To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9195
9194  |  9196
Subject: 
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:41:15 GMT
Viewed: 
435 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
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.
...[snip]...
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.
...[snip]...
Regardless, I have judged others in the past and will continue to do so in
the future.

Ah, ok. So what you're objecting to is specifically my method of moral
judgement, instead proposing that some unspecified (at least at present) yet
universal code is a better tool for judging morality, and that you have at
least some inkling as to what that code is, and that it necessarily involves
not enslaving others. Did I get that right?

If so we can throw out the 'might makes right' issue, I think, only because
it's simply further derived from relative morality. In essence, I have to
ask, if you DID accept relative morality, would you STILL disagree with a
government's decision to choose slavery as valid when 99% of its members
thought it was moral (not simply not immoral, but moral)?

Anyway, suffice to say that my interpretation of your moral judgement with
repsect to a universal standard has the potential to be wrong. More of a
minor clarification in case of misunderstanding-- I don't mean to say that
you are MORALLY wrong to place moral judgement on people according to a
universal standard, but that I'll think that your judgement has the ability
to be incorrect. But I'm saying that just so you don't think I was calling
you immoral for judging people that way-- I'm just saying you're wrong :)

DaveE



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
 
Snipped a lot of head twisting stuff to just answer two questions, then I HAVE to get back to writing docs... more later, maybe. (...) Yes. (...) I can't accurately answer that hypothetical. It's indeterminate since I don't accept the premise and (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
 
(...) Right, I understand that concept. I just don't find it valid. Because I don't accept relative morality. (...) Yes. (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR