[lit-ideas] Re: Mop Rumpchuck

Hmmmmm. What would be the difference between an ontological right and a moral
right?

Preliminary query: Is not the very notion of an "ontological right" oxymoronic?

In other words, moral judgements, being aimed at universalizable interests, are
"justification-immanent", as Habermas argues. The ontological turn, innocent of
the requirements of a "post-metaphysical age." violates this fundamental premise
for the coherence and validity of moral judgement. There are no "generalizable
interests" that exist independent of the outcomes of discourse. Such is the
condition of a multiculturally pluralist democracy.

Walter O.
MUN



Quoting Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>:

> Walter writes
> 
> > I can't remember such exchanges. Perhaps if somebody is [able] to jog our
> memory
> > we'll also find out if "interesting" was ever defined within the exchanges
> and,
> > if so, how. One's position on that issue may go some way in determining
> one's
> > views on the other question. 
> 
> I remember a fairly lengthy dispute (mostly) between Phil Enns and me, 
> in which Phil argued that there was no such thing as a right 
> (ontologically, not morally, speaking). This was of course different 
> from my skirmish with Mike over whether there was any such thing as a thing.
> 
> Robert Paul
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: