Am 21.01.2014 20:50, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/20/2014 5:44 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>> Note that a person's current belief re a surpreme something will
>> typically include that the person itself is entitled to "life, liberty
>> and the pursuit of happiness" or some such. Thus, I consider this

>>
> But, not necessarily that someone else is, if that someone else is
> violating some principle, derived from the idea that a supreme something
> is being violated, somehow.


they have, but others' rights that /they/ think they have.

I consider that a quite important moral rule, and suspect that it can 
/only/ be deducted from agnosticism.



I think I have conflict with the rights others think they have; that, I 
think, is a situation for which there is no universally valid set of 
moral rules, and must instead be arbitrated between the parties involved.



>> mathematical systems, but also to moral ones: No matter how complex your
>> set of rules, there's always at least one remaining problem with it.
>> Therefore I allow my set of moral rules to be incomplete, and its
>> application to be subject to case-by-case decision.
>>
> Would where that true. Unfortunately, most believers in a system that
> [...]

Post a reply to this message