> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Baker > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:53 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies > > DanM said: > > > I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the > > transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed > > by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that > > exists apart from our perception. > > But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing > which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are > transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have > different positions on what those truths actually are.
Well, it certainly doesn't reduce ethics to something that is empirically verifiable, but I think that possibility just isn't there. I think Kant gave a good summation of the fundamental limits of pure reason in the introduction to his critique. Add this to our agreed upon conclusions on the nature and limitations of science and you will get what I consider an important part of the human condition: there is no empirical basis for ethics: ethics are faith based....no matter what that faith is in (one's own ability, a priori principles, religious dogma, the teachings of a master, etc). >So far as I can > tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that > of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the > "general sentiments of society") or an argument from what makes you feel > all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some > of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy > feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to > opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of > those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental. Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
