Todd

high1ander

Posts Discussions Saved Articles Followers (2)Following (2)

6/17/13

The problem lies with using time travel as a plot device to 'change time'! One cannot change time because it already happened before the future person traveled to the past. They have already been in the past and whatever they did already resulted in the future one is traveling from!

6/14/13

Steve:

6/14/13

They only show that all logic flows ultimately from premises which cannot be 'proven'.

6/14/13

taosaur, I would double recommend your post if I could. Well said.

6/14/13

Steve.

6/14/13

Darknal: Wow, for people who write so well and conduct themselves in a chat, really can't grasp certain things.

6/14/13

hatchet,

6/14/13

machined,

6/14/13

I said murder on purpose. If it is never right to kill or enslave another person, no matter what society says, then such are objectively moral precepts.

6/14/13

I'm asking you in your own observations - are you able to approach anything as a blank slate? What I'm getting at is epistemological hierarchies.

6/14/13

Steve, I don't think I agree your two definitions are the only options, nor do they even capture what morals are. Morality is a system of shalls and shall nots. Whether one ascribes the source of such to God or evolved understanding is beside the point. Morality is about right and wrong. Nagel, whom I referenced…

6/14/13

Steve,

6/14/13

I refer you to this classic Nagel essay, The Objective Basis of Morality.

6/14/13

You are making a circular argument. If the question on the table is whether morality is objective or subjective, you cannot take the fact slavery was acceptable in past cultures as evidence the moral question of slavery is subjective, for the subjective assumption is built into the example.

6/14/13

Is there some objective morality? Is slavery ever moral? Is murder ever moral? Such things must be determined through logical evaluation, not subjective opinion.

6/14/13

I think the largest delusion among the many scientists I know and have engaged is the conflation of methodological materialism with philosophical materialism, which results in scientism, a belief that all questions will ultimately be answered by science.

6/14/13

The NY Times reports

6/12/13

...

6/12/13

Christopher Walken

6/12/13

What's the opposite of Christopher Reeves?