tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8000449817830145466..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: On Pluto, Planets, and GoodnessAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32727278527266129032008-08-11T19:21:00.000-06:002008-08-11T19:21:00.000-06:00Excellent points! I love it when philosophers come...Excellent points! I love it when philosophers come up with new ways of explaining the basics of critical thinking in new ways, ways that can really hit home with the uninitiated.<BR/><BR/>Bravo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57633759413792100402008-08-07T10:28:00.000-06:002008-08-07T10:28:00.000-06:00"Once you can understand how astronomers can disag..."Once you can understand how astronomers can disagree on the definition of ‘planet’ without threatening the objectivity of astronomy, you can understand how ethicists can disagree over the definition of ‘good’ without threatening the objectivity of ethics."<BR/><BR/>I would suggest the following as a possdible <I>problem</I> to the above premise: Planets make up only a small part of Astronomy, whereas Good (and bad) is central to the entire subject of Ethics.<BR/><BR/>In other words, I feel your argument fails somewhat due to differences in scale between the two subjects.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you in some respects, with regard to the notion that searching for unqualifiable Ethical Good is a worthy cause, and not just an exercise in mental masturbation.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, however, I tend to lean in the other direction with regards to your premise. The situational value judgement of "good" is very much open to interpretation. And this <B>does</B> lead Ethics towards the label of Subjective.<BR/><BR/>I'm slowly catching up on your posts, and have not spent much time talking about Ethics - so I tend to be a bit ignorant of the terms and established arguments. With these in mind, keep my comments in perspective: I'm an intellectual n00b in these ethical waters.<BR/><BR/>Cheers for keeping my brain happily active.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80087314284866938962008-08-07T08:39:00.000-06:002008-08-07T08:39:00.000-06:00Hi Alonzo: My observation is that one can not de...Hi Alonzo:<BR/> My observation is that one can not define "good" without also defining "bad". Coming up with a "tag" for a non-entitiy, or something that does not qualify for a particular "tag" is more a matter of permitting clear communications between the "specialist" parties. Our world appears to be immersed in debates over words and their meanings. For example, "torture" has passed into the "grey area" and consequently, valid conversation can not take place until a "term" emerges to cover the "act". Scientists and politicians may be accused of leading with their "egos" and following with their "stance". When a "stance" is not in accord with conventional understanding, politicians create new terms. Could scientists be doing the same thing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com