Moral argument
Not exactly. Russell knifes metaphysics to say there is no god. Copleston says that without metaphysics there is no morality. Therefore, he tries to demonstrate the futility of having moral discussions [absolute right, absolute wrong, absolute good, absolute evil] without metaphysics.
ie if this involves a contradiction, there is a flaw in the argument, similar to the contradiction in classical set theory paradox.
ie if you cannot touch right and wrong, then what is it if not metaphysical?
Serving the Quantitative Finance Community
Enron and Metaphysics
if you cannot touch right and wrong, then what is it if not metaphysical? >>
Abstract, intangible, out of reach or too hot among other possibilities.
Abstract, intangible, out of reach or too hot among other possibilities.
Enron and Metaphysics
Abstract, intangible, out of reach or too hot among other possibilities.
Now we're getting to the heart of it....
Out of reach [can we see it?]
too hot [can we measure its temperature?]
Intangible [can't see it or touch it?]
Abstract [vague....similar to abstract?]
Now we're getting to the heart of it....
Out of reach [can we see it?]
too hot [can we measure its temperature?]
Intangible [can't see it or touch it?]
Abstract [vague....similar to abstract?]