> This is pretty common in moral philosophy, though:
> people start out assuming that an impartial ethical system is
> preferable to a partial ethical system, and then use that assumption
> to *prove* (heh heh) that an impartial ethical system is preferable
> to a partial ethical system. Here, the assumption is sneaked in by
> failing to distinguish between other people's value for oneself
> and one's own value for oneself. As if one's "absolute value" was
> a sum of these two fundamentally different things.
Great point Eric. The longer I live, the more I see how much
circular logic pollutes the memetic landscape. And like you
highlight by talking about "fundamentally different things", it
often seems to result in these apples and oranges situations.
I think what people do is take ideas which may be perfectly true
or functional in one realm, and simply haul it into other realms
not knowing that when transplanted, the logic will be at best
circular, if not nonsense.
-- In the Ecstatic Service of Life -- Omega