On 3/17/2013 1:25 PM, raghu wrote: > I think you are way over-reacting. Empathy is a moral principle to me > simply by definition: I use the word "moral" to mean anything informed > by a sense of right and wrong. > > I believe this is what economists call "normative arguments" - > economists of course are motivated by a pathetic need to have their > discipline recognized as an objective science, rather than as moral > philosophy, so they have to make up new phrases to avoid using the word > "moral", but progressives now have to play the same stupid word games? > > It is as if the word "moral" itself is tainted now because of some vague > association with the Vatican and Rush Limbaugh. > > I strongly believe progressives should be driven by a sense of > right-and-wrong - and not just by some aesthetic sense. -raghu. >
=============== As if morality isn't a word game. Yes, by all means, let's just keep banging our head against the wall. Moralists are, of course, driven by their pathetic need to control others who disagree. So they make the implicit demand that everyone reject that moral discourse is just one discourse of control and cooperation amongst other types of discourse that might perhaps facilitate social cooperation and solidarity in more effective ways. Moral discourse must be trumps. Pluralism and *politics* must be overcome. The Good is One! And no, I am not overreacting. E _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
