Re: Ethics, concretes and foundations.

Lee Daniel Crocker (
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:20:36 -0700 (PDT)

>> There are those who have "absolutistic" moral principles, >> and this does not make them irrational or unreasonable.

> I disagree. I consider the term "absolutist" to be an excellent
> synonym for illogical, irrational and unreasoning dogmatism and
> consider those who are absolutist to be defenders of a cognitively
> frozen and quasireligious faith (perhaps intoning a mellifluous
> BANNGGGGG... to the scent of gunpowder incense) rather than
> seekers after the optimum state of affairs.

Whose "optimum"? And is your belief about what is optimum (say, that no one dangerous posesses lethal force) an absolute belief, or was it arrived at from some other prior? How was that prior chosen as a goal/desire?

Since reason cannot be applied to desires, having absolute desires is compatible with reason or with dogma, and is no indication of either. Reason can be used to determine which specific actions serve which desires, and one can criticize dogmatic adherence to actions that reason shows don't serve their intended goals, but once cannot argue with the desires themselves.

I desire to continue living--this is an absolute and extreme position, with which I brook no compromise. I don't think it is irrational for me to say so.

Lee Daniel Crocker <> <>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC