Debate : 11377


Off-Topic / Debate / 11377	11376 \| 11378

Subject:	Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:15:14 GMT
Viewed:	1248 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: > > > So morality is only useful insofar as how we judge ourselves? It would be > > > conceited, rude, and incorrect to assume me being immoral for torturing a > > > baby? > > > > You are taking an argument to its illogical extreme. > > Excellent. As I've advocated many times, taking something to the extreme is > the only way to test its validity. If it doesn't hold at the extremes, it > doesn't hold. Hmmm. Maybe. But I'd use the example of Newtonian physics to say even though it doesn't hold in extreme conditions, it's generally "good enough" for everyday life. Maybe that also holds for this situation... ROSCO

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Working the analogy a bit more, Newtonian physics is valid in a certain regime. The "extreme conditions" where it is invalid are outside that regime. Set the boundary conditions correctly and everything's fine. Can we do that here? (I tend to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Well, for one, I tend to be somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to this kind of thing (philisophical). If I can tell something does break in extremes, I can tell it's not "perfect". And sure, that means (for me) that I accept almost (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Are Newtonian physics really valid? Is it not just that the errors are so small we can live with them? Scott A (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) ? So you were able to agree that the lion's view is amoral, but at the same time you think that such a statement should not be made? Are you saying "If I had to guess, I'd say it was amoral, but I don't think I should be forced to guess, as (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search