David McDivitt (who is the original poster, new to this list)
writes
> When I have such debates, they sometimes reduce to me asking a person to
> show why he is not a bigot, authoritarian, or fascist, and him asking me
> why I refuse to accept certain common values as absolute.
Yes, I'm with you here. I believe that there really are such
things as bigotry, authoritarianism, harmful condescension,
collectivism, racism, inconsistency, lack of compassion,
arrogance, and unfairness, and that they should be exposed
and demonized. (By the way, I thought you were a nominalist?)
> I agree morality exists. I just do not agree it is always
> the same, or must always be the same.
No. I can't agree that we should agree to say that morality
exists---that's really going too far. It clearly all comes
down to what people approve of and what they don't approve of.
If we attempt to get precisely factual, we simply cannot appeal
to "moral laws", or "rights" (except legal ones), or any of
that stuff unless it's clearly shorthand for "I approve" or
"I disapprove". The purpose of showing someone that he or
she is arrogant, or lacks compassion, or is a fascist is to
make him or her feel bad. By **their** own semantic links
and real connection to the world and to other individuals
in the world, and their own conscious (and unconscious) and
unavoidable judgments of others, if one can show a sufficient
real similarity, his or her own conscience will be activated.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:15 MDT