Yay for Texas!!!

[DeadPoolX 9]

More circles. The ethical standards are immutable there is no necessity for cultural interpretation.

Well, I'll say one thing for you -- you're definitely amusing.

We're never going to come to an agreement on this subject. I know it and you know it. So instead of spending the next hour debating back and forth (and ultimately getting nowhere), I'm leaving to go do something fun.

[Peikko 1,575]

You mean, you can't find the bias in the basic premise? Or you can see it, but refuse to 'enlighten' us all?

Enjoy your afternoon

[mawilson 2,133]

You mean, you can't find the bias in the basic premise? Or you can see it, but refuse to 'enlighten' us all?

I guess what he's saying is, where did this "basic premise" come from? Is it a product of

Western civilization? Is it universally accepted as something to strive for?

If there's a culture somewhere based on a different premise, who's to say that your system

is better than theirs?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

[Ban Hammer 13,654]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

We're not looking to run against the separation of church and state principle.

[Peikko 1,575]

You mean, you can't find the bias in the basic premise? Or you can see it, but refuse to 'enlighten' us all?

I guess what he's saying is, where did this "basic premise" come from? Is it a product of

Western civilization? Is it universally accepted as something to strive for?

If there's a culture somewhere based on a different premise, who's to say that your system

is better than theirs?

How can an unbiased premise be a product of a civilization? That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education. If it's biased, show where the bias lies. My contention is that there is no inherent bias in the idea that all people are born equal and free. It does not depend on any notion of culture or external decision making as to whether one is or is not included. If you can give me another premise to work with, again, worth the debate but if not what's the point of circling around again?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which is why ethics is (basically) a pure set of fundamental values - its supposed to be. Read the article.

I did. What's "supposed to be" doesn't take into account the human factor.

That isn't relevant though...

What we're talking about here is somewhat axiomatic, noone is saying that all people behave ethically. In fact the article you say you read makes that exact distinction.

Ethics is a difficult concept to grasp because people cloak it with discussions of religion, culture, emotion etc which are not what ethics is.

Ethics are the fundamental values that underlie all of these things.

Of course if you think that logic is a mutable concept that can be relativised, as I believe you have said elsewhere,my making this distinction isn't likely to make a difference.

You can't argue what these terms are and are not if you fundamentally misunderstand the concept

[mawilson 2,133]

That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education.

Ethics are the fundamental values that underlie all of these things.

Of course if you think that logic is a mutable concept that can be relativised, as I believe you have said elsewhere,my making this distinction isn't likely to make a difference.

But ethics is not based in logic. It would be "logical" to kill off the weaker, sicker, older,

members of society, but it wouldn't be "ethical."

It's not based in science either - science is about cold, hard facts and figures, whereas

ethics is about people's "feelings".

[Ban Hammer 13,654]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

We're not looking to run against the separation of church and state principle.

what, you don't speak spanish?

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

We'll take it as long as you keep Crawford, TX

[Danno 1,228]

You mean, you can't find the bias in the basic premise? Or you can see it, but refuse to 'enlighten' us all?

I guess what he's saying is, where did this "basic premise" come from? Is it a product of

Western civilization? Is it universally accepted as something to strive for?

If there's a culture somewhere based on a different premise, who's to say that your system

is better than theirs?

How can an unbiased premise be a product of a civilization? That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education. If it's biased, show where the bias lies. My contention is that there is no inherent bias in the idea that all people are born equal and free. It does not depend on any notion of culture or external decision making as to whether one is or is not included. If you can give me another premise to work with, again, worth the debate but if not what's the point of circling around again?

Quit with the endless philosophy you embrace so firmly and start talking "meat and Potatoes".

Is taking my neighbors Bicycle unethical?

There are some cultures who believe the responsibility is on YOU to secure it..... the thief simply picked, low hanging fruit. YOU are wrong not him.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Danno

[Peikko 1,575]

That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education.

Ethics are the fundamental values that underlie all of these things.

Of course if you think that logic is a mutable concept that can be relativised, as I believe you have said elsewhere,my making this distinction isn't likely to make a difference.

But ethics is not based in logic. It would be "logical" to kill off the weaker, sicker, older,

members of society, but it wouldn't be "ethical."

It's not based in science either - science is about cold, hard facts and figures, whereas

ethics is about people's "feelings".

It is based on logic - the logic that derives from the driving premise, that all humans are born equal and free. Killing off weaker, sicker, older members demands that these people have been downgraded from having an equal right to existence to having no right to existence. There is no logical step that takes one from one thing to another.

You mean, you can't find the bias in the basic premise? Or you can see it, but refuse to 'enlighten' us all?

I guess what he's saying is, where did this "basic premise" come from? Is it a product of

Western civilization? Is it universally accepted as something to strive for?

If there's a culture somewhere based on a different premise, who's to say that your system

is better than theirs?

How can an unbiased premise be a product of a civilization? That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education. If it's biased, show where the bias lies. My contention is that there is no inherent bias in the idea that all people are born equal and free. It does not depend on any notion of culture or external decision making as to whether one is or is not included. If you can give me another premise to work with, again, worth the debate but if not what's the point of circling around again?

Quit with the endless philosophy you embrace so firmly and start talking "meat and Potatoes".

Is taking my neighbors Bicycle unethical?

There are some cultures who believe the responsibility is on YOU to secure it..... the thief simply picked, low hanging fruit. YOU are wrong not him.

If you understand ethics you do not need me to answer your question.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Man!

I wonder if for some of you real-life arguments last this long, moreover in a wife Vs husband situation

Damnnnnnn!!

Edited July 23, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[HAL 9000 96]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

Well TBO Florida was 'bought' while Texas... hmmmmmm...