Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 20:21:31
In reply to fully permissive... » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on October 2, 2005, at 20:03:34
> ... that's me. I don't think people need to be punished for getting off with dead poultry. Maybe I'm odd...
I most certainly got the 'yukko' factor, but I don't think people need to be punished for getting off with dead poultry either...
I'm fully permissive too - provided that no harm results.
In fact... I'm not 100% sure on this but I think it is morally acceptable to do acts which harm oneself so long as they do not harm others. Though we can haggle over the harm to others who care about the person... I guess I think I'm morally okay in insisting on smoking cigarettes so long as I take it away from other people and don't inflict it on them.
> I feel I'm just brimming with philosophical possibilities.:-)
> Mind you, I could take the same tests tomorrow and come out totally differently...
Yeah.
Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the universe over the scratching of my finger...
One could have a perfectly coherant / consistent set of beliefs...
Another could have a perfectly coherant / consistent set of beliefs...
Yet those two come into conflict.
Actually...
I do believe I have heard someone attempt to give a proof against the possibility of that...
But it did strike me as something of a verbal trick rather than something of substance...
But that might be my stupidity...Whatever.
Interesting to consider...
That a great deal of academic philosophy...
Lies in constructing elaborate stories...
To show how beliefs which are 'in tension'
Don't result in contradiction.Another line of attack is to maintain that contradictions aren't fatal... But maybe thats both true and false ;-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:561841
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050929/msgs/562114.html