[SystemSafety] Another unbelievable failure (file system overflow)

Sun Jun 7 07:16:43 CEST 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2015-06-06 13:08 , Chris Hills wrote:
> I stand by what I said.  There are no moral or ethical absolutes.
> 
> You yourself said in closing: ”Morals don't change over time. They evolve through time”

I take it Chris hadn't seen or read my post earlier on Saturday. I said I didn't want to engage in
discussion of general ethics, but it's hard not to refrain if such discussion is proceeding.

So here is another take.

Chris concedes:
> ethics, like morality are not fixed and change over time and culture.

So, relative to time T, say 1612, and culture C, the target audience of the King James Bible, let
O be a moral obligation, say "thou shalt not kill".

Consider the obligation O.1: At T and in C, O.

Then O.1 is a moral obligation that is not dependent on time or culture, i.e., "absolute".

This transformation is general. It follows from "there are no non-relative (absolute) moral
obligations" that "there are no definitely-relative moral obligations", that is, moral obligations
whose relativisation can be specified. Many would hold that if you can't specify when a moral
obligation holds then what you are considering can't be a moral obligation. If you are one of
these people, and you hold there are no absolute moral obligations, it follows you hold that there
are no moral obligations whatsoever.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany
Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de