Theo Schramm (theoschramm@hotmail.com)
Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:11:13 +0100
Greetings,
HORSE:
<<<Apologies to Theo for hijacking (and adding very little to) his
definition. Hope you don't mind.Horse>>>
No objections to your hijacking Horse. My definition is little more than
a synthesis of Diana, Hugo and your definitions, so you are more than
welcome to do as you will with it.
My question to you and the group is whether the reduction of value to,
"just what you like," is NECESSARILY part of SOM. For it to be in a
definition it must be necessary to SOM. I can see at once that
Christians are going to say that this does not include them. God has
value to them and is not "just what you like." In fact I would suspect
that anyone who believes in 'objectivity' in morals, (Kant included)
would say that value is more than "just what you like" and so they do
not take an SOM position. I fully concede that SOM is very likely to
dismiss value but would contend that many manifestations of SOM do not
do so, thus falling outside the definition. Are we heading towards a
Strawman with this inclusion?
Theo
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:20 CEST