... 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 validMessage 1 of 203 , Sep 2, 2008View SourceOn 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote:
>Why do they need to be 'grounded'? Doesn't that just lead to an
> So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the
> 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
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 : wtg@...
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.
... I ll say Bush is worse since he is completely incompetent. But I can understand the view that incompetent evil is better. Regards, -- Kevin B. O BrienMessage 203 of 203 , Sep 26, 2008View SourceJohn Garcia wrote:
> On a different tack, some of us who are of a particular age, will rememberI'll say Bush is worse since he is completely incompetent. But I can
> another controversial President associated
> with an unpopular war, floundering economy, etc. So, what do you all think?
> Nixon vs Bush (the son). Which was worse
understand the view that incompetent evil is better.
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
zwilnik@... Linux User #333216
"Waldheimer's Disease? You grow old and forget you were a Nazi." -- Jon