>Carrol Cox wrote:
>>ravi wrote:
>>
>>>>look, here's where you are indeed being facetious ;-). i think its
>>>
>>>because you believe, as in mathematics, that providing an alternate
>>>scenario, however unlikely/unimaginable, disproves your opponent's thesis.
>>>
>>>but the reality is that in order to come up with rules and theories in
>>>ethics, we have to start somewhere
>>
>>Yes, we have to start somewhere -- but in action (i.e., given social
>>relations) NOT any principle. Principles emerge from social activity
>>rather than exist prior to it. Suffering is a bad thing rather than a
>>good thing ONLY because there has developed from our practice a rough
>>and ready agreement on this.
> >
>
>waitaminit! did you read my entire post? you are pretty much
>summarizing what i wrote (roughly) in over three or so posts.
>setting aside the bootstrapping problem for a second, let us follow
>this path of reasoning. what are the principles that have emerged
>from social activity?
What kind of social activity? A gang of racist skinheads are going to come up with a different set of principles from a houseful of lesbian separatists (do they still exist?) or a Christian knitting circle. How do you choose which social grouping to affiliate with, if not from some pre-existing set of principles or preferences?
Doug