In a message dated 1/30/01 11:31:50 AM Central Standard Time,
jonathan.marder@newmail.net writes:
> For what it's worth, I can go along with Q=M, though it depends on
> interpretation.
>
> However, Jon's later statement jolted me back to a past theme of mine -
> water
> running down the mountain:
>
> >Why are we going downhill morally? Is Objectivity to blame at all? That's
> the
> >question, . . .
>
>
Hi Jonathan
In the above quote I was responding to part of Platt's comment about the
"immoral" Superbowl half-time show (which I didn't watch BTW; once I heard
who the performers were going to be, I left the room for a while...but I can
imagine what it was like).
I've never said there's anything inherently wrong with scientific
objectivity. It has been responsible for some very high Quality stuff. It's
the spill-over effect that the cold objectivity has had on our evaluations of
Morality (particularly social-level) that I'm concerned with. And yes,
certain things which seem immoral today could prove to be very moral later
on, once we have the extremely valuable benefit of hindsight.
Jon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:59 BST