[PREV - DEEP_ECOLOGY]    [TOP]

CONSEQUENCES

                                            November 21, 2007


A pattern I've seen a lot of:

Someone argues based on an
absolute moral principle,
but justifies that principle          ABSOLUTISTS_COCOANUT
in terms of the consequences          RUSSELLS_BREAKFAST
of believing in the principle.

This would seem to imply that
the real absolute is elsewhere,           Another way of
and the "principle" under                 taking it:
discussion is secondary --
more legal than fundamental?              The point is supportable
                                          in many ways.  If you
                                          don't take the principle
                                          as a fundamental, then
                                          here's a way to derive it
                                          from other principles...

                                                CLOUDS


--------
[NEXT - EMPIRICAL_MORALITY]