Hey, Larry, where did you do your phil grad? --curiousPhillipHankins |
Hey, Larry, where did you do your phil grad? --curious PhillipHankins |
Political discussion not allowed on this page. :-) |
Political discussion not allowed on this page. :-) Folks, I've had a lot of fun with WikiPedia this week (Feb. 11-16 or so) but I am going to have to start limiting the time I spend on it, so I can work more diligently on NuPedia. :-) -- Larry |
Inflicted LarrysText first on Ohio State students, and now on WikiPedia.
Presently living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RussiA? for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that. This is all possible because LarrySanger works online. You should be envious. He would be if he weren't he.
He is he, but this is twee, we'd all agree.
Larry's favorite philosopher is ThomasReid, isn't he? Maybe!
I suppose I might call it evil relativism. That is to say, evil is simply any event which lowers one's enjoyment (in the most general sense) - the lower half of our happiness scale. If we eliminated everything we consider evil - natural as well as man-made, *we* would certainly notice the difference. But say the temperature still was allowed to vary from 50 degrees F in the winter to 85 degrees F in the summer, and that one being caught outside in winter without a coat was the most unpleasant thing that ever might happen to us. We would probably never complain (indeed, many of us would relish that rare feeling of goosebumps), but would not our grandchildren consider this the most extreme possible evil?
If one accepts this argument, that evil is perceived relatively and is part of any effable universe, would this not nullify argument 4?
-J