On 31 Aug 2008, at 18:04, Dan M wrote: > Having brought up science earlier, it seems reasonable to choose > this time > to address a prevalent understanding: that the questions of ethics, > human > interaction, etc. are all definable and resolvable in a scientific > manner. > Indeed if we look at harmful ideologies developed over the past 150 > or so > years, we see the attempts to put a "scientific" footing at the > basis of > these new ideologies.
This is a massive strawman argument that you keep revisiting endlessly. Nobody who has ever spent five minutes investigating ethics is confused about this. David Hume identified the is-ought problem in _A Treatise of Human Nature_ published in 1740 and G E Moore describd the Naturalistic Fallacy in _Principia Ethica_ in 1903. How about discussing Rawls' _A Theory of Justice_ or some other actually relevant ideas instead of belaboring strawmen like 'Social Darwinism'? Deja Vu Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
