Hi dmb,
> Steve said: What doesn't seem to be allowed in the MOQ though is to say that one behavior is morality and another is merely prudence since all behavior (and everything, period) is a matter of morality. > > > dmb says: > > By that reasoning, there can be no such thing as immorality in the MOQ. Does > this not strike you as an absurd conclusion? It's like saying everything is > Quality so there is nothing bad and all things are excellent. It's just silly. Steve: That is not it at all. As Horse explained, in the MOQ _all_ judgments in the MOQ are moral judgments. Some could be good or bad, moral or immoral, prudent or imprudent, etc, but they can't be called prudent or imprudent _in contrast_ with moral or immoral because prudence like everything else in the MOQ is a moral consideration. There is no way to say that an act was merely based on prudence _rather than_ morality when everything is based on morality in the MOQ. A moral act could be prudent or imprudent just as could an immoral act, but prudence is not something that can be put in opposition to morality in the MOQ as was done in Kantian ethics. By the way, I actually like to make use of the prudence morality distinction in conversations with believers who accept it while also maintaining that God's justice, heaven and hell, and all that are necessary for people to be moral. If someone does something to get rewarded in heaven or avoid punishment in hell on the prudence-morality distinction that is not morality but merely prudence. For a believer to behave morally, she must act as though there were no God. Clearly the atheist is at no disadvantage in that regard. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
