On 2 Sep 2008, at 23:47, Dan M wrote: > 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.
Just like how without an external yardstick there is no way to call Uwe Boll's _BloodRayne_ better than Shakespeare's _Hamlet_. Because if it's all just opinions they are all equally valid and there is no way to call one better than the other? Not a car analogy Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : 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
