Greetings,
For what it is worth . . . . . . .
John, that is a profoundly impressive piece of work and I am seriously looking forward
to the debate
which must arise from it. Your meta-ethical critique especially is beautifully put,
and when I read,
"The problem here is how to understand the terms morality and value," my face lit up
as I have
banging on about this for months and getting mainly blank looks. I hope that everyone
will take a
couple of hours (at least) over this in order that we might dig deep into the
foundations of a
metaphysics which claims value at the core. Unless we understand what we mean when we
say that, we
are in big trouble. Your statement "C. "Most organisms encounter the world through
experiences of
positive and negative value, and what does not have value for them is not experienced,
hence is not
encountered," is an interesting, coherent and adept resolution but it does, as you
say, limit the
scope of the metaphysics. I wonder if anyone can remove that limitation and broaden it
back out
again. These meta-ethical issues have been swept under the carpet for too long and I
thank you for
bringing them back out.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
