> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Olin Elliott > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:11 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. > > >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 ...
This is actually at the heart of my point. As you said, it has to stop someplace. Different people have different stopping places when they develop ethical systems. Systems have been developed that I would guess most of us would find repugnant, such as systems that consider the extermination of other races as highly moral. But, such systems, such as different maths, can have internal consistency. There are tens of thousands (at least) different self-consistent axiomatic systems. Some are better at achieving a given goal (say modeling QM) than others. But, without such an external yardstick, there is no way to call one system better than the other. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
