From: Rafal Smigrodzki (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 04 2004 - 13:25:31 MST
> Yup, yup I realize that Rafal. I slipped up slightly
> when I was writing the post. But even with your
> correction my comments still hold true. Volitional
> Morality cannot be the implicit 'ethics of the cosmos'
> for the reasons I gave.
### As a non-foundationalist I will of course agree with you, there is no
implicit "ethics of the cosmos", and volitional morality doesn't aspire to
The concept of 'fulfilling
> sentient desires' is meaningless unless there are some
> desires to fulfil OTHER than the goal 'fulfill
> sentient desires'.
### Well, yes, one shouldn't expect a one-line maximally abstract principle
to contain details of all that should be done. The details of the story have
to be filled in - but the details do not replace the principle, they fill it
with meaning. Such is the general relationship between abstract principles
and more concrete details in general (and this is why I always keep bugging
Dale on wta to tell us what he really means).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT