Peter Jones writes:

It is indisputable that morality varies in practice across communities.
But the contention of ethical objectivism is not that everyone actually
does hold to a single objective system of ethics; it is only that
ethical questions can be resolved objectively in principle. The
existence of an objective solution to any kind of problem is always
compatible with the existence of people who, for whatever reason, do
not subscribe. The roundness of the Earth is no less an objective fact
for the existence of believers in the Flat Earth theory.(It is odd that
the single most popular argument for ethical subjectivism has so little
logical force).

The Flat Earther is *wrong*. He claims that if you sail in a straight line you
will eventually fall off the edge. But if you do sail in a straight line, you don't don't fall off the edge; lots of people have done it. The psychopath, on the other hand, merely claims that if he kills someone, he does not think it is a bad thing. And indeed, he kills someone, and he does not think it is a bad thing. He is *not* wrong; there is no way you could even claim he is wrong, like the Flat Earther claiming that sailors have lied about circumnavigating the globe. You could argue that if everyone were a psychopath we would all be dead, and he might even agree with you that that would be the case, but then turn around and say, "So what? Better dead than cissies!" As Jamie Rose said, there were societies such as the Shakers who didn't mind if they died out and in fact did die out, and they are not usually considered immoral.

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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