[lit-ideas] Re: SOS - BA vs Hare's prescriptive
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 19:13:01 -0230
I think R.P. is basically right in his claims below (once again, alas). He is
wrong, however, deeply wrong, in believing that a taste for gin and a taste for
single malt scotch is simply a matter of personal preference. I can only pray
for Robert and advise him to study carefully the Jackson bible on single malt,
and this in connection with Kant's account of the sublime in his Third Critique
and his account of moral law in the Groundowrk. All else is commentary. This
course of action may also help to improve his chess game, should he play. Go
Oilers, go!! (But pass less and shoot on the net more!)
Prioritizing the right over the good (pace Taylor)in malt appreciation (and
almost everything else),
Walter
Walter Okshevsky
Memorial University
P.S. The only reason Erin survived until the end game in our chess game was
because of a very fine 18 year old Glenlivet malt. (No relation to "Glenn's
liver," oy! ) That says something about "moral spaces," but I'm not sure
exactly what.
Quoting Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>:
> Lawrence Helm wrote:
>
> [some interesting things which I'm skipping over for now]
>
> and
>
> > One can see that Taylor (at least at this point) is taking a very
> > different tack from Hare and yet I wonder if Hare doesn?t have the truer
> > hold on this matter. Do we really think as Taylor argues that we settle
> > for the BA, Best Account? Or do we with Hare believe our framework is
> > the truth and that it should be universalized.
>
> This is fairly misleading. Hare isn't arguing that we first discover
> some moral 'truth' and then work to get it universalized (or
> universalised). He's arguing that something about the 'logic' of moral
> language requires that anything we put forward as a moral judgment must
> be universalizable: that if it's correct in such and such circumstances
> then it must be correct in any similar circumstances (no idiosyncratic
> judgments). Some have argued that this is trivially true with respect to
> any judgment.
>
> Robert Paul
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
