Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:17:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1057 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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...
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 think we can... canonical example being the yelling
of "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't protected free speech and the "boundary
conditions" tell you why it isn't)
So what are they in this case?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
