[lit-ideas] Re: Univocal philosophy as the value of transcendental claims?
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 17:05:02 +0700
Robert Paul wrote:
"Surely, though, the earlier suggestion that there was an air of
circularity about the claim that theft was always (morally) 'wrong'
because the very term picks out something that is understood to be
wrong, isn't entirely mistaken. Take adultery. Is 'adultery' one of
those 'purely descriptive' terms (like 'first cousin'), or does it,
like 'theft' (as it is claimed) carry with it a sense of opprobrium?
Answers may vary; but in any case, the possibility of adultery is
contingent upon there being something like the institution of
marriage, the relation 'is married to,' and so on."
What I have tried to suggest is that using the word 'theft' is to not
only pick out an act but at the same time assert the moral
prohibition. The use of the word does not pick out a moral quality
but rather asserts it. I would argue that 'adultery' is not a purely
descriptive term but rather is partially descriptive (i.e. it locates
a betrayed relationship and in this sense is contingent) and partially
normative (i.e. it asserts a moral prohibition regarding betrayed
intimate relationships). It seems to me that this is the nature of
moral claims, which are always grounded in particular, contingent
cases but aim to express something universal about such cases.
The word 'adultery' may not be applicable everywhere, since it is
dependent on a variety of institutions and practices, but I am not
sure how that lessens the moral prohibition against betraying intimate
relationships where such relationships are found.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
