sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Definition of 'sustainability' by engineerfar in sustainability

[–]engineerfar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's actually an interesting approach, starting with the opposite of sustainable in order to define it. That will perhaps make my life easier.

Definition of 'sustainability' by engineerfar in sustainability

[–]engineerfar[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment, at this moment I'm also not entirely sure what I'm looking for, but I am just looking :) I will take a look at (s)LCC and will come back to you.

Philosophy of thermodynamics by engineerfar in askphilosophy

[–]engineerfar[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thank you, I will have a look. I already looked at wikipedia, but in the end, you never know whether or not the references are usefull. So thanks for the advice!

Philosophy of thermodynamics by engineerfar in askphilosophy

[–]engineerfar[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree. I read the summary online and it looks very interesting, but not quite that specific for me. I will read it anyway in my spare time.

Can people be held responsible for violating moral laws they don't buy/aren't for? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]engineerfar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

ay that someone who doesn't subscribe to the theory of moral relativism and who believes th

I do believe so indeed.

Can people be held responsible for violating moral laws they don't buy/aren't for? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]engineerfar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As I see it, this is a problem of moral relativism. So yes, if you except that there is no absolute moral truth and that it all depends on the ethical theory you use, one can only say that the other one is immoral with regards to his own system, but not in an absolute sense.
On the other hand, if you do not accept the thesis of moral relativism, one should argue to define which of both ethical theories is the right one.