Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:31:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Ethics and evolution



If ralph is right about Bill's point, then it was more superficial but
more sensible than I had thought. I agree that our basic moral values, as
a matter of practical motivation, are so deeply ingrained as to be
resistant to change by argument. Creating such deeply inculcated values is
the point of moral education. This makes me Aristotlean rather than Kan
tian, but that's OK by me. But argument does change people's moral values
sometimes, and moreover we will lose the ideological astruggle if we don't
have good arguments even if they aren't persuasive in the trenches.

--jks

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Ralph Dumain wrote:

> At 09:50 PM 1/27/98 -0500, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >I'm not sure the "basic foundations" of ethics are necessary to clear up
> >if we want to discuss whether particular judgments like "abirtion is OK or
> >"abortion is morally neutral........
> 
> Your whole post is just fine, but wasn't Bill Hard's original post something
> much simpler than a logical argument for emotivism as an ethical doctrine?
> I thought he was making the simple point that our deepest moral values are
> not a product of logical reasoning, but are so emotionally ingrained as to
> appear to us instinctive?  This doesn't mean that they can't be argued or
> formalized, but logical reasoning has a rather superficial effect on our
> emotions unless logic itself as a value imperative is a deeply emotionally
> held value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---