Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (4395)	2/2/2001 1:39:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

In logic I don't have to prove a negative (namely that there isn't a moral absolute) What is the negative can become the positive and positive negative if you phrase the question differently. I could say that I don't have to prove that moral relativism is false. To an extent the phrasing is defining the boundary of the question. If your statement is that the extrinsic existence of moral ideas is unproven and I say you are wrong you may be justified in asserting that the burden of proof belongs to me. If your statement goes beyond that to a positive assertion that there is no extrinsic existence of any moral of philosophical ideas then I submit that the burden of proof is on you (just as it is on me when I make the assertion that there are extrinsic moral ideas). On a more practical level it is extremely likely that neither of us will ever be able to provide any real proof. Each of us would have to prove or at least provide a great argument relying on premises that the other person would accept if we were going to convince the each other that we were right. Inductive "proof" is not really proof merely an argument for your case but not (unlike deductive proof where the premises are accepted by both sides), a situation that if your argument is valid your conclusion has to be true. In your inductive argument you only say something that amounts to recognizing the fact that people have different opinions, and that these opinions can be different then mine without causing the society that holds them to fall apart. I accept that as fact but do not regard it as convincing evidence for your opinion. As for d) and e) you are assuming that I am asserting that the moral absolutes I believe in are exactly equal to those supported by the Christian tradition. That assumption would be false. If you do not make that assumption then those two points are not relevant. Tim