On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote: >> >> I accept a variant of the "golden rule", I just don't accept that >> it's >> anything other than a personal and social contract. >> > > OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal > contract is > actually better than any other.
Oh for fuck's sake. Where have I EVER said THAT? Stop trying to make other people fit in your own limited number of pigeon holes, and don't say "to be clear" and then say something that's just plain wrong. Of course some are better than others. But what actually is better depends on what one is trying to achieve. If we're trying to achieve the best outcomes in terms of personal freedoms and responsibilities, then some ways of living are demonstrably better than others. > You either > accept certain axioms as truths without proof (admitting straight > out that > you are positing those axioms) or you say they are arbitrary, and > that there > is no means of distinguishing one set of axioms from another. Or one doesn't regard them as axiomatic at all, and we attempt to come to an agreement about what works better than what else. If what I've said is a version of "sliding in the naturalistic fallacy" then so be it. Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
