[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 12:30:10 +0700

Eric Dean wrote:

"... one might say, unequivocally, "If x was a theft, then it was
wrong" and protect the accuracy of that assertion by saying that if x
is not wrong, it must not have been a theft."

The moral prohibition is a structural component of stealing so that it
makes no sense to question whether theft is or is not wrong.  To
assert that x was a theft is to also assert that x was wrong.


Eric continues:

"However, one might also imagine that as simply a way of
gerrymandering the meaning of the term 'theft' to preserve the
legitimacy of the moral stricture "theft is wrong".  Other ways of
preserving the stricture involve exceptions -- e.g. theft is wrong
unless ... (fill in the blank with your preferred exculpating
circumstances)."

There are no exceptions, no gerrymandering.  No circumstances could
remove the moral prohibition from stealing.  One might suggest that
there are circumstances that would justify stealing, but this merely
reinforces the moral prohibition against stealing.  One acknowledges
that stealing is wrong by suggesting that it might be a lesser evil.
To provide exculpating circumstances does not remove the moral
prohibition.

In order for Eric's argument to succeed, he would need to provide an
example of theft that lacks any justification and is not wrong.  While
such acts are common with the gods, I suspect sublunary examples are
impossible to provide.


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: