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 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? > > I've seen two clear alternatives to this question, and a whole lot > of stuff > that I can't make heads or tails of: denying both of the clear > alternatives, > not falling into the naturalistic fallacy, yet not saying anything I > can get > may hands around. (BTW, I don't need to agree with an idea to > understand > it; I just need to see the worldview._
I suggest if you can't understand the arguments you refrain from commenting at all. > > > 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. So you've progressed from the strawman argument to the false dichotomy? More Later Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ~Voltaire. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
