[lit-ideas] Re: Univocal philosophy as the value of transcendental claims?
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 02:01:14 +0900
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
I agree 100%, The remaining question, however, is the force of that
assertion. Is the assertion of moral prohibition a reference to something
that exists and applies universally? Or, at the other extreme, an example of
mystification? Assertion per se provides no warrant for either
interpretation.
There is, on the other hand, a plausible explanation for why assertions that
resemble this one are made by members of all human societies. Humans are
chordates, equipped with spinal chords and other biological apparatus that
make us mobile. Like other chordates (vertebrates, mammals, primates, Homo
Sapiens), we compete for territory, mates, pecking order position, and prey.
Like other chordate species we have evolved rituals, stylized forms of
behavior that moderate this competition, avoiding a situation in which every
competitive encounter becomes a duel to the death. In other species these
rituals are largely instinctive. In Homo Sapiens they are, in contrast,
largely learned in cultural contexts shaped by the particular societies into
which we are born or grow up. Effective socialization makes the feeling that
there is something contrary to our immediate desires that constrains those
desires compelling, but the nature of those constraints is variable. That
they function to prevent human groups from collapsing in a war or all
against all is obvious. That calling them "moral prohibitions" adds to the
explanation is not.
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
