on how to treat a disease, does that change the fact that one way is most likely superior to the other?
Why can this be the case, yet when discussing moral issues, many people cannot imagine one moral code being superior to another without appealing to a Supreme Law-Giver?
2007-10-09 07:33:56 · 5 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nope... It always comes down to knowing, having the most accurate and complete understanding of reality wins hands down.
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb62/Randall_Fleck/EpicuriousGIF.gif
[][][] r u randy? [][][]
..
2007-10-09 19:34:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You deny the fact that valuation may suggest that both methods are equal, and it becomes a matter of opinion as to which side-effects the patient would prefer.
The same is true with morality. The greater your appreciation of causality, the more you'll realize that bad and good acts can create bad and good results. Sometimes choosing the right bad act, and the right good act is superior to always choosing the good one.
2007-10-09 07:38:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
because no one can agree that a supreme law-giver ever existed, or which one of several candidates to "appeal" to.
for moral issues, common sense and decency tend to trump self-proclaimed messiahs any day of the week.
ADDED: Or to put it another way, how much credence do you give this "supreme law-giver?"
2007-10-09 07:39:02 · answer #3 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I got this rash... I just want the Supreme Itch-remover! NOW!
2007-10-09 07:38:34 · answer #4 · answered by dissolute_chemical 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the only that tells u approximately ur desease the main. have self belief me,----ask them approximately what has occurred to u needless to say,the only whose answer U can maximum understand is the only to have self belief.
2016-10-08 21:56:29 · answer #5 · answered by ghil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋