Re: MD Re: Is Morality relative?

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 16:08:15 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD Universal Moral Standards"
  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Ian:
    .
    > However precise there is always some residual uncertainty, except in closed
    > cases with simple logical / mathematical relationships, where perhaps the
    > certainty is 100%. Of course in 80% of the real life cases the residual
    > uncertainty could probably be vanishingly small for all practical purposes.

    To Leif you said, "no-one can ever be completely sure of anything" which
    logically is self-refuting because it asserts something you are completely
    sure of. Now you may not want to connect this and the 100% certainty of
    logic/math to "practical purposes" but I'll bet in your engineering work
    you do precisely that, at least I hope your are not building bridges or
    the like that a logically self-contradictory. Am I correct in assuming
    that you would agree with Pirsig that one of the standards of truth is
    "logical consistency." And a related question: If the uncertainty of which
    you speak is "vanishingly small" in "real life," why be concerned with it?

    Platt

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 18:30:28 GMT