tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19835303.post117322327282905978..comments2023-08-18T07:04:22.633-07:00Comments on Areté: How many forms of understanding?Lifewishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07133804300464048756noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19835303.post-85141234506276789622022-05-24T21:01:02.182-07:002022-05-24T21:01:02.182-07:00Thanks forr this blog postThanks forr this blog postJuleshttps://www.juliearnold.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19835303.post-1174431698564542002007-03-20T17:01:00.000-07:002007-03-20T17:01:00.000-07:00A moral argument perfect in every detail would not...<I>A moral argument perfect in every detail would not contradict a scientific law (if they met at all).</I><BR/><BR/>That was more or less my point: the connection between moral arguments and objective reality is entirely one-way, with reality providing context for morality. The "moral anti-gravity" example is an illustration of how daft the alternative would be.<BR/><BR/>The conclusion I draw is that moral arguments can only be considered "a way of discovering the truth" if "truth" is redefined to include "opinion". I would consider such a redefinition to be a fairly good example of pontificating.Lifewishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07133804300464048756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19835303.post-1174397674899883102007-03-20T07:34:00.000-07:002007-03-20T07:34:00.000-07:00A moral argument perfect in every detail would not...A moral argument perfect in every detail would not contradict a scientific law (if they met at all). A moral argument against suicide would entail not doing things that would kill you. You're arguing a fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com