Re: Geddes's 'Moral Perturbation Theory'

From: Martin Striz (metastriz@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 10:52:30 MDT

• Next message: Metaqualia: ""feels good" is inherently meaningful"
• Previous message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: Geddes's 'Moral Perturbation Theory'"
• In reply to: Samantha Atkins: "Re: Geddes's 'Moral Perturbation Theory'"
• Next in thread: Metaqualia: ""feels good" is inherently meaningful"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:

> No, it is rather because your "morality" at its root is limited to what
> "feels good". I find that inherently meaningless.

I submit that any morality which you substitute would also be inherently
meaningless.

Martin Striz

                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

• Next message: Metaqualia: ""feels good" is inherently meaningful"
• Previous message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: Geddes's 'Moral Perturbation Theory'"
• In reply to: Samantha Atkins: "Re: Geddes's 'Moral Perturbation Theory'"
• Next in thread: Metaqualia: ""feels good" is inherently meaningful"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:42 MST