3 ms·
If they are "reasonable standards", it shouldn't matter what the source of them are. This appeals to a dangerous view of morality where some entities/people ar
by thesmtsolver 1y ago
If they are "reasonable standards", it shouldn't matter what the source of them are.
This appeals to a dangerous view of morality where some entities/people are good/bad intrinsically and all their actions are good/bad by definition.
- nine_zeros 1y agoThey are not objectively "reasonable standards". Who said they are objectively reasonable standards? They are standards sent by a unitary. They might seem reasonable to one person but not to another. This is why Congress is supposed to set these rules - so that the definition of reasonable is spread all over the country. Reasonable standards are a discovery process, not a unitary dictatorial step. Hell, this is the whole logic of the American Republic - no kings - since 1776.
- thesmtsolver 1y ago> Reasonable standards are a discovery process, not a unitary dictatorial step. You just described a meta standard for standards. Now, is that meta standard an objectively reasonable standard?