Ken wrote in message <37C### [at] pacbellnet>...
>
>
>Larry Fontaine wrote:
>>
>> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
>
>  That is poppycock !  If I smash your foot with a large brick one may
>think I have an assumption that you will feel pain when I do so (unless
>of course you are dead when it happens). The truth is that through
>repeated observations and from personal experience I need no assumptions
>to know that you are going to feel pain.
>  If I were to set up a demonstration in front of an audience that has
>no idea as to what will happen you can be assured that when I raise the
>brick and bring it down forcefully upon you bare naked foot that everyone
>in attendance will KNOW that you have just experienced pain.

And then, when the person in question just stands there waiting for
something to happen, you realize that you happened to pick one of the rare,
unfortunate people in the world whose nervous system is unable to detect
pain, and you realize that you were making assumptions all along.

>Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.


Just disproven.

>> 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.
>
>The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
>tied to self preservation.

So evil is anything that interferes with self-preservation, eg:
I'm short on cash, and I need to buy food in order to keep from starving to
death.  Therefore, I break into your house to steal some money.  This is
Good, because if I didn't, I would not be able to buy food, thus interfering
with my self-preservation, which would be Evil.  I pick up some cash, the
stereo, the television, and the top-of-the-line computer system, and am
walking out to my car with them when you come downstairs to see what is
going on.  You are obviously about to stop me from walking away with the
stuff I am carrying, so I pull out a gun and kill you.  This act is Good,
because not doing so would allow you to stop me from taking the items I need
to sell so I can buy food.

> It is in the common interest of everyone
>to define that which may cause us harm

Then why are things like birth control often considered evil?  It would seem
like the alternative, unlimited population growth, would be evil, because
unlimited population growth will quickly lead to a shortage of food, which
would cause harm to a great many people.

>People fear harm much as they do pain, physical or emotional, ergo
>evil is bad, pain is bad, pain = evil, and one still equals one.

People fear harm.
People fear pain.
Therefore, evil is bad.
Therefore, pain is bad.
Therefore, pain = evil.

What doesn't make sense here?


Mark

Post a reply to this message