From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 19:28:21 GMT
Hi Matt:
> I think you're right to make a distinction between "rational" and
> "objective" (though, I won't ask what the difference is). Most of the
> creeps-vibe hinged on an "objective" interpretation, which I already said
> was poor. The reason I think it lends itself (mind you, I didn't say
> "lead," as in a slippery slope) to demagoguery so well is its
> recapitulation of what A.O. Lovejoy called "The Great Chain of Being." The
> Great Chain of Being is an old, old idea, and to both have that plus an
> objective interpretation would lend credence for all those who think,
> "Well, its objective! It can't be wrong!" The gist is that I don't think
> it would have much of an effect on intelligent, educated people, who see
> through such simplistic terms like that, but on the yokels who see
> objective and think that that must lend it even more credence than it
> really has.
>
> The difference between this and other moral stances is that it combines
> several themes of the others together thus lending support to it. It would
> (theoretically) combine together irrational people who think that humans
> rule the roost and rational people who simply want to be able to tell right
> from wrong without any doubt.
Sorry for being dense but are you saying that the MoQ structure is a
like the Great Chain of Being idea which some people think provides an
"objective" basis for moral decisions? Also, I'm puzzled by "irrational
people who think that humans rule the roost." Humans as opposed to
who or what? What roost? Thanks.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 19:29:11 GMT