Mentioning Phil phD's

[Jon Miller]

I actually agree that there is some true ethics out there

I don't see how a philosopher is going to be any more like to get it than some Bushman though (actually probably the bushman is more likely)

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
And Asher's assumption that Godel's incompleteness theorem can save him from having to ask philosophical questions is deluded, since we need to know when precisely to stop asking.

You said part of philosophy is to keep recursively asking why, and if Godel's incompletness theorem holds any water wouldn't we face an impasse eventually that would render the purpose of philosophy (to recursively ask why) useless?

I'm just demonstrating an obvious flaw in your argument, is all.

[KrazyHorse]

What do you mean by "true ethics"?

And it would be hard for you not to believe that, given your belief in an interested God...

[Ben Kenobi]

He's not being given an equal choice; he's being given an equal opportunity to opt out of the financial burden of raising an unwanted child.

Opportunity = choice?

I don't see the difference.

Please clarify.

You can act all high and mighty with your intentionally obtuse terminology for simple concepts, but when it comes down to it, people's morals are their own.

Asher:

How do you know what is moral and what is not? Do you continue to refine your definition as time goes on?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Frogger
What do you mean by "true ethics"?

And it would be hard for you not to believe that, given your belief in an interested God...

I think that you know what I mean from the reading of your second line

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Asher:

How do you know what is moral and what is not?

Morals are beliefs, you don't know what is moral or what is not moral, you believe...

Do you continue to refine your definition as time goes on?

I've certainly done that personally. As I learn more about the world my beliefs change in certain things.

[KrazyHorse]

Opportunity = choice?

I don't see the difference.

Please clarify.

I didn't mean them to be different; I used different words to stop from repeating the same word, making my sentence sound silly.

The key is in the part after that "to opt out of the financial burden of raising an unwanted child"

He doesn't have the wherewithal to force a mother into the stirrups, but I see no reason why he should be forced to pay for something he didn't want and took reasonable precautions against when there is a legal, safe and cheap alternative.

She can keep the child, but on her own tab.

[Asher]

Continue here, we exceeded 500 posts.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I think that you know what I mean from the reading of your second line

Jon Miller

I was wondering if you meant in that sense or in another, more confused sense I've seen people use (for which I do in the "true ethics" idea)

I don't believe that there is an external mechanism or metric, since this would be equivalent to believing in a superior moral being.

But I think that while we come up with systems of ethics on our own, some do a better job than others.

[Straybow]

Sophistry

Originally posted by GePap
And the single most important event in the story of mankind happened 10,000 years ago (agriculture and animal husbandry). Until you science eggsheads come up with somethign as fundamental, don't go harping about time.

I think somebody already brought this up. It's called electronics.

…it is us philosophers, humanists, and social scientist who come up whith what they should be used for. We also pay your bills (lawyers make the tax code, the law and hence control the money) so pipe down, or you will get no funding!

No, the lawyers try to decide what things should not be used for, by way of regulation/legislation. It is the capitalist who comes up with uses for new tech. Few would call Bill Gates a philosopher.

PS: should be "…we philosophers…" (as long as we're all just sitting around nit-picking)