On 12/15/2012 6:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of these points are instances of taking a particular
evaluational frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements from
it. It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply
wrongheaded. Unless you put yourself into the context with you are
evaluating and then considering the facts as they stand with a set of
universal ethical principles, then those judgements and implications
cannot be seen as anything more than rationalizations to behave in
one way or another.
We can rationalize any action to be good or bad. Rationalization,
pushed too far, allows anything.
Or supports any status quo and condemns any change as destruction. So
I guess slavery was right in U.S. in 1850 and only suddenly became
wrong in 1861.
How is that? Are you going to invoke the Grue paradox?
I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in
Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you
agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't.
No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women
from learning to read in the US? What "Power" is needs to be precisely
defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at