| JREF Homepage | Swift Blog | Events Calendar | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | The Amaz!ng Meeting | Useful Links | Support Us |
 |
|
| JREF Homepage | Swift Blog | Events Calendar | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | The Amaz!ng Meeting | Useful Links | Support Us |
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
|
Advertisement
|
| Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
22nd January 2004, 04:40 PM
|
#1 |
|
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,310
|
On Trvth
I have a "simple" question . How can one truly know that a moral or ethical position that they arrive at, IF they are involved as an active element of the question, is an accurate representation of thier outlook or an objective truth ( especially if the issue has emotional impact on that person ) ?
The simple answer of comparison of hypothetical cases doesn't hold if there is a profound element of direct involvement ( I wouldn't think ). |
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
