>If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a valid >basis? Because it's grounded in Y? And Y in Z? And ...
Mathematics, as has been pointed out, is grounded on axioms that cannot themselves be proven or reduced to anything else. Kurt Goedel showed that any mathematical system powerful enough to explain basic mathematics must contain certai propositions that we know to be true, but which cannot be proven within the system. I don't think this is an exact analogy, but it does show that not everything has to be "grounded" -- it stops somewhere as it does with axioms ... Olin ----- Original Message ----- From: William T Goodall<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:28 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote: > > So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the > naturalistic > fallacy is just that, a fallacy. But, if we don't go that route, > then where > does one ground basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, > better and > worse? > Why do they need to be 'grounded'? Doesn't that just lead to an infinite regress? If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a valid basis? Because it's grounded in Y? And Y in Z? And ... Saying 'God did it' is just as useless a non-answer for ethics as it is for the origin of the universe. Bumper Sticker Philosophy Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk<http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/> Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/<http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/> Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
