Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 16-déc.-06, à 03:49, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>> Bruno Marchal writes:
>>> Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>>>> We could look at a particular incident where capital punishment was
>>>> proposed, let's say
>>>> for murder. Everyone might agree on the facts of the crime and the
>>>> effects of executing
>>>> the perpetrator, but still strongly disagree about whether it is 
>>>> right
>>>> or wrong. So of course
>>>> the capital punishment debate does involve rational discussion and
>>>> maybe some people will
>>>> switch sides if appropriate evidence is presented, but in the end you
>>>> will have a situation
>>>> where there is just disagreement on an axiom.
>>> Again this shows that good/bad is not different from true/false, even
>>> just in arithmetic.
>> Why is the consensus on arithmetic so much greater than the consensus 
>> on ethics
>> and aesthetics?
> Because ethics and aesthetics modalities are of an higher order than 
> arithmetic which can be considered as deeper and/or simpler.
> Classical arithmetical truth obeys classical logic which is the most 
> efficient for describing platonia. Good and bad is related with the 
> infinite self mirroring of an infinity of universal machines: it is 
> infinitely more tricky, and in particular neither classical ethics nor 
> aesthetics should be expected to follow classical logic.

That seems unnecessarily complicated.  Good and bad at the personal "Whahooh!" 
and "Ouch!" are easily explained as consequences of evolution and natural 

Brent Meeker

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to