Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:06:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
413 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > I think maybe it's the very commonly cited consequence that you can't judge
> > someone else's morality as inferior by an objective standard that I have an
> > issue with, as that is unacceptable. But if it's an immutable consequence,
> > then the premise is unacceptable as well.
>
> And why is that?
> 1st off, relative morality (in my book) says that you COULD measure someone
> morally, but the objective standard dictates to measure them against their
> own personal standard.
Right, I understand that concept. I just don't find it valid. Because I
don't accept relative morality.
> I.E. you can only judge someone as 'truly' being
> moral or immoral by knowing their 'true' moral code, and how accurately
> they've followed it.
>
> 2nd, assuming that you'll blow that off as impossible and thereby useless
> (dunno if you would or not), are you suggesting that it is necessary to
> judge someone against a universal moral code?
Yes.
> Or are you saying that you
> just want to be able to judge others, regardless of the standard?
I don't think that's what I am saying, but since I haven't provided a
derivation for universal morality I guess that might be the net effect.
Regardless, I have judged others in the past and will continue to do so in
the future.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
