From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 23:26:49 MDT
At 08:41 PM 5/9/02 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>come close to violating the is/ought boundary, in which
>I along with most people, believe. (Notable exceptions
>are E. O. Wilson and Jacob Bronkowski.)
At the centre of Fukuyama's OUR POSTHUMAN FUTURE is his argued case that
the naturalistic fallacy is *not* a fallacy, even in Hume's own argument.
For example, in Lee's words:
>Laws can and should
>only arise from experience: a culture gradually evolves
>laws that work for it
Uh-huh. I see, Lee, that you here assert that from what *is* (iterated and
recorded experiences of living in the world according to varied forms of
habitual conduct) systematic *oughts* emerge and gain their justification
from that experience and are then retained and reinforced by culture. But
didn't you think you were making the contrary case?
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:57 MST