4 ms·
An interesting philosophical argument, though it's probably been made tens of thousands of times on HN, at least. Including the obvious arguments and counter-ar
by wolverine876 3y ago
An interesting philosophical argument, though it's probably been made tens of thousands of times on HN, at least. Including the obvious arguments and counter-arguments, could you boil it down to what's new?
- reedjosh 3y agoIDK what's new, but I'm 100 percent in agreement. If you claim logical consistency, I don't know how the group having rights an individual does not ever gets reconciled. In a town of three if two vote to take from the third it's clearly not just. Yet somehow as the group size grows people lose sight of that.
- wolverine876 3y ago> IDK what's new, but I'm 100 percent in agreement I'll just say this part, then: IMHO that's always the wrong position to be in. We all desire logical consistency, but we don't ever get it. No theory even approaches 100% depiction of reality.
- verisimi 3y agoLogical inconsistency is certainly wrong though, right?