[lit-ideas] Re: Bartley's Non-Justificationism (Was: Justifying Moral Principles?)
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:42:59 -0600
Philosophy is fun. So is chess.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
