Larry Fontaine wrote:

> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
> ...

> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> perspective, good is evil and evil is good. Kind of like the way maps
> from the Southern hemisphere show North going downward.
>

That's why I find Kant's basis of morality so fascinating, he starts with
the assumption that there is a universal moral law, and uses that (along
with the assumption that good intentions are the only thing that could be
called good under all circumstances, which he does have an argument for to
back it up) to argue what such a law would have to be.

Post a reply to this message