From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2002 - 13:13:21 MST
Dear Dave
I, like you,find "ethics" rather a tricky subject.It seems, for some reason,
to have a very high "fluffy bunny potential". I would value the opportunity
to converse with you a little further on the subject.
I'll start by clarifying to you what I understand by the particular terms
we're using; (please let me know if you do not agree with these usages which
are from Brittanica 2002)
"rule" a prescribed guide for conduct or action.
"Corollary"; a proposition inferred immediately from a proven proposition
with little or no additional proof, something that naturally
follows,something that incidentally or naturally accompanies or parallels.
"non sequitur"; an inference that does not follow from the premises, a
statement (as a response)which does not follow logically from anything
previously said.
Hill's first (in fact only?) rule:
"There is only one rule." This statement may well be correct, but it is not
in fact,a rule. (if we use the definition which I have adopted)It states
that there is in existence only one guide for conduct or action, but even if
this assertion is true it (this statement) still does not present, even
implicitly, any guidance or prescription about how to act. Therefore it is
not a rule.
The statement "There is only one rule" could have corollaries. One might
infer, for instance, as a corollary, that "life is really rather a simple
business after all", or that "there can never be any doubt about what is
right and what is wrong".
The statement might also quite easily attract non-sequiturs, false
inferences, an example would be "therefore it is meet that we should pray".
But an inference derived from a statement cannot both logically follow and
logically not follow, it has to be one or the other.
Surely?
Regards
Blunderov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT