From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 04:08:47 BST
Hi Phyllis,
Trying to use rationaility to change morality doesn't work, because
rationality doesn't care, it is cold and calculating and unfeeling. Pure
rationality comes up empty when confronted with the big questions; what does
anything matter to rationality, why would it care if people are happy or
alive or anything? Rationality needs a foundation of moral precepts from
which to act rationally, it can't do it on its own. Trying to impose change
on morality without respecting morality as its own motive for change, using
rationality against morality, becomes something like authoritarianism, with
whoever is most powerful imposing their idea of what is rational.
Rationality is in the eye of the beholder (though we usually agree about
it), whereas morality, properly understood, is shared by the entire culture.
Johnny
>From: "phyllis bergiel" <neilfl@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Undeniable Facts
>Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:11:25 -0500
>
>Johnny:
>You're right, this is the first response on it I've rec'd.
>
> > You're right about earlier non-conformists, those are good examples.
> >
> > And I'm glad you love Edwards, "Sinners..." is some great imagery.
>James
>Carse's book on Edwards called "The Visibility Of God", I recommend that
>one the most, for its treatment of Edwards failure to save
> > America from the lasting effects of a private morality.
>Thanks for the recommendation, my summer reading list is filling nicely.
>That's why I love
> > Lila so much, though it pulls its punch and doesn't connect the dots, it
> > almost restores morality to its full importance.
> >
> > regarding the morality of reformers, they usually are either at the
> > intersection of two cultures, helping to control the merging of
>moralities
> > (and thus figuring out how to be is moral as possible, but necessarily
>being
> > immoral in some regard in both cultures), or they are helping to
>reconcile
> > intersecting moral patterns in one culture that have developed over
>time.
> > They start out being immoral in some regards, using persuation to
>convince
> > people to change their normal behavior by pointing to other elements of
> > morality. They convince people over time that most people would behave
>in
>a
> > new way for some moral reason, but they have to be able to give an
>accepted
> > moral reason as their persuation for people's wills to change,
>You've just highlighted my concern, quite nicely too, about postmodernism.
>If it rejects rationality as an arbiter as it seems to, then it doesn't
>have
>an accepted moral reason.
>Lilaesquely, the intellectual level is the static latch for making anything
>from the dynaimc level "stick" If you destroy the intellectual (rational)
>before the gains are fixed societywide, it won't work. (?!)
>
>What do you think?
>
>phyllis
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue May 06 2003 - 04:10:07 BST