlier, it seems reasonable to choose
> this time
> to address a prevalent understanding: that the questions of ethics,
> human
> interaction, etc. are all definable and resolvable in a scientific
> manner.
> Indeed if we l
arated from the point I'm making in this post).
The next area of exploration is something that I think is associated with
ideology, although not the same the same thing. That is the ideals of a
person: that set of beliefs/axioms that they use to make judgments.
Dan M.
__
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
