[lit-ideas] Re: Bartley's Non-Justificationism (Was: Justifying Moral Principles?)

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:14:25 -0500

In a message dated 2/26/2015 10:36:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Cleopatra presumably didn't expect much of  Augustus' clemency, since she 
killed herself rather than falling into his  clutches. Caesar was a 
'dictator' in the sense that term was used in Roman  times, not in the sense it 
is 
used today.  
 
I guess I was being inspired by McEvoy's reference, in another thread, to  
the time-scale.
 
There, McEvoy wrote about something that may relate to KEYWORD: RELATIVISM. 
 
McEvoy is discussing 'best world', including what I take to be morally best 
 world.
 
McEvoy writes:
 
"Much depends on how we might unpack the "best of all possible worlds"  
claim - for example, within what time-scale we judge a world [e.g. the rise of  
Nazism might seem to obviously refute the 1930s-40s being the "best of all  
possible worlds", unless, that is, the rise of Nazism at that point was  
necessary to ward off the greater evil of a later World War involving  
totalitarian regimes where they had nuclear weapons etc.]"
 
There seems to be a direct question there somewhere:

"Within what time-scale do we judge a world as being morally better  than 
another?"
 
One answer may involve an appeal to some moral principle. Hence my  
reference to Julius Caesar, a 'dictator' in the view of his contemporary 
Romans,  
and the idea that the world of Augustus (a 'clement emperor' in the eyes of  
Corneille ("Cinna") was a morally better one. 
 
But as O. K. notes, there may be a needed qualification or two here  
somewhere.
 
Cheers,
 
Speranza
 
McEvoy: "Much depends on how we might unpack the "best of all possible  
worlds" claim - for example, within what time-scale we judge a world [e.g. the  
rise of Nazism might seem to obviously refute the 1930s-40s being the "best 
of  all possible worlds", unless, that is, the rise of Nazism at that point 
was  necessary to ward off the greater evil of a later World War involving  
totalitarian regimes where they had nuclear weapons etc.] But even this 
kind of  "time-scale" defence weakens the claim so that it means something like 
'in the  overall scheme of things everything now that is less than best is 
part of a  process necessary for everything to work out for the best' - 
again not obviously  falsifiable and more like an optimistic promise with a 
false ring to  it."
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: