Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:18:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1241 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...
>
> ROSCO
Are Newtonian physics really valid? Is it not just that the errors are so
small we can live with them?
Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
