Ian writes:
>What do I have to write/defend a dissertation on this list? ...
No, but I don't think it's very productive to simply point us to a web-site
without any kind of summary or explanation of why such a view is in any way
relevant. I for one don't feel like going to some obscure web-site without
some reason. (In the past on pen-l, the practice of citing sources without
some sort of explanation of what they say has been discouraged.)
>Eliminativism is the position that folk psychology/ethics is a false
>theory and that
>corresponding notions such as belief, experience, and sensation are
>fundamentally
>mistaken.
I'm not guilty of that one. "Folk" science sometimes turns out to be
consistent with "modern" science (like passing double-blind medical
experiments), while official modern science itself isn't always right.
In any event, I wasn't talking about rejecting ethics or morality (as I've
said before) but instead rejecting the _relevance_ of certain moral
principles to certain specific (concrete) situations.
BTW, there is nothing new or unique about this concern: almost everybody's
against murder, but most people are in favor of killing people in certain
circumstances. They are simply saying that under certain circumstances,
homicide isn't murder.
>... Eliminativists have been sometimes charged with nihilism although I think
>that is inaccurate. There, now my hands and wrists really hurt.
I appreciate that, but it doesn't take much to cut and paste from that
fellow's site.
I wrote:
> > no, I don't think I can change his [Cheney's] mind. As with debates on
> pen-l, my
> > argument would not be aimed at convincing _him_ as much as at convincing
> > the audience.
Ian:
>Well then the space shield will in all probability be built because he's
>not going to
>listen to them any more than he would listen to you and he and his friends are
>banking on the weakness of collective action skills and fleeting attention
>spans and
>"patriotism" in the US populace.
Not if enough people are upset. If enough people are marching in the
streets protesting the "space shield" (and they're doing it in a way that
points out the problems with that shield rather than their own problems),
the powers that be have to listen. Look at the way the "battle of Seattle"
had an effect. It's true that the ruling circles will continue to push for
their programs and will likely give only lip-service to popular concerns,
but that indicates the need to continue pushing.
> > I didn't say I was against "moral/judgmental concepts." Rather, I was
> > _distinguishing between_ moral/judgmental concepts and moralism. It helps
> > if we bring in the distinction between the abstract and the concrete.
> > Moralism stays abstract, talking about what's good or bad with no reference
> > to the concrete situation. Moral/judgmental concepts are abstract, but have
> > to be modified in practice, when we take into account concrete conditions.
Ian writes:
>You misunderstand "moralism" which is why I posted the link.
Maybe I misunderstand how _you_ use that word. But it's not like there's a
hidden reality out there in which "moralism" exists and our definitions are
mere "shadows on the cave wall," i.e., efforts to attain a perfect
approximation to that hidden reality. That is, it's not like there's a
unique "correct" definition of any concept (especially since the meaning of
words varies with context). Rather, definitions are conventional and often
multiple, resulting from how people use terms in practice in the real
world. I was using one definition that is within the broad scope of
conventional usage (as I understand it). You are clearly using another.
One way to see what conventions are is to look at dictionaries. The first
definition of "moralism" is "moral teaching; moralizing." The first
definition of "moralizing" in my handy-dandy WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD
DICTIONARY refers to thinking, writing, or speaking about matters of
right and wrong, often in a "self-righteous or tedious way." A "moralist"
is "a person who seeks to impose his morals on others" (3rd definition).
Despite these quotes, it's clear that the dictionary doesn't exactly agree
with my usage, since they don't make as clear a distinction between
morality and moralism as I do. [After all, dictionaries aim to clarify
convention, in order to allow communication, not to make distinctions in
order to further theoretical understanding.] However, my definition doesn't
contradict theirs and I made it as clear as I could what I was talking
about (and I was NOT attacking morality). I think it's okay to use words
even in unconventional ways if they're defined clearly, though of course
it's better -- for communication purposes -- to avoid contradicting
convention. (I'm not the "Nowhere Man" for whom words have meanings only
according to his definitions.)
If you want to conflate morality and moralism, that's fine too, since
definitions necessarily involve arbitrariness and subjectivity. But don't
assume that I do so.
>Would I be remiss in suggesting Marx's "On the
>Jewish Question" whereby he engages in a form of eliminativist discourse?
we all eliminate at one point or another, unless we're very constipated. ;-)
are you attacking Marx for being an eliminativist? is that a sin like
essentialism?
In any event, I can't tell whether you're being remiss unless you provide a
reason for believing in your attack on Marx.
>To the extent moral discourse occurs/refers at all, some will always
>accuse others of
>"moralism"; that is due to the very contestability of concepts we
>associate with
>morality and the issues and contexts we debate/argue with the terms of
>morality. Im
>not sure eliminating moral concepts will improve our conflict resolution
>skills or
I am NOT -- repeat, NOT -- in favor of eliminating moral concepts. Please
stop this nonsense!
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
