Posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:34:34
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 29, 2006, at 17:06:33
hey z...
i heard you disagreeing with the convergence thesis...
:-)
lets just check...
if everyone agrees on the facts (neutrally described)
then do you think that ideal reasoners would converge on the same judgement?
(regarding morality, etc)
?
maybe neutral description isn't possible...
(in which case... oh well... so long as we all manage to converge on a description)
but do you think ideal reasoners would agree if they start from the same knowledge base?
i like to think so.
but other people disagree.
went to a seminar yesterday... take the case of tony. tony hits john. hard. then he hits him again. hard. and again. hard. john wasn't a physical threat to tony.
court case...
is tony malevolent (implies he should be punished)
or is tony self interested (shouldn't necessarily be punished)all the brain facts... won't settle this issue...
people argue...
he who comes up with best justification wins.
sigh.
i don't like that.
philosophers do of course... lawyers do of course. i'm reminded of "The stranger". sigh.
but maybe ideal reasoners would converge?
dunno.
poster:special_k
thread:624709
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/626836.html