Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 30-déc.-06, à 17:07, 1Z a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>
>
> >> > Everything starts with assumptions. The questions is whether they
> >> > are correct. A lunatic could try defining 2+2=5 as valid, but
> >> > he will soon run into inconsistencies. That is why we reject
> >> > 2+2=5. Ethical rules must apply to everybody as a matter of
> >> > definition.
> >>
> >> But who is "everybody".
> >
> > Everybody who can reason ethically.
>
>
> I am not sure this fair. Would you say that ethical rules does not need
> to be applied to mentally disabled person who just cannot reason at
> all?
I would say that. In the legal context it is called "diminished
responsibility"
or "pleading insanity".
> I guess you were meaning that ethical rules should be applied *by*
> those who can reason ethically, in which case I agree.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Jan 02 2007 - 12:50:07 PST