[extropy-chat] Re: In defense of a good verbal contest

[Dirk Bruere]

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
>
>> Giulio Prisco also writes: "Morality is fundamental to us of course, 
>> but "2+2=4"
>> and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so
>> fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any 
>> point in trying
>> to mix them."
>> Mr. Prisco and I are in entire agreement on this one point: statement of
>> mathematics and statements of formal moral principle are not in the same
>> metaphyiscal category, although both are rational rather than 
>> empircal, looking
>> to reason, not to experiment, for their confirmation.
>> He and I disagree only in that I deem both are equally obvious, one 
>> to the
>> mathematical imagination, the other to the conscience.
>>  
>>
> That's elegant and concise enough for me to understand. In 
> mathematics, I must accept
> formal logic and the Peano Postulates "on faith."
>
Not really, since they are *axioms*.
If they could be derived they would not be axioms.
IMO they are mathematical 'facts', or the equivalent of non-reducible 
physical data in the sciences.
While morality may not be mathematics I suggest that it does require 
logical consistency, and I have no objection to morality that is axiom 
based ie cannot be derived as long as those axioms are self consistent.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005