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 objected to Steve's claim: 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 replied: 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. .... dmb says: You are talking in circles, Mr. Peterson. You have just said that "all judgements in the MOQ are moral judgements" AND "Some [of those moral judgements] could be ...immoral. There is no way to rightly say that some moral judgement are immoral. It's like saying some good things are bad. It simply defies the meaning of the words by 180 degrees. It's just plain confusing and wrong. Steve continued: ...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. dmb says: You've committed the same blatant contradiction here too. A moral act could be ..an immoral act? That's like saying a true idea could be untrue. It's pure nonsense. Don't you just mean that every act has a moral dimension, that every act is moral or immoral to some degree? If we assume this disagreement is just a result of saying that unclearly, then I still don't see why we should conclude that the MOQ can't oppose morality and prudence. Why does the distinction between empathetically motived acts and acts motivated by the desire to save one's skin? You still seem to be saying that the MOQ erases all sorts of moral distinctions, even the ones that separate the Ghandis from the Bundys. I think that's absurd and even a little bit horrifying. > > 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 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
